A bungalow that was built instead of a double garage is at the centre of a planning controversy in a quiet neighbourhood that’s led to calls for it to be pulled down.
The home, within an area of green belt, lies within the grounds of the Grade II-listed Ladyshore House on a private road in Little Lever, Bolton.
Plans for a double garage at the site were approved by Bolton Council in June 2019.
But documents reveal that work on a single storey dwelling was completed in April 2022 and that a retrospective planning application for the alternative structure was submitted only in May – more than three years later.
Retrospective planning permission is also being sought for an adjacent ‘hobby room’ which has been erected on the site of a former stable block.
Four-bedroomed Ladyshore House, the former offices of a colliery built in 1833, has undergone extensive modernisation, which includes a day spa and a jacuzzi, and is currently on the market for £795,000.
But some residents are angry that the applicant, Megan Dudley, did not seek initially seek permission to build another home on the site.
One said: ‘It’s a bit cheeky to be doing that. If you’ve applied to build a garage it should be a garage and not something else.
A bungalow that was built instead of double garage is at the centre of a planning controversy
Plans for a double garage at the site were approved by Bolton Council in June 2019
The imposing bungalow can be seen from the gated entrance to the estate
The approved plans which were submitted in 2019 show how the garage was supposed to look
‘So the house should be knocked down.’
‘Everything should be above board, not done through the back door.’
The man added that as the home, which lies within the Irwell valley, is ‘in a greenbelt area I understand why the council should fight it’.
Phil Amos, 59, said: ‘Planning regulations are planning regulations and should be stuck to.
‘This a lovely place to live but it’s being spoilt by some developments which spoil the character of the area.
‘And if you allow one thing to be built then others will follow.
‘I had to go the council for my extension even though it was permitted development
‘I had to follow the rules carefully, so why should others get away with it’.
Phil also said that as the home was built instead of garage it should ‘come down’, even if it led to a stand-off with the council.
Other residents revealed how a group of them had bought an adjacent field that was put up for sale by the owner of Ladyshore House.
‘They all clubbed together to buy the land,’ said one woman.
‘The feared a developer would but it and just build more houses on there.
‘That would have been bad for everybody.’
Some locals believe that house must be bulldozed if things are to remain fair in the area
Other residents revealed how a group of them had bought an adjacent field that was put up for sale by the owner of Ladyshore House to stop it being developed
A planning heritage statement has been produced by planning and architecture consultancy Roman Summer Associates on behalf of Ms Dudley.
It states that compared with the approved double garage plans, the house is 120mm higher, 130mm longer and 210mm wider and has been slightly re-orientated.
The garage doors have been replaced by a pair of French windows and three widows, with four velux windows in the roof of the home.
But the statement claims that the dwelling is ‘largely identical’ to the garage, which was acceptable as it was ‘of a size and scale which is in proportion to the main house’, ‘respects the build form and pattern of existing development’ and ‘will not adversely affect the street scene’.
The design ‘would preserve the character’ of the listed building and ‘not have a detrimental impact on the adjoining neighbours’, it says, and not compromise the greenbelt.
Changes to the original plans are described as ‘superficial’ while the hobby-room is of similar isize and positioning to the stable block it replaced.
The new building will be ‘self-build home for the applicant’, the statement continues, ‘who wishes to reside close to her ageing parents (who reside in the adjacent Ladyshore House)’.
It also adds that site should be considered ‘grey belt’ rather than green belt as there had been previous development.
Some residents said the did not object to the bungalow, despite the retrospective planning application.
‘It doesn’t bother me,’ one said.
‘You can’t really see it because of where it’s located.’
Another said that it was ‘reasonably-sized’ and didn’t impact on other residents.
When Mail Online visited the property, there was no-one home.
Bolton Council were contacted for comment.
