Appeal 6003557

The appeal is dismissed.

A consultation draft of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 16 December 2025. Given that this is at the consultation stage and taking into account the matters before me, I do not consider it necessary to invite comments from the parties. Any reference to the Framework is based on the current version, dated December 2024.

The site location includes ‘[name] as the property name on the application form but I have taken this to be an error so have omitted it above.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: - • the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of 1132 and [address] by reason of outlook and overshadowing.

The appeal site comprises a piece of land on the corner of [address] and [address]. It is part grassed and part hardsurfaced and has a low metal fence around its boundaries with the two roads. The land rises from [address] northwards along [address] and north-westwards along [address]/[name].

The area is primarily a residential one although [address] (B6226) is a main road with [address] being a residential road off it with a 20 mph speed limit. A notable characteristic is the topography of the area with the rising land influencing the appearance of the properties in the area. These are a mix of styles and ages with the topography elevating the height of bungalows on [address]. Other properties are mostly two-storey but of differing heights due to the topography. There is a mix of hipped and gable roofs although the houses and bungalows in [address] and the property immediately adjacent to the north-west on [address] have hipped roofs.

The appeal documents and the description of development refer to a previous approval1. The appellant states that layout was approved and a dotted outline is shown on the submitted site plan to indicate a footprint. However, a copy of that decision has not been submitted and I have limited information as to what was approved. In any case, this proposal is for full planning permission and not approval of reserved matters and so I have assessed the proposal accordingly.

The proposed house is described as a two and a half storey / 3 storey detached house. It would have accommodation on three floors. The plans include finished floor levels and a proposed street scene indicates that the appeal house would be about the same height as the adjacent building on [address].

This corner site is very prominent in the street scene, emphasised by the topography. The proposed house would be a tall, detached property bearing little relationship in appearance to the properties around it. Even though there is a mix of styles, the height, bulk and design of the proposed dwelling would appear prominent and out of place in this setting. It would be visually intrusive and fail to reflect the general character of this area.

The decision notice also refers to the boundary fence. The plans indicate a 1.[address] boarded screen fence along part of the boundary along [address] which would cut back towards the front of the house. Due to the topography this would appear to be elevated from [address] although the plans do not include an elevation to clearly demonstrate this. Therefore, a fence could be visually intrusive although any dwelling on this site would need to sensitively address boundary treatment especially given its prominent position. I consider that this could be dealt with by condition.

Notwithstanding my views on the fence, the proposed dwelling would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. This would conflict with Places for Everyone2 Policy JP-P1 and Core Strategy3 Policy OA5 which collectively seek to ensure that new development in the urban area respects and acknowledges the character and identity of the locality in terms of design, siting, size, scale and materials, amongst other things. Good design is also a key aspect of sustainable development and an important objective of the Framework as set out in Section 12.

There are a number of windows and a front door on the side of the building comprising 1132 and [address]. These are ground and first floor flats in a building containing four flats. The appellant has submitted a photograph from a kitchen in one of the flat’s looking over the appeal site. On the basis of the flats 1 Planning Application Ref: 09824/20. 2 Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document for Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Tameside, Trafford and Wigan 2022 to 2039 Adopted 21 March 2024. 3 Bolton Council Local Development Framework Bolton’s Core Strategy Development Plan [name] 2 March 2011. being arranged one on each floor, two of the windows on the side elevation would be kitchen windows. No reference has been made as to what rooms the other windows serve. However, even if the kitchen is not classed as a main habitable room due to its size and facilities, the window is the only one to the room and looking out at the tall gable of the proposed house in such close proximity would be overbearing.

Furthermore, due to the orientation of the existing flats and the position of the windows on the elevation facing the appeal site. The proposal would result in overshadowing and a loss of light. Although permission has been granted for a dwelling on this site, in the absence of any details, I am unable to make any kind of a comparison. My assessment is based on the fact that the site is currently now open and the proposal would mean that it would not be. Of relevance is that a large and prominent house would be in the direct line of view from the windows of these flats, blocking light, whereas now there is open space.

Therefore, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 1132 and [address] due to the resulting poor outlook and overshadowing. This would conflict with Core Strategy Policy CG4 which, amongst other things seeks to protect the amenity of surrounding occupiers.

A preliminary risk assessment report was submitted with the planning application and found that the area is not in a Radon Affected Area as less than 1% of properties are above the [name]. The report states that no radon protection measures are required. However, the Council request that the data is revisited in the light of new radon maps (2022) which show higher levels of radon at the appeal site. The Council’s pollution control consultee therefore requests further information if available, to be explained and justified. I consider that this could be secured through a suitably worded condition.

The applicant states that the proposal would be exempt from addressing [name] (BNG) requirements due to the dwelling being a self-build one. The appellant has submitted a statement confirming this but this is insufficient to secure the dwelling as a self-build/custom house as required by the appropriate regulations. There is no suggestion that a condition could address this matter and in the absence of any suggested wording, I consider it unlikely that a condition would satisfy the tests set out in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance.

I note that part of the site is hardsurfaced but a significant area of land is not. Therefore, I do not accept that the de minimis trigger can be argued on the basis that part of the total area of land would be taken up by the dwelling and much of the rest of it laid out as garden. Replacing land that has not been assessed for its biodiversity value cannot simply be replaced by domestic garden in order to satisfy BNG requirements.

Therefore, there is no mechanism in place to ensure that the property would meet the requirements for self-build/custom housing and the requirements for BNG are not met. Therefore, notwithstanding my main issues, the proposal would be unacceptable on these grounds.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Consequently, for the above reasons the appeal should be dismissed.