Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused on character and appearance in Wigan Metropolitan?
See how selected local examples treated frontages, walkways and extensions.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 33 of 47
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 27
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 33
- of 33 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: Wigan LPA (53.52417, −2.589574). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council appeal findings
Wigan frontages, garden walls and walkway space
The selected examples include both outcomes, but their outcome mix differs from the matched local set.
Counted against appeals
Open gardens and side walkways
Open-plan gardens were protected
A wall beside the pavement would erode the immediate area's open-plan feel. Nearby boundary walls did not justify another harmful enclosure.
Featureless side wall
A high side wall facing a walkway was found to reduce spaciousness, despite matching materials and some subservient design.
Front extension judged harmful
The inspector concluded that the two-storey front extension would harm the surrounding area's character and appearance.
Helped or needed
Allowed balcony and extension findings
Side extension fitted surroundings
The inspector found the side and rear extension sympathetic to the surrounding built environment and contributing to a sense of place.
Balcony caused no harm
For the new opening and balcony, the inspector concluded the development would not harm the area's character and appearance.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify an open-plan garden pattern near your site?
- Would a side wall face a walkway or reduce spaciousness?
- Does the refusal point to your extension's relationship with surrounding buildings?
The balcony example records only the inspector's no-harm conclusion, without a fuller explanation. 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
2 examples
3 February 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a new door opening formed in position of existing window at first floor level to front elevation and formation of balcony including installation of glazed balustrade system on existing flat roof.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, the proposal would accord with Policy CP10 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document and the [name] Planning Document (SPD). These jointly seek, among other things, development to improve the built environment by ensuring new development respects and acknowledges the character and identity of the borough and its locality, in terms of the materials, siting, size, scale and details used; is integrated effectively with its surroundings and helps to create attractive places.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
8 February 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
two storey side extension and one storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the appeal property or the area. It would not conflict with Policy CP10 of the Wigan Council Local Plan Core [name] 2013 which requires, among other things, that proposal respect the character of the area and integrate with their surroundings. It would not conflict with the aims of the SPD. As it would be sympathetic to the surrounding built environment and it would contribute to sense of place, the proposal would not conflict with the design aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
7 September 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the re-submission of planning application A/20/89663/HH to relocate 1.8m high garden wall closer to a highway to increase the private garden area to the rear/ side.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The appellant has referred to nearby properties where boundary walls directly abut the pavement. However, this is not a defining characteristic of the estate and some of the examples serve to highlight the harmful effect such enclosures can have on the surrounding character. In any event, the open plan feel remains intact in the immediate area of the site due to the prevalence of unenclosed gardens, and this would be eroded by the proposal. The appeal must be assessed on its own site specific circumstances and the presence of nearby developments claimed to be similar would not provide justification for a further development that I consider would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
23 August 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
two storey front extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of [site address] [site address] and the surrounding area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, taking all the above into consideration, the proposed two storey front extension would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of [site address] [site address] and the surrounding area. As such, it would be contrary to Policy CP10 of the Wigan Local Plan Core Strategy (2013) which seeks to ensure development, amongst other things, respects and acknowledges the character and identity of its locality in terms of the siting, size, scale and details used. It would also be contrary to the requirements of the [name], Supplementary Planning Document, June 2019 which recognises that streets are often characterised by a distinctive building rhythm and that front extensions would rarely be visually acceptable and paragraph 130 of the Framework which seeks to ensure that developments are of high quality and are sympathetic to local character.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
1 September 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a two storey side extension and single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed side and rear extensions, whilst incorporating some subservient elements and materials and roof styles to match the host dwelling, would be built up to the side boundary adjacent the walkway. Not only would this present a largely blank, featureless and high sided masonry wall to the walkway, but it would noticeably and significantly reduce the spaciousness of the area. Accordingly it would cause harm to its character and appearance. This would result in conflict with Policies CP10 and CP17 of the Wigan Local Plan Core Strategy Development Plan Document September 2013, the [address] Extensions Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2019 (SPD) and the provisions of the Framework, which together seek to promote good design.
Paragraph 6 · Source pages 1, 2