Single storey rear extension, single storey front extension and detached garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 May 2026 by A Morrison MTCP MRTPI Decision by Martin Seaton BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 3 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6006901 165 Crescent Road, Bolton, BL3 2JS • 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 Mr Manzoor against the decision of Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is 21348/25. • The development proposed is single storey rear extension, single storey front extension and detached garage. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 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. Preliminary Matters 3. I observed during my site visit that a front porch was partially constructed to the appeal property. Nevertheless, I am determining the appeal on the basis of the submitted plans, which show a full width front extension, as that is what has been applied for and subjected to public consultation. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area. Reasons for the Recommendation 5. 165 Crescent Road is a two-storey dwelling situated within a lengthy terrace in Bolton. The consistent, simple front building line across this part of the terrace together with the repeating pattern of openings lends the block an orderly and rhythmical appearance, notwithstanding the limited presence of small porches and canopies. These unifying essential characteristics are also evident within the adjacent similar terrace to the northwest. Thus, by reflecting the prevailing, original form of its context, the appeal dwelling currently makes a positive contribution to the character of the area. 6. There is no dispute between the parties regarding the impact of the single storey rear extension or detached garage, whether in relation to their effects in character and appearance terms or upon neighbouring living conditions. I see no reason to Appeal Decision 6006901 2 disagree with these conclusions, therefore my assessment has focussed on the single storey front extension. 7. Designed with a mono-pitched roof and incorporating a second entrance door, the proposed front extension element of the scheme would span across the full width of the dwelling. By projecting the entire ground floor frontage forward, it would harmfully disrupt the cohesive original form and layout of the residential part of the terrace. Although its modest depth would be comparable to nearby porches, its substantially greater width means it would appear as a plainly discordant feature within the streetscene when viewed alongside these contrastingly minor additions. 8. Furthermore, the installation of a second front door would accentuate the proposal’s incongruous appearance within its surroundings. Whilst the extension would remain subordinate in its dimensions and include a corresponding roof pitch and materials, these aspects of its design would not sufficiently mitigate its fundamental incompatibility with the character of the existing dwelling and the wider terrace of which it forms a part. 9. On this basis, the proposed front extension would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area. It would therefore fail to comply with Policies CG3 and RA1 of Bolton’s Core Strategy Development Plan Document (Adopted March 2011) and Policy JP-P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document 2022 – 2039 (Adopted March 2024). Taken together, amongst other things, these policies seek that development is compatible with the distinctive character of its surroundings, including in terms of its design, siting, size and scale. In addition, the proposal would conflict with the objective of achieving well-designed places set out in paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 10. The proposal would also be contrary to the guidance set out within the Council’s House Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (August 2012), which advises that the siting, design or layout of a house extension should not have an unacceptable effect on the wider street scene or the character of the locality. Other Matters 11. I acknowledge that the proposal would improve the living space and functionality of the property for its occupants. However, this private benefit would attract only very limited weight in support of the scheme. Given the scale of development, I would also attract only very limited weight to any economic benefits arising during construction. Cumulatively, I am satisfied that these do not outweigh the harm that I have identified to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area. 12. Although the proposal would not be harmful to the living conditions of neighbouring residents and has no impact in highway safety terms, these are neutral matters as required by policy and so weigh neither for nor against the scheme. Conclusion and Recommendation 13. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. A Morrison APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Appeal Decision 6006901 3 Inspector’s Decision 14. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. Martin Seaton INSPECTOR