Skip to main content
Official casework recordDismissedCurrent release

Appeal 3359410

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 works

One-off service · No subscription

Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.

Official decision document

The decision, section by section

6 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 single-storey extension to the existing property, extending the full length of the current boundary of the utility and store room. The extension will project from the existing dining room and match the width of the current small side extension at the kitchen, which adds approximately 68cm to the width of property to the rear. Internally, the extension will involve the removal of the internal wall between the existing kitchen and dining room, removal of the utility and store room and removal of part of the hall wall to create a large open-plan living space. The rear of the new extension will feature bi-fold doors, providing access to the garden and enhancing natural light within the space. The extension will have a flat walk-on roof, which will include two walk-on ceiling windows. A glass balustrade will be installed around the permitter of the flat roof to create a balcony space.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is dismissed.

  2. Section 03

    Main Issue

    The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address], with regards to privacy.

  3. Section 04

    Reasons

    The appeal property is a two storey, brick-built, semi-detached dwelling. It is set back from the road behind a parking area and has a garden to the rear.

    The appeal property is located in a residential area characterised by the presence of two-storey detached and semi-detached dwellings. Dwellings tend to be set back from the road behind gardens and/or parking areas and have gardens to the rear. The setting back of dwellings from the road, together with the presence of grass verges, street trees, hedges and gardens, combines to provide for a green and spacious character.

    During my site visit, I observed that many dwellings have been altered and/or extended and that such changes generally appear in keeping with host dwellings and the surrounding area.

    The single storey rear extension would stretch across the majority of the width of the property, replacing a smaller rear store/utility. The proposal would include a walk-on roof, which would be surrounded by a 1.1 metre tall glass balustrade to create a balcony across the majority of the single storey-extension’s roof.

    The large size and very close proximity of the proposed balcony would provide for views back towards the rear-facing bedroom windows of Number [address], the attached neighbouring dwelling. Given that users of the proposed balcony would effectively be standing at first floor height, such views would be directly level with rear-facing bedroom windows.

    It is entirely reasonable for the occupiers of first floor bedrooms to expect a high degree of privacy. However, taking the above into account, the proposed development would result in the erosion of the privacy of the occupiers of No 42 when using their rear-facing bedrooms. In this regard, I find that the proposed balcony would comprise an intrusive form of development.

    The proposed balcony would provide for views to the rear, including towards the rear garden of No 42. Whilst direct views into No 42’s rear garden would be largely obscured by the presence of trees and planting along the shared rear boundary, the removal or reduction of these trees and/or planting would lead to considerable scope for the proposed development to provide for the direct overlooking of No 42’s rear garden from a dominant height at close proximity. Whilst not a factor which on its own warrants the dismissal of the appeal, this is something that adds weight to the conclusion below.

    Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policy CG4 of the Bolton Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2011); and to the [address] Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (2012), which together amongst other things, seek to protect residential amenity.

  4. Section 05

    Other Matters

    The appellant, in support of his case, suggests that a condition to provide obscure glazing to the side elevation of the balcony would mitigate concerns about overlooking. However, in the absence of detailed information, it is not clear to me how such a condition might appropriately achieve this. I note that simply obscuring the glazing of the proposed glass balustrade would fail to prevent overlooking above its relatively low 1.1 metre height and also, that tall screening could have implications in respect of the overall visual appearance of the proposed development.

    In support of his case, the appellant refers to a number of balconies elsewhere in the surrounding area. However, the circumstances relating to the examples of balconies provided are not the same as or so similar to the proposal the subject of this appeal such that they provide for direct comparison.

    Notwithstanding this and in any case, I have found that the proposed development would result in significant harm and hence the decision below.

  5. Section 06

    Conclusion

    For the reasons given above, the appeal does not succeed.

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 601No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    28 April 2025Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    2 April 2025 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3359410
Application reference
19029/24
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
Planning Appeals - Full
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
No
Affects setting of a listed building
No
Historic building grant made
No
Relates to a conservation area
No
Flooding is an issue
No
Site within an AONB
No
Site within an SSSI
No

Decision and dates

The published outcome and every imported case date.

Official decision
Dismissed
Decision category
Dismissed
Received date
23 January 2025
Valid date
17 February 2025
Start date
12 March 2025
Planning authority decision date
20 November 2024
Appeal decision date
28 April 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
No
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
68601
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