Appeal 3351087
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
7 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
a proposed double storey side extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
The revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 12 December 2024. I have considered the changes and as they are not material to the proposal, further comments were not sought by the parties. I have, however, determined the appeal having regard to the revised Framework.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at [address] with regards to outlook.
Section 05
Reasons
The two-storey proposal would be situated to the side of the existing dwelling and extend up to the common boundary with [address]. This neighbouring building has a ground floor glazed opening which is situated around 9.7m from the proposed extension. Given this close proximity, where the direct outlook would be on to the two-storey side wall of the proposed extension, the proposal would have an unacceptable overbearing impact on the living conditions of these neighbouring occupants.
I therefore conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable harmful impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at [address] with regards to outlook. As such, it would be contrary to Policy CG4 of the Council’s Core Strategy and Policy JP-P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan, which seek, amongst other matters, for new development to be compatible with surrounding land uses and occupiers, to protect amenity. It would also be contrary to the House Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (2012) which seeks an interface distance of 13.5m between a neighbouring elevation which contains a main room window and a facing wall of a two-storey extension.
Section 06
Other Matters
I note the reference by the appellant to previous crimes involving the theft of a car. The proposal would include a garage that would enable a car to be kept in a secure place, and this therefore weighs in favour of the proposal, as does the provision of further accommodation on the first floor. These matters would not however outweigh the harm that I have identified in relation to the neighbour’s living conditions.
Although reference has been made to there not being any objections to the extension, representations have been raised by a neighbour citing various concerns with the proposal. The matters raised do not however alter my conclusion on the main issue.
Section 07
Conclusion
I conclude that the proposal would not accord with the development plan as a whole, and there are no other considerations, including the Framework, that indicate that I should take a decision other than in accordance with this. I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 423No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 6 January 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 23 December 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3351087
- Application reference
- 17986/24
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000001
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Unknown
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- Not recorded
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- Not recorded
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 1 September 2024
- Valid date
- 1 September 2024
- Start date
- 24 September 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 19 June 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 6 January 2025
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 62441
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21