Double storey wrap around extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 June 2026 by S Manson DipTP MRTPI Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 31st July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009037 88 Melbourne Road, Bolton BL3 5RW • 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 A Hussain Adam against the decision of Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is 21612/25. • The development proposed is a double storey wrap around extension. 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. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area with specific regard to nearby trees. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling located within a residential area. Rear gardens of properties, within which are contained a number of mature trees which collectively create a verdant green backdrop which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area. Given their scale and siting, the proposals would be located in close proximity to existing trees and by association their likely root systems. They would also occupy an area beneath or immediately adjacent the canopies of nearby trees. 5. Whilst a Tree Constraints Plan has been provided, my observations on site indicated that it does not accurately reflect the number and disposition of trees adjoining it. Furthermore, the plan does not provide sufficient information regarding canopy spread, root protection areas or arboricultural constraints to enable a sufficiently reliable assessment of the proposal's effect on the trees. 6. Due to the proximity of the adjacent mature trees, a large degree of uncertainty regarding the effect of the development on their future retention would be created. The development would appear likely to increase pressure for pruning works arising from overhanging branches, shading and leaf fall. Realistically it would see the removal of the identified mature tree within the appeal site. Such works could Appeal Decision 6009037 2 unacceptably undermine the contribution these trees as a collective make to the character of the area. 7. Although access could not be gained to the land on which some of the trees are located, this does not preclude the preparation of an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA). The trees are readily visible from the appeal site and their relationship to the proposed development could have been assessed through site observations, measurements and other established arboricultural survey techniques. In the absence of an AIA or any other robust arboricultural evidence, there is insufficient information regarding the extent of root protection areas, the likely effects of the development on existing trees during construction, or whether any measures would be capable of safeguarding their long-term health. 8. Conditions should not be used to defer the submission of fundamental information that is necessary to determine the acceptability of a proposal such as, in this case, where it might go or what it might be. Accordingly, a condition would not remedy the absence of the information necessary to properly assess the proposal in this case. 9. I cannot be satisfied therefore, that the proposed development would safeguard the health, longevity and retention of the existing trees. Adverse effects thereon leading to their loss would unacceptably affect the character and appearance of the area. As such, the proposal would fail to accord with Policy JP-G7 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan 2022 – 2039, 2024, which, amongst other things, seeks to maximise the protection and continued health of trees. It would also be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework which recognises that, amongst other things, trees make an important contribution to the character and quality of urban environments. Conclusion and Recommendation 10. The appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. S Manson APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 11. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. John Morrison INSPECTOR