Appeal 6004013

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 appeal site is within the Churchgate Conservation Area but the proposed development has not been refused on the grounds of its implications on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. I agree that this is not a main issue and have assessed the appeal on this basis. However, I have taken into account the duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area as required under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed apartments on the living conditions of future occupiers with regard to outlook and noise disturbance from nearby properties.

The appeal site comprises a building on the corner of Bradshawgate and [address]. Bradshawgate is a wide road with a variety of commercial properties within Bolton’s Town Centre. [address] is a narrow road off it. No [site address] is two-stories high with a decorative entrance on the corner and a dome feature in the roof. It presents a prominent and striking facade on the corner. The building drops in height on [address] with a single storey flat roofed element which then increases in height to two stories. The building appears mostly unoccupied although the last use was a bar and some signage remains (Courtneys).

The proposed change of use would retain a commercial element in part with a ground floor shop (commercial / business, Class E1) on the corner at ground floor level. The rest of the ground floor would be sub-divided into three studio apartments. Each of these would comprise a single room with living space, bed, kitchen and bathroom. They would have large windows directly adjoining [address]. Above the proposed ground floor shop (Class E) there would be another studio apartment accessed via a spiral staircase from a ground floor passageway.

The Council specifically refers to two of the apartments in terms of their poor outlook. In particular, the building opposite these is a tall building on the opposite corner of Bradshawgate and [address]. The distance between these windows and the building opposite is very close. Given that future occupiers would have just the one room to live in, the amount of time spent in the room would cover all aspects of day to day living, eating, relaxing and sleeping. There is no dispute that the accommodation would not meet the minimum requirements as set out in the nationally described space standards2 but it would be just that, the minimum space for single occupancy.

I agree that town centre living can assist in the vitality and viability of the town overall. Moreover, people living within a town or city environment would accept a level of noise and general activity during the day and in the evenings. Indeed, the proximity to town centre facilities, including its nightlife may be a contributor to choosing to live in the town. However, the level of activity should not be such as to make the living conditions of residents unduly uncomfortable or harmful.

The appellant has submitted an acoustic assessment but the Council disagree with its findings. In particular because it does not include the potential noise from either the premises opposite on [address], the lawful use of which, according to the Council, is a bar (previously ‘Loco’) or the now vacant former [name] on the opposite side of Bradshawgate.

The report assesses the impact of noise in terms of road traffic noise along Bradshawgate and [address] and entertainment noise with specific reference to two premises, [name] and [name], located 60 metres and 90 metres respectively from the appeal site. These both operate late at night and into the early hours of the morning. The survey identified entertainment noise levels especially noting the large areas of glazing to the apartments. Mitigation in the form of secondary glazing would be required and mechanical ventilation systems would be required to be installed. It also suggests an option of reducing the glazed areas by solid backfill.

The report notes that given the high sound insulation performance requirements, particularly at low frequencies, a reasonable level of uncertainty remains. Therefore, the appellants evidence concludes that a carefully managed plan to implement the mitigation would need to be adopted. It sets out recommendations for this. This could be secured through a suitably worded condition but I am concerned that entertainment noise from properties closer to the appeal site than 1 Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 ([name]). 2 Department for Communities and Local Government – Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard March 2015. the nightclubs included in the acoustic report could make it difficult to secure the necessary mitigation. The former [name] and Loco are considerably closer than [name] and Popworld. The survey notes that the first floor studio apartment would be the most exposed area of the site to entertainment noise. This flat would directly face the Yates’ site and the other apartments would be directly opposite Loco. In all cases, therefore, the situation could be markedly worse than the acoustic assessment concluded.

I accept that the night-time noise levels would be at a higher level in a town centre location such as this compared with a residential area. I also appreciate that town centre’s benefit from mixed occupations including more people actually living within them. However, this should not be at the cost of a poor living environment. Taking the concerns regarding noise, together with the poor outlook from two of the studio apartments, the living conditions of future occupiers would be unacceptable.

Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan3 Policy JP-P1 sets out an aim to become one of the most liveable regions in the world with a number of key attributes. Amongst other things, these include creating comfortable and inviting indoor and outdoor environments that offer a high level of amenity that minimises exposure to pollution. The proposal would fail in this regard for the reasons I have stated. Likewise, it would not result in development that would be compatible with surrounding land uses and therefore not protect the amenity of future occupiers as required by Core Strategy4 policy CG4.

I note the appellant’s reference to the Council’s Hot Food Take-Away SPD which although not directly applicable to this proposal refers to the effects of town centre living. I have not been supplied with a copy of this SPD but I have acknowledged that town centre living comes with an acceptance of a certain level of noise and disturbance that would not be expected in a predominantly residential area.

[name] has been consulted and raise concerns about the residential use of the site given its context surrounded by late opening drinking establishments. The police refer to noise and disturbance but also intimidation when walking to and from the building late at night. It notes the vulnerability of [address] and the presence of recessed doorways in the building. It recommends alterations to remove the recessed doorways and install balustrades or planters to deter criminal damage as well as aiding privacy of windows.

Bearing in mind the existing architectural features of this building and its location within a Conservation Area, any measures would need to be assessed in that context. I note that the building is referred to in the Churchgate Conservation Area Draft Conservation Area Appraisal (July 2008) as an unlisted building that makes a positive contribution to the character of the Conservation Area. Although it is referred to as No 19 Bradshawgate constructed in the early 20th Century as a bank, the photograph in figure 12 and its description as an ornate building with dentilled eaves cornice and a corner dome topped by a ball finial together with an 3 Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document for Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Tameside, Trafford and Wigan 2022 – 2039 Adopted 21 March 2024. 4 Bolton Council – Local Development Framework Bolton’s Core Strategy Development Plan Document Adopted 2 March 2011. elaborately carved stone doorway with canopy on the corner is clearly the appeal building.

Notwithstanding, the benefits that may arise in bringing this building back into use and the general support for encouraging town centre living, they are outweighed by the harm I have identified to future occupiers.

The appellant refers to various schemes where planning permission has been granted for residential uses in the town centre. [name] have limited information about these, I agree that a mix of uses in the town centre has benefits for the town itself and for people living in it. However, it is necessary to consider each application on its merits and in this case, I have found the proposal unacceptable for the reasons stated.

I also note the communication from the Council to the appellant dated 25 February 2026 regarding the poor condition of the building and the potential to serve a Section 215 notice on the owner. I appreciate that the proposal would assist in securing works to improve the building but I have no evidence as to what other measures have been taken to seek alternative uses for it. As such, there may well be other options that secure the reuse and refurbishment of the building without causing the harm I have identified here.

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.