Bolton: Property owner ordered to demolish extension on Hunger Hill

The addition was made to the side of an address on Hunger Hill Avenue, Hunger Hill, without planning permission in around 2018.

On February 10, 2022, Bolton Council sent an enforcement notice to the homeowner which told them to demolish the extension, to repair all the damage caused by the work and to remove all the rubble caused by the work.

But the owner appealed to the Planning Inspectorate instead, and used the so-called four-year rule as a defence.

The extension was at the side of an address on Hunger Hill (Image: Newsquest)

The four-year rule means a development is considered authorised four years after it is completed, regardless of whether it was unauthorised at the start. It is therefore a defence against action such as an enforcement notice.

The owner claimed the development was completed before February 10, 2018, four years before Bolton Council took action, but they were not able to confirm the exact time.

And in evidence, they were only able to submit an aerial photograph from Google Maps dated March 2018 and another photograph from Google StreetView dated June 2018.

Zoë Franks, an inspector appointed by the Planning Inspectorate, said this was too 'ambiguous' and 'imprecise'.

The extension was at the side of an address on Hunger Hill (Image: Newsquest)

The decision notice states: "While the aerial photo appears to show a flat, white surface it is not possible to tell whether it is a flat roof, or if so whether the flat roof or the rest of the extension is finished or even built. 

"The StreetView photo which is shown dated June 2018 does not show a completed flat roof across the whole extent of the extension as there appears to be either an unfinished element or a pitched roof above the garage door at the time. 

"This is materially different to the continuous flat roof as shown in the later photographs and as it was at the date of the notice. 

"In any event, March 2018 and June 2018 are not more than four years before the date of the notice and the appellant has therefore not provided sufficient evidence to support their claim on balance."

The appeal was dismissed and the enforcement notice stands as a result.

The homeowner, a property company called Hazlocho Ltd, has been ordered to demolish the extension.