A PLANNING appeal, seeking permission for the unauthorised heightening of a new cottage’s roof near a historic, listed Ribble Valley hotel, has been dismissed.

Jenni Taylor heightened the roof of her new home near Mitton Hall Hotel to create extra space after it emerged the first floor rooms were not big enough.

She had previously gained planning permission to demolish an old cottage and build a replacement home at 1 Mitton Hall Cottage, near the hotel. But she never sought further permission when she made the new roof higher than planned.

When Ribble Valley Council refused to grant retrospective permission, Ms Taylor appealed to the national Planning Inspectorate.

But an inspector has now dismissed her appeal, saying the higher, steeper roof harms the area’s appearance including views of the two neighbouring cottages seen from the grounds of the listed hall.

A planning inspector’s report stated  “The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the setting of the grade II* listed Mitton Hall, and the character and appearance of the area.

“During construction, the approved first floor layout was found to be impractical, with some of the rooms being too small.

"The appellant (Ms Taylor) wishes to overcome this by providing additional living area in the roof space.

"To achieve this, the house has been built with a steeper roof pitch compared with the approved plans. As a result, the ridge height has been increased by around 1.5 metres and the position of a window has been changed.

“The new building, including the roof frame, is substantially completed. The proposal is, therefore, partly retrospective. ”

The report adds:  “The  site is directly opposite the entrance to the grade II* listed Mitton Hall, which is now a hotel. In accordance with planning acts, I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of the listed building in this appeal.

Ruling against Mrs Taylor, he added: "The enlarged roof space would help to overcome problems with the internal layout, which would undoubtedly benefit the family.

"However, there are no public benefits which would outweigh the harm to the setting of the listed building. Nor is there anything to indicate that, if the appeal was dismissed, the house would not continue in residential use."