Homeowner is instructed to bulldoze £50,000 annex he constructed for his spouse’s most cancers therapy wants as a result of its color ‘harms the realm’ – however he’s furiously refusing to again down

An ex-joiner ordered to tear down his home’s £50,000 extension because the colour ‘harms’ the area is refusing to back down.

Andrew Jolly, 64, spent thousands building a dormer for himself and his wife Alison, after the couple downsized and moved in to a bungalow in Wigan, Greater Manchester.

The retired joiner decided to get retrospective planning permission for the extension, opting to start work as soon as he moved in as large parts of the house were not in a good state.

He says planning officers and building inspectors verbally assured him he would be likely to get permission, but Wigan Council says it has no records of such assurances.

Now he faces a bill of over £20,000 to take down the structure, which houses the couple’s bedroom, en-suite bathroom, and the home’s heat pump system.

Mr Jolly said: ‘We’ve got a heat pump, we don’t have gas – we’ve gone all green and done all that.

‘It’s impossible to take it down. In fact, I’m not taking it down.

‘They can fine me or do whatever they want, I’m not taking it down, I’ve not got the funds to take it down.’

Andrew Jolly outside his home in Wigan, where he has been told to take down his £50,000 extension

The retiree decided to build the upstairs extension to provide an en-suite bathroom for his wife, who was treated for bowel cancer five years ago and has to use an ileostomy bag.

Despite being retired, Andrew got his sons to carry out the work under his guidance and insisted he used high quality materials and complied with the council’s building control team’s suggestions to ensure it was up to code.

Work started in February 2024, but he was told he would need to submit a planning application after an officer turned up about two weeks later.

Andrew says he was told he shouldn’t stop building when he asked, and he submitted an application in May. Work on the dormer was completed in July.

However, in late October, his retrospective planning application was refused, with his local council telling him the extension causes ‘harm to the overall design and appearance of the dwelling’.

He was then issued an enforcement notice to tear down the structure he had spent months building.

The decision has left Mr Jolly dumbfounded, as several other homes on the street already have their own dormers.

He added: ‘I want the plans passed and for us to move on.

‘The lady that came and took pictures said ‘I can’t believe you’re being made to pull this down.’

‘The lady next door can’t believe it, over the road they can’t believe.

‘All the other ones in the street, they’re all s****y s****y looking dormers, ours’ is up to date, fire-proof cladding and everything.

The dormer on Andrew Jolly’s bungalow in Wigan, which is the subject of an enforcement notice by the local council

‘The building control guy said ‘for what it’s cost you to build this you could do two extensions with the amount of spec you’ve put in to this’.’

Following the council’s decision, Mr Jolly has tried to appeal the decision.

The government’s Planning Inspectorate even got involved – but their findings have backed the council.

A report written by an inspector at the Planning Inspectorate says the dormer ‘dominates and unbalances the property’ and ‘the use of mid-brown coloured cladding’ is ‘at odds with the property itself.’

The inspector adds that they find the extension has caused ‘significant harm to the character and appearance of the property and area’.

Wigan Council says it is now trying to work on a compromise solution with the unhappy homeowner.

A Wigan Council spokesperson said: ‘We investigated this extension after receiving a complaint, in line with our planning policy.

‘It is the responsibility of residents to ensure any developments of their property adhere to the relevant planning regulations. Although planning permission can be granted retrospectively in some cases, this cannot be guaranteed.

‘Having undertaken a full review of our case files in relation to this matter, we can find no record of the assurances that Mr Jolly says were given.

‘However we do recognise the difficult position that Mr Jolly is in, and we are reaching out to him to see if there is a compromise position which would be acceptable to both him and the Council, and find a resolution to what is clearly a stressful situation for him and his family.’