Owner’s Dispute with Villagers Over Unauthorized Bungalow on Historic Estate

A Controversial Bungalow in the Heart of a Greenbelt Area

In a quiet neighborhood, a bungalow has sparked a planning controversy that has divided local residents. The property, located within the green belt and on the grounds of the Grade II-listed Ladyshore House, was originally intended to be a double garage. However, instead, a single-storey dwelling was constructed, leading to calls for its removal.

The story began in June 2019 when Bolton Council approved plans for a double garage at the site. But by April 2022, work had already been completed on the bungalow, and a retrospective planning application for the alternative structure was submitted in May—more than three years later. This delay has raised concerns among locals about the process and the integrity of planning regulations.

A separate retrospective planning application is also being sought for an adjacent ‘hobby room’ built on the site of a former stable block. The changes have not gone unnoticed, with some residents questioning the legitimacy of the development.

The History and Modernization of Ladyshore House

Ladyshore House, once the offices of a colliery built in 1833, has undergone significant modernization. It now features a day spa, a jacuzzi, and is currently listed for sale at £795,000. Despite these upgrades, the controversy surrounding the bungalow has overshadowed the property’s appeal.

Residents are particularly upset that Megan Dudley, the applicant, did not initially seek permission to build another home on the site. One local expressed frustration, stating, “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.” Others echoed similar sentiments, arguing that the house should be demolished if it violates planning rules.

Concerns Over Development and Greenbelt Integrity

Phil Amos, a 59-year-old resident, emphasized the importance of adhering to planning regulations. He said, “Planning regulations are planning regulations and should be stuck to.” He added that while the area is lovely, developments like this threaten the character of the neighborhood. “If you allow one thing to be built then others will follow,” he warned.

Amos also mentioned that he had to go through the proper channels for his own extension, even though it was permitted development. “Why should others get away with it?” he asked. He suggested that the bungalow should be removed, even if it leads to a conflict with the council.

Another group of residents took matters into their own hands by purchasing an adjacent field to prevent a developer from building more houses there. “They all clubbed together to buy the land,” said one woman. “They feared a developer would buy it and build more houses, which would have been bad for everyone.”

Planning Statement and Justifications

A planning heritage statement from Roman Summer Associates, acting on behalf of Ms. Dudley, claims that the bungalow is largely identical to the original garage plans. According to the document, the new structure is only slightly different in height, length, and width, and has been reoriented. The garage doors have been replaced by French windows and additional windows, while the roof includes four Velux windows.

The statement argues that the changes are superficial and that the bungalow respects the scale and form of the existing buildings. It claims that the new structure will not negatively impact the street scene or the greenbelt area. Additionally, the hobby room is described as being similar in size and positioning to the original stable block it replaced.

The bungalow is intended to be a self-build home for Ms. Dudley, who wants to live close to her aging parents residing in the adjacent Ladyshore House. The statement also suggests that the site should be considered “grey belt” rather than green belt due to previous development.

Mixed Reactions from the Community

Not all residents are opposed to the bungalow, despite the retrospective planning application. Some argue that the structure is reasonably sized and does not affect other residents. “You can’t really see it because of where it’s located,” one person remarked. Another said the bungalow was unobtrusive and did not cause any issues.

When Mail Online visited the property, no one was home, leaving the situation unresolved. Bolton Council has been contacted for further comment.

This case highlights the complexities of planning regulations and the challenges faced by communities in preserving the character of their neighborhoods. As the debate continues, the future of the bungalow remains uncertain.