An ex-joiner who built an extension onto his Wigan home for his wife to use as she battles cancer has been ordered to tear it down.

And dismayed Andrew Jolly says this irreversible instruction from the Secretary of State could have been avoided had local authority planners not misplaced his appeal.

Wigan Council says refusal of retrospective planning permission was upheld by the independent Planning Inspectorate and it will be ensuring the dormer extension’s removal takes place later this year.

Mr Jolly, 64, spent between £40,000 and £50,000 on the modifications to the newly-bought bungalow in Ashley Road, Hindley Green, and it will now cost another £20,000 to put things back the way they were.

Andrew Jolly outside his home in Hindley Green on which he built a dormer extension which may now have to be demolished

placeholder image — Andrew Jolly outside his home in Hindley Green on which he built a dormer extension which may now have to be demolished

He admits he started building before seeking planning permission, but says he was reassured there would be no problem getting it passed retrospectively because it was of high quality and most other homes on his street already have similar extensions.

He also says he offered to stop at an early stage – when the building work could have been more easily and cheaply reversed – but was informed by council staff that he should press on because of the near certainty of approval and because he needed to weatherproof the house.

It means Mr Jolly now has a huge bill to pay as 59-year-old wife Alison continues to undergo treatment for lung and bowel cancer.

They had decided to downsize to the bungalow because of her illness and with the money saved, experienced joiner Mr Jolly - aided by his two sons who are also professionals in the trade – spent the difference on the dormer extension.

Large parts of the new house were not in a good state and he wanted to press on with the modifications quickly for Alison’s sake, confident that he would be able to gain planning permission later.

Mr Jolly said: “We had got the wooden structure up when a lady from Wigan planning came and told me we needed to put in a retrospective planning application.

"I asked if I should stop work and was told ‘absolutely not. It’s highly unlikely it be rejected because most other homes in the street have dormers too, and you need to weather-proof it anyway’.

“So we carried on, while getting an architect to put together a plan which was submitted to the council but sent back because more information was needed.

"We sent this in and were told the application had been rejected but we could appeal.

“We carried on working because we had been told to. A guy from building control at the council came out and said the work was good but we needed to put another support in the hipped gable which we did.

"He complimented us on the quality of the handiwork and materials.”

Mr Jolly says he put together an appeal which he ran by local councillor James Palmer who said that would be fine and it was submitted. They then heard nothing for many weeks.

Finally an enforcement notice from the secretary of state arrived saying they had to pull it all down by June 6.

Mr Jolly said: “I was shocked and rang my architect who said he had received a call from a planning officer apologising to say she had never seen the appeal letter and assumed we were not contesting the original decision.

"She admitted that it should never have come to the enforcement notice being issued. She admitted having seen the letter after the enforcement notice went out.”

Mr Jolly says the notice says the decision is final so he's at a loss as to what to do now.

Of the issues flagged up about the dormer, the main one was that it was not positioned over the ground floor bay window, but Mr Jolly argues that from a structural point of view this is impossible and this is proved by the fact that other dormers on the street are similarly positioned.

There was also criticism of the medium oak cladding which, after some power washing by his sons of the surrounding roof, was said to clash with the look of other properties, but again he argues that no two roofs in the street look the same and his is of far better quality than most.

And there were issues with the ridge tiles being higher than the neighbouring homes but he said they were only 22mm thicker and the law allows for them to be up to 150mm thicker.

Another issue was the wrap-around dormer (so called because it goes over the hip) which was created so that the cylinder and pipes from the new heat pump could be accommodated.

The planning refusal said the dormer was too big but Mr Jolly says it's only three tiles bigger than next door and again he says building control were happy with it.

He says everything has been done to the highest spec, including fire-retardant cladding, and has been given all sorts of quality control endorsements.

Mr Jolly said: “I know I only applied for planning permission retrospectively but 99 per cent of these get approved and more than one council person told me I’d be fine.

"If anyone had said it was doomed to be rejected, I would have reversed it at an early stage. As it is I am now faced with this huge bill. And if that appeal hadn’t been overlooked we probably wouldn’t have got to this stage either.”

A Wigan Council spokesperson said: “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.

“The refusal of retrospective planning permission was upheld by the independent Planning Inspectorate, and we will therefore be liaising with the residents to ensure compliance is achieved.”