Councillors have rejected planning officer advice to refuse an application for a proposed home extension ­— described as too big and harmful to the street scene and neighbours’ views and privacy ­— and instead recommended that a more senior committee approve it.

Pendle borough’s Nelson, Brierfield and Reedley Committee had been advised that the scale of the proposed extension for a home at Regent Street did not fit in with the surrounding street scene and would impact on a household on Regent Street and other homes in Swinden Hall Road.

However,  instead they recommended that the borough’s more senior Policy and Resources Committee approve it at its next meeting. Approval is needed from the senior committee because it would represent a ‘significant departure’ from local planning policies.

Applicant Zulfqar Ali wants planning permission for a two-storey side and rear extension at a home in Regent Street.

A report for this week’s Nelson committee meeting stated: “The proposal is for an extension to provide two extra bedrooms and a bathroom on the first floor along with a study, toilet and extended lounge to the ground floor. The proposed extension is to measure 2.6 metres out from the existing side elevation and 4.5 metres out from the existing rear elevation (4metres to the first floor). It is to have a pitched roof and is to be constructed of materials to match the original house.”

The plan was previously recommended for refusal at a council meeting earlier this year, the Nelson committee heard. However it was called-in by a councillor to be looked at again at the latest Nelson committee meeting on Monday, November 29.

Planning officers had recommended refusal and the report added:  “The two-storey side extension would have no set back from the front elevation of the main house and a minimal set down of the ridge line. This would result in a dominant frontage on this prominent corner plot,  creating an incongruous extension which would be detrimental to the street scene.

“Moreover, due to the significant depth of the two-storey rear extension, this would result in a long 12-metre side elevation directly next to Swinden Hall Road. This would appear dominant and disproportionate to the size of the plot, inappropriate within the street scene.”

The planned extension would not fit with the Pendle Local Plan, would have unacceptable impact on the next door neighbours on Regent Street and would overlook bungalows on Swinden Hall Road, the report added.

At this week’s Nelson committee meeting, Coun Mohammed Sakib said he was unclear why the plan had come back to the committee. He said: “This came to us a few months ago and this committee approved it. It went to the Policy & Resources Committee but was refused. ”

He asked planning officer Alex Cameron if any design changes would make the extension acceptable.  However, Mr Cameron said other design options would have to be looked at in detail. The current application breached a guideline to protect clear 45-degree viewpoints from ground floor windows in neighbours’ homes. There were a range of issues to be addressed.

If the current plan was recommended for approval, it would represent a significant departure from planning policy so would have to go to the Policy & Resources Committee, which is more-senior and considers controversial or difficult plans.

A vote was held and councillors agreed to send it to the P&R Commitee with a recommendation for approval.

The application arguably raised some similar issues to a different plan for an extension to another Regent Street home in September this year.

On that occasion, Pendle councillors heard a family with a disabled mother needed a ground floor extension which was 11 metres long. The disabled woman had to climb the stairs ‘on all fours’ to visit the bathroom, councillors heard at the time.

However, that application was refused. Planning officers had said approving it would have made a mockery of residential and town planning policies,  and the proposed extension would have been a ‘scar’. It was referred to the Policy & Resources Committee in September, which refused it in keeping with officers’ recommendations.