EXCLUSIVE Owner of Grade II listed £800k estate at war with neighbours after building BUNGALOW in back garden without permission
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.
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.'
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
4 days ago
- The Sun
World's ‘most expensive bungalow' is being DEMOLISHED in UK seaside beauty spot after two-year battle
AN ENTREPRENEUR who spent £13.5 million on the "worlds most expensive" bungalow has been given the greenlight to demolish it. Tom Glanfield, 46, bought the property on Dorset's exclusive Sandbanks Resort, described as a millionaire's row, in March 2023. 7 7 He had planned to knock down the cottage and replace it with a modern family home. Planners had other ideas however and recommended his application be refused. They claimed that it would "result in the total loss of the non-designated heritage asset." Planners also believed that it would cause "significant harm" to the Sandbanks Conservation Area. Mr Glanfield, who lives in Poole, Dorset, said that the current house was no longer "fit for purpose." He claims he designed a family home that was "sympathetic to the beautiful surroundings of the conservation area." During a meeting with planners today, July 18, Mr Glanfield had a breakthrough after insisting he was "not a property developer" and was not " flipping the bungalow for profit." He said: "I'm not a property developer looking to put in a big block of flats here. I'm not flipping this for profit. "I am very much a family man who is trying to make a family home. I will probably die in that home. "I care deeply about the environment. I have a renewable energy recruitment firm that I built from scratch. "This property is currently energy rated F. It would become energy rated A. "The house's current state also isn't good. I don't allow my kids down to the harbour wall because it is dangerous. "Instead, I am creating a living sea wall at great expense. I won't even see that from the property - it's all for public benefit. "So the proposal would improve the environment. 7 7 7 "Currently, the property looks out of place. On either side of it you have flat-roof modern houses. "And in my opinion the property isn't of any heritage significance - it was the servant quarters to the main house which has since been demolished. "It's been altered significantly over the years with permitted developments and extensions. "It's time for it to be developed. You actually all have an opportunity with me, without sounding arrogant, in that I've got the time, energy, and money to make this something you can all be proud of. "So I really hope you grant it." Planners took his words on board and granted him the permission he had sought for two long years. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (BCPC) officers granted Mr Glanfields proposal by seven to one. Many said they did not consider the current property as a "heritage asset" - adding that, if it was, it was of "very limited value." Others said the loss of the heritage asset would be justified as the "benefits outweigh." One councillor listed the benefits of Mr Glanfield's proposal as: "Energy efficiency, ecological benefits provided by the living sea wall, bringing the property back into local use, and a design that is more sympathetic to the environment than what is currently there." Mr Glanfield now hopes to transform the bungalow, dubbed the "world's most expensive" into a sustainable two-storey family home. He said that the property currently suffered with a leaking roof, mould and mildew. The new-build, the entrepreneur says, will be complete with renewable power and a desalination facility - and will see the sea wall, which is currently "unsafe", "unsightly", and crumbling, enhanced and restructured. 7 7 He previously said: "My dream is to build a family home that will not only retain the modest beauty of the plot but will also stand the test of time." Mr Glanfield received significant backing for his proposal from the local community - with 38 letters of support submitted to the council. Among those was one from neighbour Ros Smart, who labelled the plans as an "outstandingly innovative design for an iconic site." She continued: "The modern sleek appearance is entirely in keeping with houses in the surrounding area and is totally suitable for the conservation area." Others agreed that the design was "sympathetic" to the location - describing the "modern sleek appearance" as "entirely in keeping with houses in the surrounding area". Planners however argued that the proposal should be refused on "conservation grounds" and said alternative options "involving the retention of the cottage" could have been explored. Planning officer Babatunde Aregbesola told the meeting that the existing building was considered very important to the Sandbanks Conservation Area (CA) given its age, which he described as "very early Edwardian, one of the oldest in the area." He said: "The proposal by reason of the demolition of the existing cottage would result in the total loss of the non-designated heritage asset causing significant harm and failing to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Sandbanks Conservation Area." He also argued that the benefits proposed by Mr Glanfield do not outweigh the harm. He said: "The applicant, via legal representation, identifies the following public benefits: visual and environmental enhancements from a proposed sea wall and landscaping; design choices including use of local materials and a sedum roof; and improved energy efficiency (F to A rated). "But while the scheme would deliver a more energy efficient home and some economic activity, it would replace an existing, habitable dwelling and would not increase housing supply. "The reduced flood risk benefits are private in nature. These benefits are modest and do not outweigh the identified heritage harm "The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and its significance. "The proposal would also cause harm to non-designated heritage assets which adds further substantial weight against the development. "In conclusion, the development conflicts with the relevant policies and lacks sufficient public benefit to justify the harm. "The application should therefore be refused." Following Mr Glanfield's speech however, one councillor told the meeting: "The house itself as it stands is not particularly special, charming or dynamic. It's just an ordinary house. "But what is being proposed is a special, ecologically designed property that is going to enhance the area and make a huge difference to what the Conservation Area looks like. "I can't support the officer's recommendation [to refuse the application]." Another said: "I'm struggling to see how this is a heritage asset. Let these people build the home they want and have a positive impact on the surrounding area." He will now be able to push ahead with his new family home. The Sun has contacted BCPC and planners for comment. Do I need planning permission to convert my shed? CONVERTING an existing shed or outbuilding into a self-contained living space will usually require you apply for planning permission. However, there is a "loophole" Brits can use to convert outbuildings into a tiny home without permission. Planning expert Martin Gaine from Just Planning warned the conversion process is far easier than you may think. Speaking to The Sun, the Chartered Town Planner of 14 years' experience explained: " An outbuilding can be built using 'permitted development rights ', meaning it does not need planning permission. "As long as you comply with the various restrictions and conditions." One of these is that the outbuilding can only be used for something 'ancillary' to your main living accommodation - examples include storage, a gym or a pool room. If the outbuilding is existing, converting it then into primary living accommodation IS allowed. Martin explained: "This is because internal changes to an existing building are not considered to be development at all under the Town and Country Planning Act. But like anything, there is one catch. The new living accommodation must still have some connection with your use of the main house. For instance, if your gran is living out there, she must still come into the house to eat.
