Appeal 6002351

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. The main issue in regard to which is its effect on the character and appearance of the host property, which is identified as a Non-Designated Heritage Asset (NDHA) and whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Cliff Conservation Area (CA).

An application for an award of costs was made by [name] against Salford City Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The appeal property is a three‐storey, red‐brick mid‐terraced dwelling with the uppermost floor set within the roof space. It forms part of a well‐preserved and rhythmical terrace of Victorian properties. The terrace is distinguished by segmented bow windows with unique pyramid style hipped roofs, vertically proportioned fenestration with predominantly timber frames, and small, steep‐pitched dormers to the principal elevation. Low brick boundary walls and mature planting reinforce the soft, leafy character of the street.

To the rear, the terrace remains notably intact. Only modest ground‐floor additions are evident. The dwellings are broadly ‘L’ shaped in plan with two‐storey pitched roof outriggers, the form and subservience of which are legible within an uncluttered roofscape. The original architectural qualities of the building contribute positively to its significance as a NDHA. The consistency in scale, roof forms, and Victorian detailing taken together play a key role in sustaining the area's historic character and visual harmony, contributing positively to the significance of the CA.

The proposed rear dormer extension would be more than half the width of the appeal building’s rear roof slope. While set down from the main ridge, it would project to occupy the full depth and width of the two‐storey outrigger below, presenting as a substantial, boxy and dominant addition. The shift from pitched to flat roof would read as a jarring and inharmonious addition. Owing to the scale and massing, it would remove the legibility of the outrigger as a subservient element within the wider roofscape, eroding the original shape and diminishing the terrace’s currently regular, unaltered pitched profiles.

Although the use of materials would be sympathetic, the development would be visible from public vantage points along [address], a cobbled back ginnel, and from the rear of neighbouring properties and the [name] Boys. While rear elevations are often less conspicuous, as the terrace is largely intact, the proposal would be more noticeable. The front rooflight, albeit smaller in scale, would introduce a further element uncharacteristic of the group’s principal elevation treatment and would, in combination, modestly compound the erosion of roofscape coherence.

From the limited information before me I am not aware of any of the cited examples being identified as a NDHA. Nevertheless, the dormer to the rear of Number [address] appears barely visible from public viewpoints and thus differs substantially in effect. The proposal approved under application 22/80120/HH is a proportionate addition, set within the main roof slope and is not comparable in scale, form, or relationship to an outrigger. I do not have the full planning history for Number [address] (a semi‐detached dwelling) or Number [address] (No. 6) and cannot therefore be certain of the full context or rationale under which those developments were permitted. However, I note that the dormer at No. 6 sits on an outrigger of a distinctly different design. Another example lies outside the CA and was considered acceptable partly because it retained the original roof slope within a varied roofscape.

Whilst consistency in decision making is important, the factual and contextual differences in the examples cited are such that they do not alter my assessment or the harm I have identified in this case. From my own observations during the site visit, dormer extensions are not a prevailing feature in the vicinity of the site. In any event, the presence of other dormer extensions nearby, including any that may be unsympathetic, does not justify development that would cause harm in this specific context. The limited examples referenced would not be experienced in the same visual setting as the rear of the appeal site, nor do they set a precedent for allowing a proposal that fails to respect its surroundings. Letters of support from neighbours are noted, but do not absolve this decision from making an assessment as to the effects of the appeal scheme in the context of the main issue.

As a result of the above, the proposals would result in unsympathetic alterations to a NDHA, and would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the CA. The overall effect would be localised but noticeably impactful in perpetuity and thus, for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) at the upper end of less than substantial. The conservation of the heritage asset in this case (the CA) is a matter of considerable weight and importance. As per the Framework, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

It would increase living accommodation for the existing occupiers and although there would be some economic public benefit, during construction, this would be time limited in its effect. Ultimately, the mainstay of the benefits would be private. Therefore, the public benefits in this instance carry only very limited weight that would, by definition, be insufficient to outweigh the harm to the CA.

Consequently, the proposed development would conflict with Policies HE1, HE2, D1, D2 and D8 of the Salford Local Plan: Development Management Policies and Designations (2023), and guidance contained in the Framework. Together, and amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development proposals are of a high-quality design, respond to any positive character and distinctiveness of the local area and are acceptable for the historic environment.

The appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.