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 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
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.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
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.
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.
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.
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