Rear extension at 2 - 4 Carleton Street, Nelson

“Proposal: Full: Erection of rear extension…”

“The application site is a mid-terrace pair of houses. It has an existing extension to the rear of number 4 with the proposed extension adjacent to number 2.”

“Number 2 has an extension with windows facing the appeal site. The rear wall of number 2 is set back slightly form the application site which in turn sits slightly higher than the floor level of number 2.”

“The applicant site sits to the rear of a row or terraced properties. There are a range of design types for extension and the aesthetic appearance of the proposed extension would fit in with the general appearance of the back street.”

“The proposed development would lead to an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjoining property at number 2 as it would be overbearing and oppressive. This would result in a poorly designed development contrary to policy ENV2 of the adopted Pendle Local Plan and to paragraph 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”

“Parish consultation: No comments received.”

“National policy (National Planning Policy Framework) requires that new development secures a high standard of amenity for existing users, including adequate daylight and sunlight to habitable rooms (NPPF §130(f)). Planning authorities must consider the impact on daylight and sunlight to habitable room windows against the Building Research Establishment’s “Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight” guidance.”

“The predicted significant loss of direct sunlight to two habitable room windows without any supporting Daylight and Sunlight Assessment; • The overbearing nature of the extension due to higher existing ground levels; • The unique and disproportionate harm to my property’s living conditions; I respectfully request that the local planning authority: Refuse planning permission under NPPF and relevant local plan policies; or 2.”

“(A site visit was carried out prior to the meeting.)”

“At a meeting of Nelson, Brierfield and Reedley Committee on 6 th October, the decision to approve this application was referred as a recommendation to this Committee as the proposed development would breach the 45 degree rules to a habitable room window in the adjoining property and therefore would represent a significant departure from policy ENV2 of the Core Strategy and the guidance of the Design Principles SPD.”

“That planning permission be refused for the following reason –”