Case Reference: 3350534

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 10 December 2024
by R Jones BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 24 December 2024
Appeal Ref: APP/N4205/D/24/3350534
2 Saltwood Grove, Bolton BL1 2JB
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as
amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Bolton Council.
• The application Ref is 18221/24.
• The development proposed is single storey extension to front (porch).
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey
extension to front (porch) at 2 Saltwood Grove, Bolton BL1 2JB in accordance
with the terms of the application, Ref 18221/24, and the plans submitted with
it, subject to the following conditions:
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years
from the date of this decision.
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance
with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan (produced 26 Oct
2023); and Existing and Proposed Plans & Elevations – drawing ref.
9300/001/A.
3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of
the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing
building.
Main Issue
2. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed single storey (porch)
extension on the character and the appearance of the area.
Reasons
3. No.2 Saltwood Grove (No.2) is a two-storey end of terrace house, which forms
part of a tightknit grid of terraced housing to the north of Kentford Road. No.2
is accessed from a relatively narrow pedestrian passageway which runs
between the frontage of Nos.2 to 6, and the rear boundary of Nos.8 to 12
Saltwood Grove.
4. To the front of No.2 is an area of paving, enclosed by a low brick wall. On part
of this area of paving it is proposed to construct a single storey mono-pitched
roof porch extension which would project around 1.7m from the front elevation
of the house. It would be sited to one side of the front elevation extending a
width of around 5.3m and incorporating the front door and a single window.
5. I observed on my site visit that a characteristic of the grid of terraced housing
in the immediate area is a clear and consistent building line with the principal
elevation of houses typically fronting a passageway. That building line is,
however, broken by front door canopies of various design and quality. Although
porches are not a characteristic of Saltwood Grove, because of the modest
scale of the proposed extension, and its simple, functional design, it would
appear subordinate to No.2, and would not be unduly prominent or cause
particular harm to the appearance of the area. Whilst it would extend up to the
existing low brick wall, and therein narrow the space between the house and
pedestrian passageway, the principal elevation of No.2 would remain visible
and the proposed extension would not result in a significant change in the
overall consistency of building lines in the surrounding area.
6. I therefore conclude on the main issue that the proposed single storey (porch)
extension would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area.
It would accord with the guidance at paragraph 5.1 and 5.3 of the Council’s
House Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (2012) which requires
front extensions to appear subordinate to the host building and that all
extensions should not have an unacceptable effect on the wider streetscene or
the character of the locality. It would further accord with Policy JP-P1 of the
Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document (2024) and Policy CG4
of Bolton’s Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2011) which together
require that new development is compatible with surrounding landuses, and
respects and acknowledges the character and identity of the locality in terms of
design, siting and scale.
Conditions
7. In addition to the standard condition requiring implementation of the planning
permission within 3 years, in the interests of certainty, I have included a
condition which lists the approved drawings. To ensure the proposed extension
respects the appearance of the host house, I have also included a condition
which requires the external materials used in construction to match those
existing.
Conclusion
8. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal is allowed.
R.Jones
INSPECTOR