Proposed erection of a 1st Floor extension at the rear of house at 16 Moss Hall Farm, Bolton

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 December 2025 by CM Blair BSc (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 January 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000964 16 Moss Hall Farm Cottages, Plodder Lane, Farnworth, Bolton BL5 1AL • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Nasim Khan against the decision of Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref 20434/25. • The development is described as “Proposed erection of a 1st Floor extension at the rear of house at 16 Moss Hall Farm, Bolton.” Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Applications for costs 2. A costs application was made by Mr Nasim Khan against Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council. This is the subject of a separate decision. Main Issues 3. The main issues are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it; • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling set within an originally converted farmstead; • Whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal. Reasons a) Whether inappropriate development 4. The appeal site, accessed by a lane off Plodder Lane, which also serves Moss Hall Farm Cattery, is set in the open and undulating countryside beyond the Great Lever and Farnworth Golf Club. It comprises a modest two-storey end terrace dwelling with a building-wide ground floor rear extension, which forms part of a Appeal Decision 6000964 2 horseshoe shaped residential group of converted barns. The courtyard element fronting the residential group consists of open lawns and space for parking. A vehicular gate to the side accesses the appeal site’s rear garden area. A stable block, canopied seating area, sand manège and a floodlit, fenced football area are situated beyond. 5. The Framework identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. It states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. 6. Paragraph 154 of the Framework sets out that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless an exception applies. One such exception at paragraph 154 c) is the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. The Framework does not confirm what a disproportionate addition would consist of. 7. Policy OA4 of Bolton Council’s Core Strategy (adopted 2 March 2011) (LP) states that the Council will maintain current Green Belt boundaries. The policy does not deal with extensions or alterations to buildings in the Green Belt including within its Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document (Adopted 21 March 2024) (PfE). I therefore afford it limited weight. Furthermore, there are no design criteria set out within the SPD House Extensions for Green Belt development. 8. The proposal would measure approximately 12.1m wide and would have a total area of 39m2. At first floor level, the proposal would increase the length of the largest bedroom, which currently spans the dwelling’s depth, by a further 3m and would add a walk-in wardrobe. The existing bathroom serving the remaining bedrooms would decrease in size to allow for a hallway to access a new fifth bedroom. Taken in combination with the existing ground floor extension, this would equate to a 46% increase in the original dwelling’s floor area. 9. The Council applies a 30% volume limit for extensions in the Green Belt, but as this is not supported by policy, the proposal must be judged on its own merits. The appellant estimates the proposal, in addition to the previously approved and built full-width ground floor extension, would total a 38% increase in the overall volume of the existing building. This does not include the unattached structures at the rear of the appeal site. I have no evidence before me to disagree with this conclusion. 10. Taking account of the submitted information the proposal would amount to a significant addition to the property, and one which I find to be disproportionate over and above the size of the original building. The proposal would compromise inappropriate development in the Green Belt. b) Openness 11. Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt. This proposal would not be screened by adjacent fencing or surrounding vegetation. It would be visible from the adjacent Right of Way. The proposal would also dominate the modest dwelling due to its scale and would result in a greater visual and spatial impact causing substantial harm. Appeal Decision 6000964 3 12. As a result of its siting and scale, the proposal would encroach on the countryside, contrary to purpose c) of paragraph 143 of the framework in respect of assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. 13. I conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt. As such, this would be contrary to the Framework. c) Character and Appearance 14. There are no other two-storey extensions to the horseshoe shaped farmstead as observed during the site visit. The proposal would add a large perpendicular pitched roof; a double-doored Juliet balcony to Bedroom 4; and a horizontally proportioned window to a new fifth bedroom, which would not respect the fenestration’s original vertical emphasis. Together, these changes would appear out of place on the original building and incongruous within the established horseshoe‑shaped farmstead. 15. There would also be clear views of the proposal from the Right of Way around the farmstead and from neighbouring properties. It would erode the appearance of the site within the wider countryside causing substantial harm. 16. I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on character and appearance of the existing dwelling set within a converted farmstead. As such, this would be contrary to the Framework and Policy CG4 of the Council’s Core Strategy, which amongst other things, requires development to respect and acknowledge the character and identity of the locality and conserve and enhance the physical environment. Other considerations 17. Other considerations put forward by the appellant include potential environmental benefits of the extension and a desire to provide additional accommodation for his family without them having to enter the market to search for housing. 18. The appellant has briefly referred to the Grey Belt. However, there is no evidence before me from either main party to demonstrate its relevance at the appeal site. As such, I have not dealt with it in any further detail. 19. For the reasons set out above, the harm to the Green Belt would not be clearly outweighed by the other considerations, and as such, the very special circumstances required to justify the development have not been demonstrated. Other Matters 20. The proposal’s blank gable wall would sit two metres from the shared boundary with 15 Moss Hall Farm Cottages, ensuring no effect on daylight or sunlight. The Juliet balcony, positioned on the opposite side of the rear elevation, would overlook only the appellant’s garden and would not affect neighbouring privacy. The extension would not harm the living conditions of the neighbour at No. 15. Conclusion 21. The proposal would neither respect the character and appearance of the existing dwelling nor the wider farmstead. The proposal would result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building and would be Appeal Decision 6000964 4 inappropriate development. It would have a harmful effect on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt. Notwithstanding the absence of relevant policies in the Council’s Core Strategy and PfE regarding extensions to buildings in the Green Belt, the proposal would be harmful to the Green Belt when assessed against the Framework. Consequently, for the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed. CM Blair INSPECTOR