Bury Metropolitan Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Bury Metropolitan?
Compare selected local appeal reasoning on character and appearance before deciding what to check.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 22 of 29
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 18
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 22
- of 22 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: Bury LPA (53.587883, −2.312574). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Bury Metropolitan Borough Council appeal findings
Bury extension designs and street character
The selected dismissed extracts for 38348, 69887 and 47797 give conclusions without the preceding design analysis.
Counted against appeals
Why Bury extensions were dismissed
A front porch harmed the area
The Inspector concluded the two-storey front porch would harm surrounding character and appearance.
The terrace façade mattered
The Inspector said the uniform terrace façade formed part of the area’s character, while the as-built extension was obvious in the street scene.
Roof additions harmed the dwelling
The Inspector concluded the hip-to-gable extension and rear dormer would harm the host dwelling and area.
Helped or needed
What the allowed side extension showed
Side extension was not out of keeping
The Inspector concluded the two-storey side extension was not out of keeping with the street scene and would not harm the area.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say the street scene would be harmed?
- Does it identify a front extension, roof addition or visible as-built work?
- Does it identify shared terrace features that your proposal would change?
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set, and 23711 gives no design detail. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
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.
Allowed appeal examples
1 example
17 November 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as two storey side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposal would not be out of keeping with the street scene and consequently would not harm the character or appearance of the area. As such, the proposal accords with saved policies EN1/2 and H2/3 of the Bury Unitary Development Plan, (1997), (policies which are broadly consistent with policies in the Framework1 regarding protecting the character and appearance of areas). Collectively, and among other things, these policies require new development to not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the character or appearance of the area. The proposal also satisfies the relevant aims and objectives of the SPD.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
8 September 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single storey side extension and two storey front extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would be contrary to saved policy H2/3 of the Bury Unitary Development Plan (1997) and guidance in the SPD, which seek to ensure that extensions are of a high standard, not visually intrusive, and that they protect the character of the area.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
22 May 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘proposed two storey front porch extension’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would therefore conflict with Policy H2/3 of the Bury Unitary Development Plan (1997), which requires development to, amongst other matters, be of a proportion and appearance that has appropriate regard to the character of the area. It would also conflict with guidance within the Council’s Alterations and Extensions to Residential Properties Supplementary Planning Document 6 (2010), which includes a presumption against large front extensions and advice that any front extensions should respect the street scene.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
11 August 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as [name] onto [name].
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
[address] contains different styles and designs of properties, however properties which share commonality in terms of features are located within distinct parts of the street creating architectural harmony this adds to the character and appearance of Appeal Decision: APP/T4210/W/25/3365662 the area. The uniformity of the appeal terrace façade is noticeably part of the character of area and the extension as built was obvious in the streetscene.
Paragraph 6 · Source pages 1, 2
7 March 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a hip to gable roof extension at side and loft conversion with rear dormer.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. As such it would conflict with Saved Policy H2/3 of the Bury Unitary Development Plan (1997) which seeks to ensure that development is sympathetic in nature with the original building and surrounding area by reason of design, form and size. It would also fail to comply with guidance as to the design of dormer/roof extensions within SPD6.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2