The construction of a large new house in Blackrod has sparked strong local opposition due to its impact on cherished views of Rivington Pike, with residents criticising Bolton Council’s approval despite widespread objections.
Residents in Blackrod, Greater Manchester, have expressed strong opposition to a large house currently being constructed that they say will destroy their cherished views of the nearby moorland beauty spot, Rivington Pike. Despite significant local resistance and objections from Blackrod Town Council, Bolton Council approved the development, which has sparked considerable controversy in the community.
The new property, described by many locals as a “monstrosity,” is being built on two previously separate plots that were purchased by a developer named Barry Jackson, who has declined to comment on the backlash. Neighbours report that the building is now rising close to their fences and casting shadows into gardens that were previously sunlit, impacting not only the visual aesthetics but also the living environment of those nearby.
Vincent Walden, 88, a retired security guard who has lived in the area with his wife Gladys for 65 years, said of the project: “It’s crackers. We love the view over to Rivington Pike from our garden but this will destroy it. The decision by the council to build is madness. It’s very upsetting. It will be horrendous when it’s built.”
The development is seen as particularly harmful because it obstructs views towards Rivington Pike, a scenic hilltop that has been a long-standing attraction for walkers and nature enthusiasts. From the summit of the Pike, one can see landmarks such as Blackpool Tower, the Lake District’s Cumbrian Fells, and even the Isle of Man on clear days. The hill is also notable for its historic Grade II-listed tower, originally constructed in 1733 as a hunting lodge.
Other residents echoed Mr Walden’s concerns. Lisa Eatock, 52, described the approval as a “crazy decision,” adding, “It will ruin our beautiful view and is so out of keeping with the place.” Similarly, David Anderton, 75, called the house a “monstrosity” and criticised the decision to grant planning permission, saying, “We are all angry about it as it will destroy our view. It should never have been allowed.”
Local objections also focused on the size and scale of the construction. Christine Dixon, a 57-year-old IT worker, remarked, “Most people have objected to it. It is just too large and out of keeping with the area. It will totally ruin the views over to the moors for a lot of people and there will be traffic and access problems.” Joan Calderbank, 77, described the council’s decision as “mad” and spoke about the impact on the community’s outlook: “It’s a pretty depressing thing to have happened.”
Younger residents have voiced concern over the increased noise and parking difficulties the new building might bring. Student Jess Dobson, 28, said: “I’m shocked by the scale of it. It’s like another huge house. I thought it was just going to be an extension. The parking round here [is already bad] and the noise is only going to get worse.”
The controversy also extends to privacy issues for some residents. One mother of two young children said, “It’s outrageous. We’ll have to keep our daughters’ bedroom curtains closed. People are very unhappy with the decision.” Independent Blackrod Town councillor John Price described the approval as “a scandalous decision” and expressed sympathy for affected residents, stating, “I feel sorry for the residents. They are lovely people but they feel their views have just been ignored.” He added that it was unlikely Bolton Council would reverse the decision.
Bolton Council’s planning officer responsible for the approval noted in their report that the development complies with regulations regarding building height and proximity to neighbouring properties, although this has not assuaged local discontent.
At present, construction is ongoing, and the debate over the impact of this new house remains a divisive issue within Blackrod. Bolton Council has been approached for comment but has yet to provide a public response.
Source: Noah Wire Services
- https://www.gbnews.com/news/council-row-north-west-bolton-neighbours-fume-monstrosity-house – Corroborates residents’ opposition to the Bolton Council-approved construction in Blackrod, including direct quotes from Lisa Eatock and councillor John Price about the development’s impact on views and community concerns.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivington – Provides historical context for Rivington’s significance and its protected status under the Liverpool Corporation Act 1902, relevant to understanding why obstructing views to Rivington Pike is contentious.
- https://lancashirepast.com/2023/09/16/a-history-of-lever-park-and-rivington-terrace-gardens-near-horwich/ – Details Rivington’s historical and environmental value, including past controversies over development near Lever Park, aligning with current debates about preserving moorland views.
- https://www.angelfire.com/in/rivington/rivington_manor.html – Offers background on Rivington’s land ownership history and estate disputes, contextualizing the area’s long-standing sensitivity to development impacts.
- https://www.angelfire.com/in/rivington/rivington_pike.html – Describes Rivington Pike Tower’s origins as a 1733 hunting lodge, supporting the article’s claim about its historical significance as a scenic landmark.
- https://www.gbnews.com/news/council-row-north-west-bolton-neighbours-fume-monstrosity-house – Confirms developer Barry Jackson’s involvement and refusal to comment, as well as construction-related access issues mentioned by residents.
- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14645181/neighbour-building-monstrosity-home-scandalous-council-allowed.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490 – Please view link – unable to able to access data
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
5
Notes:
Narrative mentions ongoing construction but lacks specific event dates. No evidence of recycled content found, though time-sensitive council decisions could benefit from timestamped updates.
Quotes check
Score:
8
Notes:
Multiple original resident quotes appear unreproduced elsewhere online, including specific commentary from Vincent Walden. No duplicate phrasing found across mainstream coverage.
Source reliability
Score:
4
Notes:
Narrative originates from Daily Mail, a mainstream outlet with editorial standards, though political leanings may influence framing. No independent verification from Reuters/BBC found.
Plausability check
Score:
7
Notes:
Claims about planning disputes align with typical local governance processes. Construction impacts described are physically plausible though unverified through secondary evidence.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): OPEN
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
While resident complaints appear authentic and planning disputes are inherently plausible, the narrative’s reliance on a single outlet and lack of independent verification of council procedures warrants caution. No overt factual inaccuracies detected.