Rear dormer glazing change at 14 Montreal Road, Blackburn

“The application site relates to a semi-detached property within an existing residential area of Blackburn. The approved site plan, and a satellite view of the site, are shown below:”

“There is a long planning history associated with this plot. Essentially, planning permission was granted for a re-build of the original property, including extensions. The work is still ongoing, but is now focussed almost entirely on the internal works, with the applicant and his family living in the roofspace / attic, whilst works to the rest of the house continue.”

“10/22/0114 – Double storey side extension, double and single storey rear extension and rear dormer - Refused.”

“10/23/0973 - Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of replacement dwelling (part retrospective) – Approved.”

“The application is reported to the Committee in accordance with the Chair Referral Scheme of the Scheme of Delegation due to a request from Councillor Jackie Floyd for further public discussion and scrutiny, including safeguarding residential amenity, ensuring consistent enforcement of planning regulations, and maintaining public confidence in the planning process.”

“Assessment of the application finds that the proposal is acceptable and complies with the relevant policies. Therefore, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in the NPPF, the proposal is considered acceptable.”

“RES E3 also states that the Council will take account of the circumstances of the individual site. Generally speaking, rear dormers can often be constructed under permitted development rights. In this case, permission was required, and the obscure glazing condition to this one particular rear window was attached as a precautionary measure.”

“The original approval acknowledged that the dormer extension, at second floor level, would require a separation distance of 24 metres in accordance with Policy RES E3 of the SPD design guide, and that the separation distance of 22.8m fell slightly short of this. However, on balance the impact on the properties to the rear was considered acceptable. The same principle can be applied here.”

“Decision under Town and Country Planning Acts and Regulations –”

“Planning and Highways Committee Thursday, 18th September, 2025 RESOLVED – Approved subject to the conditions highlighted in the Director’s Report.”