Daily Mail
5 days ago
- Daily Mail
Entrepreneur who splashed £13.5m on 'world's most expensive bungalow' in Sandbanks can demolish and rebuild it as modern eco-home
An entrepreneur who spent £13.5 million on a home dubbed 'the world's most expensive' bungalow has finally been given the green light to demolish and rebuild it - after a two-year battle with planners. Tom Glanfield, 46, bought a rundown property on the exclusive Sandbanks resort - described as Dorset's millionaire's row - back in March 2023. He had plans to knock down the Edwardian cottage and replace it with a modern family eco-home. But planners recommended his application be refused on the basis that it would 'result in the total loss of the non-designated heritage asset'. This, they said, would cause 'significant harm' to the Sandbanks Conservation Area. Mr Glanfield however, who lives in Poole, Dorset, insisted that the current house was 'no longer fit for purpose' - and said he had designed a new family home that was 'sympathetic to the beautiful surroundings of the conservation area.' And during a meeting with planners today (July 17), the self-made millionaire and dad insisted he was 'not a property developer' and was not 'flipping [the bungalow] for profit'. He said: 'I'm not a property developer looking to put in a big block of flats here. I'm not flipping this for profit. 'I am very much a family man who is trying to make a family home. I will probably die in that home. 'I care deeply about the environment. I have a renewable energy recruitment firm that I built from scratch. 'This property is currently energy rated F. It would become energy rated A. 'The house's current state also isn't good. I don't allow my kids down to the harbour wall because it is dangerous. 'Instead, I am creating a living sea wall at great expense. I won't even see that from the property - it's all for public benefit. 'So the proposal would improve the environment. 'Currently, the property looks out of place. On either side of it you have flat-roof modern houses. 'And in my opinion the property isn't of any heritage significance - it was the servant quarters to the main house which has since been demolished. 'It's been altered significantly over the years with permitted developments and extensions. 'It's time for it to be developed. You actually all have an opportunity with me, without sounding arrogant, in that I've got the time, energy, and money to make this something you can all be proud of. 'So I really hope you grant it.' Ultimately, his words proved persuasive since after two long years, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (BCP Council) finally gave him the green light for his plans. Officers voted to greenlight the proposal by seven to one. Many said they did not consider the current property as a 'heritage asset' - adding that, if it was, it was of 'very limited value'. Others said the loss of the heritage asset would be justified as the 'benefits outweigh'. One councillor listed the benefits as: 'Energy efficiency, ecological benefits provided by the living sea wall, bringing the property back into local use, and a design that is more sympathetic to the environment than what is currently there.' Mr Glanfield plans to transform the rundown bungalow - which he says has a leaking roof, mould, and mildew - into a sustainable two-storey family eco home. The new-build, the entrepreneur says, will be complete with renewable power and a desalination facility - and will see the sea wall, which is currently 'unsafe', 'unsightly', and crumbling, enhanced and restructured. He previously said: 'My dream is to build a family home that will not only retain the modest beauty of the plot but will also stand the test of time.' Mr Glanfield received significant backing for his proposal from the local community - with 38 letters of support submitted to the council. Among those was one from neighbour Ros Smart, who labelled the plans as an 'outstandingly innovative design for an iconic site'. She continued: 'The modern sleek appearance is entirely in keeping with houses in the surrounding area and is totally suitable for the conservation area.' Others agreed that the design was 'sympathetic' to the location - describing the 'modern sleek appearance' as 'entirely in keeping with houses in the surrounding area'. Planners however argued that the proposal should be refused on 'conservation grounds' - and said alternative options 'involving the retention of the cottage' could have been explored. Planning officer Babatunde Aregbesola told the meeting that the existing building was considered very important to the Sandbanks Conservation Area (CA) given its age, which he described as 'very early Edwardian, one of the oldest in the area'. He said: 'The proposal by reason of the demolition of the existing cottage would result in the total loss of the non-designated heritage asset causing significant harm and failing to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Sandbanks Conservation Area.' He also argued that the benefits proposed by Mr Glanfield do not outweigh the harm. He said: 'The applicant, via legal representation, identifies the following public benefits: visual and environmental enhancements from a proposed sea wall and landscaping; design choices including use of local materials and a sedum roof; and improved energy efficiency (F to A rated). 'But while the scheme would deliver a more energy efficient home and some economic activity, it would replace an existing, habitable dwelling and would not increase housing supply. 