Double storey rear extension & first floor front extension & lean to canopy over front door & window

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 February 2026 by S Manson DipTP MRTPI Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002228 2 Burnside Close, Tyldesley M29 7GN • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by William Greg against the decision of Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is A/2F25/2F099570/2FHH. • The development proposed is described as a double storey rear extension & first floor front extension & lean to canopy over front door & window. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for development described as a double storey rear extension & first floor front extension & lean to canopy over front door & window at 2 Burnside Close, Tyldesley M29 7GN in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref A/2F25/2F099570/2FHH, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Proposed Site Plan P2E210624B REVISED and Planning Purpose Drawings P2E210624B REVISED APPLICATION. Appeal Procedure, Preliminary Matter and Main Issue 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. The Council do not object to the proposed two-storey rear extension, and I have no reason to disagree. I have therefore focused on the remaining elements of the appeal scheme and, specifically, their effect on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons for the Recommendation 3. The appeal property is a detached dwelling on a prominent corner plot in a residential cul‑de‑sac. It has been extended over two storeys to the side and sits amongst other detached dwellings of similar appearance and composition. Surrounding properties exhibit a clear rhythm of even spacing between them, they are setback from the highway with small front gardens and driveways. As such, they lend a pleasant consistency to the street which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area. Appeal Decision 6002228 2 4. The front extension would introduce a wide gable above the existing single‑storey projection. While this would increase massing at first-floor, it would not enlarge the ground‑floor footprint and is designed to accommodate additional bedroom and bathroom space. The new gable and canopy across would reflect the established architectural form found on other buildings, several of which incorporate prominent forward-facing gables of comparable scale. As such it would respond positively to the prevailing character of the surroundings. 5. While the previous Inspector considered that the forward-facing gable would accentuate the stagger between the neighbouring dwellings, the properties along this part of the close already display variations in building lines and front projections, creating an established stagger within the street scene. In this context, the proposed gable in a matching brick and reflective of similar forms nearby, would sit comfortably alongside the existing pattern of development. Its modest first‑floor projection would not unacceptably disrupt the relationship between the properties or harm the sense of cohesion. It would maintain the overall rhythm of the street. 6. Consequently, the proposals would not harm the character and appearance of the area and thus comply with Policy JP-P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document (2024) and Policy CP10 of the Wigan Local Plan Core Strategy (2013). Amongst other things, these require development to respect and acknowledge the character and identity of the locality in terms of design, siting, size, scale and materials and to integrate effectively with its surroundings. Other Matters and Conditions 7. The effect of the appeal scheme on the living conditions of neighbours was not a reason for refusal. Based on the evidence, I see no compelling reason to find otherwise. Other matters concerning the assessment of the application fall outside the scope of this decision. It would be for the main parties to resolve between them. 8. In addition to the standard time period for commencement, I have set out a condition requiring the scheme to accord with the approved plans which is necessary for enforcement purposes. As they provide details of the materials and they would be acceptable, there is no need for a further condition. Conclusion and Recommendation 9. The appeal scheme would comply with the development plan for the reasons I have set out and there is nothing to suggest a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend the appeal is allowed. S Manson APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 10. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted, subject to the conditions set out above. John Morrison INSPECTOR