A homeowner in Greater Manchester has been ordered to tear down a newly built house extension after it was constructed 2.1 metres larger than the dimensions approved by the local planning authority.
Extension Deemed 'Overbearing' by Planning Committee
The case, heard by Bolton Council's planning committee, centred on a single-storey rear extension at a property in Farnworth. The applicant, Mr M Azeen, had sought retrospective permission to keep the flat-roofed structure, which extended five metres from the original house. This was significantly more than the approved plans permitted.
Planning officers argued the oversized structure was 'overbearing' and caused significant harm to the amenity of the neighbouring property. They stated it overshadowed the neighbour's dining room, kitchen, and a large section of their private garden, blocking natural light.
Sun Path and 45-Degree Rule Key to Rejection
A report detailed that due to the sun's path, the garden would be overshadowed, detrimentally affecting the neighbours' living conditions. Planners also found the extension breached a standard planning guideline known as the '45-degree rule'.
This rule involves drawing an imaginary line at a 45-degree angle from the centre of the nearest ground-floor window of the adjacent home. The extension was found to encroach upon this line, further justifying the refusal.
At the meeting on 10th January 2026, a supporter for the applicant argued that the extension was built to provide needed space for a growing family. They contended that an existing 1.8-metre fence already impacted the neighbour's window, and the extra 2.1 metres of extension would not cause significant extra harm.
Committee Votes for Demolition Order
Committee chair, Councillor Robert Morrisey, countered this view, stating the impact was clear from photographs. "The main issue here is that it's overbearing and overshadows," he said. "It's not justifiable, it has a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbours."
The committee subsequently voted 10 to 4 to reject the retrospective application. This was the second time Mr Azeen had tried to gain approval, with a previous application rejected in April 2025 on similar grounds.
Unless a successful appeal is lodged, the homeowner now faces two choices: completely demolish the extension or modify it to conform exactly with the originally approved dimensions. The case highlights the stringent enforcement of planning rules, even for relatively small deviations from approved plans.
