Erection of part single, part two-storey rear extension and detached double garage

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: 23 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009180 27, Butterfield Road, Bolton BL5 1DU • 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 Andrew Wakefield against the decision of Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is 21051/25. • The development proposed is the erection of part single, part two-storey rear extension and detached double 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 Matter 3. I have taken the description of development from the decision notice. It reflects the works in more concise terms. It does not change anything fundamental in regard to the specifics of the appeal scheme and thus does not prejudice the abilities of the main parties to make their respective cases in regard thereto. Main Issues 4. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on a) the character and appearance of the area; and b) the living conditions of the occupiers of Number 25 Butterfield Road (No. 25) with specific regard to outlook. Reasons for the Recommendation Character and Appearance 5. The appeal dwelling is semi-detached and appears to have been extended at single storey to the rear. It occupies a prominent position as the first dwelling on this side of Butterfield Road when approached from Rutherford Drive. As a result, the generous open land to its side, mirrored to a lesser extent on the opposite side of the road, forms an important visual break in the built form and creates a gateway feature that frames the entrance into Butterfield Road. The street is characterised by a strong and uninterrupted building line, with dwellings of similar design which, by virtue of limited visible alterations, set behind modest front gardens and Appeal Decision 6009180 2 driveways, lend a pleasant consistency, originality and spaciousness to the street which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area. 6. The proposed rear extension would be across the full width of the dwelling and incorporate a substantial catslide styled roof form punctuated by a large projecting gable. The design and massing of the proposal would not only detract from the host’s modest scale and shape but also appear dominant and unreflective of surrounding development by introducing a bulky roof form alien to the existing roofscape. Large areas of slim vertical glazing would be incorporated, these would unacceptably jar with the more traditional arrangement and smaller proportions of openings found within the host dwelling. Collectively, these elements would combine to unacceptably reduce the quality of the area’s consistent and original feel. Although located to the rear, due to the appeal property's location within the street scene, the proposal would be clearly visible from public vantage points. 7. The detached garage would be sited forward of the host dwelling, disrupting the strong established building line within the street scene. It would also encroach into an area of open land that contributes to the spacious character of the area and frames the entrance into Butterfield Road. As a result, the proposal would unacceptably erode the openness experienced at this point and appear as a prominent and incongruous feature within the streetscape. 8. The photographic examples appear to occupy materially different spatial and visual contexts. In several cases they appear subservient through step downs or setbacks from the host dwelling, and none appear to replicate the prominent open corner setting of the appeal site. In the absence of full planning histories, it is unclear under what policy context or design considerations these developments were permitted, or whether they pre‑date the adoption of the current design policies. 9. The proposed development would thus result in harm to the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area. Contrary to Policy OA4 of the Local Development Framework, Bolton’s Core Strategy, 2011 (CS), Policy JP- P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document, 2024 (DPD) and guidance in the House Extensions, Supplementary Planning Document, 2012 (SPD). These, amongst other things, seek to ensure new development respects and acknowledges local character in terms of design, siting, size and scale. Living Conditions 10. By virtue of its scale, height and depth, the proposed rear extension would present as a dominant and imposing feature when viewed from No. 25’s first-floor rear bedroom window. The development would significantly curtail the open aspect currently available from this habitable room, replacing it with an extensive expanse of built form. The resulting sense of enclosure would be oppressive and overbearing, leading to an unacceptable effect on the outlook for occupiers. This would detrimentally affect their living conditions. 11. The appeal proposals would therefore conflict with Policy CG4 of the CS, Policy JP- P1 of the DPD and guidance in the SPD which, amongst other things, seek to ensure development is compatible with surrounding occupiers and protects amenity. Appeal Decision 6009180 3 Conclusion and Recommendation 12. For the reasons given above, the proposed development 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 13. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. John Morrison INSPECTOR