2 weeks Ago
A Lostock homeowner’s bid to extend the first floor of their bungalow has been blocked after an appeal was rejected. Muhammad Anwar applied to build the extension in his home in the suburban cul-de-sac of Milverton Close. The extension would add another bedroom above his garage, and extend an existing bedroom enough to be able to fit an ensuite.
The council refused planning permission because the development would have a “detrimental impact” on the area. Mr Anwar appealed their decision to the Planning Inspectorate – but his appeal was dismissed. Inspector L Fern agreed with the council’s decision.
They said: “The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.” The plans would have extended the first floor on the bungalow (Image: Bolton Council) Have a story? Get in touch at eoin.mccaul@newsquest.
co.uk Inspector Fern said that the area surrounding the property is “characterised by the presence of bungalows, both adjacent to the property and opposite". They said: “The proposed extension constitutes a large upper-storey addition to what is presently a modest dormer bungalow, set adjacent and opposite to similar properties.
“Due to its scale and front projecting nature, the extension would appear at odds with its surroundings and dominate the street scene, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.” Inspector Fern said that even though the house was on a lower ground level than the bungalows opposite, this would only “marginally” reduce the extension’s prominence. They said that the effect “would be minimal”.
READ MORE: Bolton homeowner's extension appeal denied due to disruption READ MORE: New proposals put forward for Academy Way, Lostock READ MORE: Bolton MP welcomes 'major step forward' for reform of water system Inspector Fern said: “The appellant refers to a property at the junction of Ashcroft Close and Kilworth Drive as an example of a dormer bungalow alongside a gable-ended property, which was observed on my site visit. “However, the property is located a substantial distance from the appeal site and is not contextually similar.” They said that the proposal “conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole” and dismissed the appeal.
.