'The reduced flood risk benefits are private in nature. These benefits are modest and do not outweigh the identified heritage harm 'The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and its significance. The proposal would also cause harm to non-designated heritage assets which adds further substantial weight against the development. 'In conclusion, the development conflicts with the relevant policies and lacks sufficient public benefit to justify the harm. 'The application should therefore be refused.' But Mr Glanfield managed to convey his side of the story to BCP Council. Following Mr Glanfield's speech, one councillor told the meeting: 'The house itself as it stands is not particularly special, charming or dynamic. It's just an ordinary house. 'But what is being proposed is a special, ecologically designed property that is going to enhance the area and make a huge difference to what the Conservation Area looks like. 'I can't support the officer's recommendation [to refuse the application].' Another said: 'I'm struggling to see how this is a heritage asset. Let these people build the home they want and have a positive impact on the surrounding area.' Mr Glanfield is working on the development with local architect firms Marlow and Arc and award-winning landscape designer Andy Sturgeon. He will now be able to push ahead with his new eco-home.
Daily Mail
11-07-2025
- Daily Mail
Homeowner is ordered to tear down £180k bungalow he built in in his back garden without planning permission because he 'thought it was fine'
A homeowner has been ordered to tear down an £180,000 bungalow he built in his back garden because he failed to get planning permission. Mark Jones, 55, replaced an old garage in his back garden with a two-bedroom 'granny flat', hooking up the electricity, water and internet to his house in March 2019. Taking six months to complete, the 83 sq meter brick annex features a kitchen diner, two bedrooms, a bathroom and storeroom. However, Mr Jones did not apply for planning permission, arguing that he 'thought it was fine' due to the building's size and the utilities being connected to the main house. Despite submitting a retrospective planning application, Birmingham City Council said that the ' alien ' building must be teared down in 2021. Following an unsuccessful second application, he has now been ordered to demolish the bungalow by the end of the month or face possible legal action. The father-of-two said: 'The bungalow was within the permitted development rights and could have habitable rooms. 'It was meant for my father and is reliant on the main house. There are several properties nearby with two-storey buildings in their gardens so I thought it was fine. 'It started at £60,000 but it didn't have a kitchen so I added one on the plans.' Birmingham City Council's objection to the bungalow came after several neighbours submitted complaints about its 'over-intensive' size. Other complaints included concerns over parking, privacy for neighbours and light coming from the new bungalow. The white-washed building features its own gravel drive and patio seating area. Its water and electrics are connected to the main house, a three-bedroom property worth around £355,000. Mr Jones, an IT engineer, had initially hoped that his unwell father, Tony, 71, would live in the property in Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands. However, Tony died of bowel cancer just a few months later. Mr Jones then moved into the bungalow after he and his wife divorced. Mr Jones, who insists there is 'no public interest' in the bungalow being removed, argued that the council are 'bullying him' by removing a 'perfectly reasonable' property. Pictured: a Google street view that shows his house in March 2017, prior to the construction of the bungalow in March 2019 He said: 'You look at other houses on the street and I can't see why we wouldn't get permission for it. For an area with a housing shortage, it's ridiculous. 'Loads of people have done this. If I tear it down I've got nowhere else to go so I'll probably be on the streets.' Adding that the bungalow was 'never meant to be a separate building', he said: 'It doesn't have its own water, internet, council tax or waste. It is still part of the main house. I should have waited for planning permission but people can see why I haven't. 'I was in a hurry to get my dad moved in. When you look at Google maps and see all the buildings in the gardens, you can see why I thought it was safe.' 'From the street or a neighbour's garden, you wouldn't see anything. You can't see into windows. There was a garage there before.' Mr Jones has now applied for a new permitted development certificate application with the council. However, even if it is granted, he will still have to tear down the original bungalow and build it again to comply with the council's rules Mr Jones has now applied for a new permitted development certificate application with the council. However, even if it is granted, he will still have to tear down the original bungalow and build it again to comply with the council's rules. A spokeswoman for Birmingham City Council said: 'Mr Jones is currently in breach of the enforcement notice that was served to him in 2021, and we have given him ample time to comply with the notice by the end of June 2025. 'A decision will be made imminently on the lawful development certificate that Mr Jones has submitted, and a case officer will then be in contact with him to advise further.'
