Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over inappropriate Green Belt development in Bolton Metropolitan?
See which local Green Belt problems inspectors identified and what your refusal notice needs to address.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 7 of 82
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 0
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 6
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 6
- of 7 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Bolton LPA (53.578649, −2.466971). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council appeal findings
Why Bolton Green Belt proposals were found inappropriate
No allowed comparator exists. The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set.
Counted against appeals
Bolton Green Belt objections
Visible, unscreened extension
The extension would not be screened by fencing or vegetation, would be visible from an adjacent right of way, and would dominate the modest dwelling due to its scale.
New dwellings outside an exception
The proposal for up to four dwellings was concluded to be inappropriate Green Belt development and not within the stated dwelling exceptions.
Garden shed outside exceptions
The shed proposal was concluded to be inappropriate Green Belt development and not to comply with any stated exception.
No allowed example matched
No allowed Bolton Green Belt example
This snapshot has no allowed local example for this issue.
Screening and scale evidence
The dismissed extension was unscreened, visible from a right of way and found too dominant. The displayed extract does not show those effects being overcome.
An exception case needs support
Dismissed dwelling and shed proposals were concluded not to meet stated Green Belt exceptions. The examples give no successful exception comparison.
Limited openness was only a conclusion
The selected extract concludes that loss of openness would be limited. It does not include the analysis leading to that conclusion.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say your proposal falls outside a Green Belt exception?
- Could fencing or vegetation screen it from a public right of way?
- Does the refusal explain how scale affects openness or the existing dwelling?
Some displayed conclusions omit earlier analysis, so this Bolton Metropolitan page cannot show every dismissal reason. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Read the reasoning in matched appeal decisions
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
22 September 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
stage 1 permission in principle for up to four dwellings.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: i) Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies; ii) The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and iii) If the proposal is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would not meet the exceptions for the construction of new dwellings set out 1 ref APP/A0665/A/14/2228579 2 ref APP/C4235/W/19/3239419 in the Framework. It would conflict with LP policy CG7AP and the policies in the Framework that protect the Green Belt.
Paragraph 11 · Source pages 2, 3
9 February 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘permitted development rights removed rear single storey pitched roof extension (not accepted by L.A.)’
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: (i) Whether the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); (ii) The effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt; and (iii) If found to be inappropriate development, whether the harm, by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, having regard to the location of the site and the position of surrounding development, I conclude that the harm to the Green Belt arising from loss of openness would be limited.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
19 January 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as “Proposed erection of a 1st Floor extension at the rear of house at 16 [address], Bolton.”
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it; • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling set within an originally converted farmstead; • Whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt. This proposal would not be screened by adjacent fencing or surrounding vegetation. It would be visible from the adjacent Right of Way. The proposal would also dominate the modest dwelling due to its scale and would result in a greater visual and spatial impact causing substantial harm.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
11 December 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a garden shed and associated access steps into reduced level front garden space. Provision of below ground electrical cable from house to garden room.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies; • the effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect on the character and appearance of the area, bearing in mind that it would be within the setting of the Wallsuches Conservation Area; and • whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I, therefore, conclude that the appeal proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The proposal would, therefore, conflict with Policy CG7AP of the BAP and would not comply with any of the exceptions set out in paragraph 149 of the Framework.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
Other appeal outcomes
1 example
6 January 2026 · Split Decision
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposal on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and, • whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Nonetheless, the two buildings are physically separate and are proposed to be used independently of one another. Therefore, the buildings are capable of being assessed individually. The proposed outbuilding would be very modest in size. The floorspace of the proposed outbuilding would be marginally over 10% of the floorspace of [address]; and its proposed volume would be marginally over 5% of the volume of [address]. When assessed individually the proposed outbuilding would not be a disproportionate addition to [address]. As such, it would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2