Key Points
- Bolton Council has approved a retrospective planning application for a fence around a property in Westhoughton.
- The property consists of two self-contained flats located on Park Road.
- Neighbours lodged objections citing safety, visibility, and boundary concerns.
- The fence was built without prior planning permission.
- The applicant, Mr. Dhanji Patel, sought retrospective approval after objections were raised.
- Objections included claims of restricted access, loss of visibility, and disruption to shared areas.
- Planning officers deemed the fence acceptable under local planning guidance.
- The decision came after a meeting of Bolton Council’s planning committee.
- The planning department ruled that the fence did not cause undue harm to neighbours or the street scene.
A planning dispute over a fence erected around two flats in Westhoughton has led to tensions among residents, culminating in Bolton Council granting retrospective approval for the structure despite formal objections. The case, centring on a property on Park Road, raised issues of boundaries, access rights, and neighbourhood harmony.
Why did the planning dispute arise?
As reported by Rachel Howarth of The Bolton News (20 December 2025), the controversy began when homeowner Mr. Dhanji Patel erected a wooden fence around his property, which is divided into two flats. The structure was installed before planning permission had been secured, sparking concern from neighbours who argued that the fence obstructed access and negatively affected the shared surroundings.
One neighbouring resident submitted a formal objection to Bolton Council, expressing that the fence “restricts visibility and creates a division that impacts shared space between the two flats.” The complaint prompted the local authority’s planning department to review the situation and assess whether the fence conformed to local development guidelines.
According to The Bolton News, the fence, standing approximately 1.8 metres tall, was intended by Mr. Patel to improve privacy and security for the occupants of the lower flat. However, neighbouring residents argued that its construction blurred the boundary distinctions between communal and private spaces.
What were the neighbours’ main concerns?
In documents submitted to the council, the objecting neighbour cited several issues:
- The fence blocks visual access to the shared driveway and compromises safety when vehicles exit the property.
- It allegedly changes the character of a previously open frontage, affecting the visual appeal of the wider street.
- Questions were raised regarding whether the fence encroached onto shared land associated with the flats.
As noted by The Bolton News, the objector stated that
“the fence was erected without consultation or consent from the occupant of the adjoining flat, affecting access arrangements agreed upon when the flats were first established.”
Another concern was whether the installation met building and planning standards, particularly given that retrospective applications are considered only when work has already been carried out.
How did Bolton Council respond to the objections?
Bolton Council's planning officers reviewed the site and sought legal clarification on ownership and usage rights. As reported by The Bolton News, officers concluded that while the fencing did affect the communal appearance of the frontage, it did not fundamentally contravene local planning policy.
A report prepared for the Bolton Council Planning Committee stated:
“The fence, while retrospective, is of modest height and appearance and does not cause unacceptable harm to neighbouring amenity or the wider street scene. It is therefore considered acceptable under Bolton’s Local Plan guidance.”
Officers further noted that the fence did not block access to any public highway and that safety sightlines at the driveway access were adequate.
Following the planning evaluation, members of the council’s committee voted to approve the application, giving Mr. Patel permission to retain the fence.
What did the property owner say about the fence?
According to The Bolton News, Mr. Dhanji Patel explained in his retrospective planning submission that the fence had been installed for practical reasons.
“The intention was to create a clear boundary between the flats and improve privacy and security for residents,”
he said.
Mr. Patel emphasised that the structure was not intended to cause inconvenience or disputes. He stated that following the objection, he cooperated with council officers to ensure compliance with requirements.
Was there any impact on local planning policy or precedent?
As confirmed in The Bolton News report, planning officers referenced that retrospective applications, while generally discouraged, are common in boundary disputes and minor works cases. The decision to grant permission is not considered to set a wider precedent but reflects that the installation does not breach overarching council planning criteria.
A Bolton Council spokesperson told The Bolton News:
“Each case is assessed on its individual merits. The retrospective nature of an application does not automatically make it unacceptable, provided it aligns with established planning guidance and does not harm neighbouring amenity.”
How does this reflect broader community tensions?
Boundary and property access disagreements remain a consistent theme in local planning disputes across Greater Manchester. Similar cases have emerged in recent years in Radcliffe and Bury, where fences and wall installations between converted properties have led to prolonged tensions.
In the Westhoughton case, residents told reporters they hoped the council’s decision would “draw a line under the matter.” One resident was quoted by The Bolton News as saying,
“It’s unfortunate the issue had to go this far, but hopefully neighbours can now move on.”
While no further appeals have been lodged, the discussion has reignited local debate about how shared residential spaces are managed—particularly where properties have been subdivided into multiple occupancy flats.
What happens next?
Following the granting of retrospective permission, Mr. Patel will not be required to make structural alterations to the fence, as it meets specified planning conditions. However, as clarified by the council, any future alterations or increases in height would need to go through the normal planning process.
Planning enforcement officers confirmed there would be no further action regarding the existing structure. The case has been formally closed unless new complaints arise.
Could similar disputes be prevented in the future?
Planning experts interviewed by The Bolton News suggested that early communication between neighbours remains key to preventing such disputes. According to urban planner Michael Thornton,
“Boundary disagreements tend to escalate when there’s a lack of upfront discussion. Even for minor constructions like fences, it’s always advisable to consult adjoining property users before carrying out work.”
Thornton added that local authorities are often caught “in the middle” of such domestic disagreements, having to mediate between personal grievances and regulatory compliance.