A FAMILY threatened with having to tear down an extension to an annexe at their home are celebrating after inspectors overturned a decision to refuse planning permission.

Hyndburn Council’s planning committee refused permission for the annexe at Allsprings Close in Great Harwood in December.

But applicant Susan Muhsen appealed the decision and government inspector Nigel McGurk ruled in her favour.

Mrs Muhsen said: “Common sense has prevailed. It goes to show what a farce the planning committee meeting was in the first place.

“We are pleased that the right outcome has been reached - it’s a huge weight off our shoulders to get the result we should have had in the first place.

“It’s just a shame that it came to this. People shouldn’t have to go to the expense of having an appeal - it has cost us a lot of money.

“If you get the right result it is worth it but it shouldn’t have had to go this far.”

Mrs Muhsen said she spoke to the planning department at the council when her family were initially considering the extension as her son and his family were expecting a new baby. She said they were told the extension would not require planning permission and advised a building control application for permitted development was all that was needed.

But once it was built, council enforcement officers visited and told Mrs Muhsen and her family they would need to apply for retrospective planning permission or the extension could have to be torn down.

A report before the planning committee in December recommended the application should be granted.

But committee members went against officers’ recommendations and refused permission.

In a report detailing his decision to overturn the council’s, Mr McGurk said: “Whilst the end of the appeal property’s garden adjoins land occupied by a factory, the area appears largely residential in character. The presence of mature gardens, trees and greenery provides for a notably green and spacious character.

“I observed during my site visit that mature greenery to boundaries, including a very tall coniferous hedgerow between the appeal property and Little Grove (one of the three dwellings within the small cul-de-sac), provides the appeal property with a significant degree of privacy, such that views to the annexe the subject of this appeal are largely limited to that of its roof top and occasional, small glimpses through boundary planting.

“The annexe is smaller than and comprises materials that match those of, the host dwelling, Spring View.

“As such, it appears in keeping with the host property. Whilst the annexe is located in very close proximity to Spring View, this is not an unusual feature for an annexe the use if which is, by its very nature, incidental to that of the host property.

“In the above regard, I generally concur with the view set out in the council’s officer’s report, that the annexe “does not cause harm to the character and appearance of the locality by virtue of it being hidden and its overall…matching design.”