Extension of outbuilding and new outbuilding single storey for gym, office and lounge area

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 July 2026 by K Mansell BA (Hons) MPhil TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010028 Eastwood 116a Radcliffe Road, Bolton BL2 1NY • 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 Zaheer Ud-Din against the decision of Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is 20971/25. • The development proposed is described as ‘extension of outbuilding and new outbuilding single storey for gym, office and lounge area’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the development on: • The living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at 6 and 14 The Grove, with regard to outlook. • Existing neighbouring trees. Reasons Living conditions of neighbouring occupiers 3. The appeal property at 116a Radcliffe Road is a semi-detached house occupying a spacious linear plot. It has a generous garden to the front and side and a further extensive garden to the rear. Its southern boundary is shared with the side boundary of 118 Radcliffe Road and the rear boundaries to 6 to 14 The Grove, where it is delineated by a reasonably substantial brick wall. On my site visit, I saw that the neighbouring properties on The Grove present rear elevations facing towards the appeal property and they have relatively modest rear gardens. 4. There is an existing single-storey detached pitched roof garage within the rear garden of the appeal property, positioned adjacent to the rear boundary of 8 The Grove. It has an eaves height of approximately 2.5m and a ridge height of approximately 4.7m. The appeal scheme would extend the garage forward by approximately 6.4m, retaining its existing roof profile and ridge height. It would be positioned adjacent to the rear boundary of 6 The Grove. A further single-storey outbuilding would be sited to the rear of the garage. This would have an overall length of approximately 21m, with eaves and ridge heights of approximately 2.4m and 3.6m respectively, sited adjacent to the rear boundaries of 10 to 14 The Grove. Appeal Decision 6010028 2 5. The Council’s House Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (2012) (HE SPD) advises that a distance of 9 metres should be maintained between a main room window and a facing wall of a single storey extension, albeit noting that screening measures such as walling should be taken into account. It also advises generally that extensions should not have an overbearing or overly dominant effect on adjoining dwellings. 6. On my site visit I saw that the shared boundary wall between the appeal property and 6 The Grove is approximately level with the 2.5m eaves height of the existing garage. Whilst the facing wall to the extended garage would be largely screened from No 6 by this boundary, as a consequence of the scale of the garage extension, being 4.7m to the ridge, its roof would nonetheless be prominent above the wall and visible from the rear elevation of No 6 at a distance of approximately 7.1m. Even taking account of its orientation, the scale and close proximity of the garage extension, together with its siting along the full length of the shared boundary, would consequently result in an unduly overbearing form of development that would materially harm the outlook for the occupiers of 6 The Grove. 7. The shared boundary wall is moderately lower to the rear of 14 The Grove. However, at least the roof of the new outbuilding would be visible above it at a distance of approximately 4.8 metres from No 14’s rear extension. Whilst the outbuilding would be set into the garden by approximately 1m, its siting would fall significantly below the advised 9m separation distance within the HE SPD and it would also run across the full length of the shared boundary. Even though it would be positioned to the north of No 14, by reason of its siting, scale and its proximity to the rear extension to No 14, the outbuilding would consequently appear unduly overbearing and result in an unacceptable sense of enclosure for the occupiers of this neighbouring dwelling. 8. I therefore find that the appeal proposal would unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of 6 and 14 The Grove arising from the lack of outlook. As such, it would conflict with Policy JP-P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document 2022-2039 (2024) (PfE JDP) and Policy CG4 of Bolton’s Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2011). These policies seek, amongst other matters, to ensure that development both protects and offers a high level of amenity. It would further conflict with guidance in the Council’s HE SPD (2012). Trees 9. On my site visit I observed no trees within the garden of the appeal property where either the extension to the garage or the new outbuilding would be sited. Whilst I saw some smaller trees within the rear gardens of neighbouring dwellings along The Grove, these are already segregated from the appeal property by a solid brick wall. Moreover, even if trees were previously sited to the western boundary of the appeal property, the Officer Report concludes that these were not felled to facilitate the appeal scheme. I am also mindful that the consultation response from the Council’s Trees and Woodland Officer states that there are no trees within influencing distance of the proposed outbuildings. 10. For these reasons, based on my observations on site and the evidence before me, I find that the appeal scheme would not have a harmful impact on neighbouring Appeal Decision 6010028 3 trees. I therefore find no conflict with Policy JP-G7 of the PfE JDP (2024). This policy seeks, amongst other matters, to ensure the protection of trees during the construction phase of development. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above, whilst I find no harm to existing neighbouring trees, I do find that the appeal scheme would result in harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at 6 and 14 The Grove. The proposal would therefore conflict with the development plan, and there are no material considerations that warrant taking a decision otherwise than in accordance with it. The appeal should therefore be dismissed. K. Mansell INSPECTOR