Appeal 3359649

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.

No [site address] (No 3) sits in a prominent position at the entrance to a residential estate characterised by a mix of two and three-storey dwellings. The prevailing pattern of development across the estate is of two-storey dwellings with gabled roofs, such as the host property, and three-storey dwellings with shallower hipped roofs. Variations in building line exist throughout the estate.

The proposed development is for the infilling of the front facing car port to create internal ground floor accommodation, and the provision of an extension to form a third storey, maintaining the gabled roof design.

The host property sits forward of its neighbour at No [address] (No 1) and is therefore prominent and highly visible from [address] East. The addition of a third storey in this location would be at odds with the properties immediately adjacent to No 3, which are predominantly two-storey in height. The additional massing that would be created by an additional storey, in such a prominent location, would be incongruous within the street scene to the detriment of the character and appearance of both the host property and the surrounding area.

Furthermore, the proposed deep gabled roof design would exacerbate the proposed development’s dominance over its neighbours and the street scene and would fail to be in-keeping in terms of design with other three-storey properties in the wider area that mainly have shallower and less visually dominant hipped roofs.

The appellant has drawn my attention to two dwellings at Nos 5 and [address] (No 5 and No 19 respectively) that have benefitted from planning permission to create additional storeys as examples of similar development in the area.

These two-storey properties were observed during my site visit. However, no detailed evidence has been provided to show the scale and design of the proposed extensions, and the properties, although located close to the appeal site, are within different contexts. No 5 is in a more discrete position to the rear of No 3 and is located off a private cul-de-sac driveway. No 19 is located immediately adjacent to existing three-storey properties on a section of street that opens onto the public square where such properties are much more commonplace. In the absence of detailed design evidence and given that the schemes are not contextually comparable, I have determined the appeal proposal on its own merits.

For the above reasons, I find significant harm to the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area, contrary to policies D1, D2 and D8 of the Salford Local Plan: Development Management Policies and Designations document (2023). These policies, amongst other matters, seek to ensure that development proposals protect, enhance and respond to any positive character and distinctiveness of the local area, are positive additions to the surrounding area, and respect the general scale, character and proportions of the original building.

I note that no objections have been received from neighbours. However, a lack of objections does not equate to a lack of harm, and I have determined the proposal on its own planning merits.

Salford City Council’s officer’s report does not highlight any specific concerns in relation to the infilling of the existing car port to create additional internal ground floor accommodation. [name] have no reason to conclude otherwise with regards to this element of the proposal, I have found significant harm to the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area associated with the proposed additional storey and as such the proposal cannot be supported.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole, and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons above, I conclude that the appeal does not succeed.