Appeal 6010032

The appeal is dismissed.

A draft National Planning Policy Framework ‘Plan-making and national decision-making policies’ was issued by the Government for consultation on 16 December 2025 (Consultation Draft Framework) and with a deadline for comments by 10 March 2026. No final decisions upon the consultation have yet been announced. Therefore, and for this reason, I afford the Consultation Draft Framework limited weight as a material planning consideration. In respect of the main issue, I have afforded full weight to the published National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (as amended) (the Framework) and the adopted development plan for the area. In this case, the Consultation Draft Framework does not alter or outweigh my conclusion below regarding the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the living conditions of the occupiers of No’s 2 and [address] in respect of light and outlook.

The appeal property is a three storey terrace located within the Cliff Conservation Area (CA). The local planning authority (LPA) raises no objection to the effect of the proposal upon the CA. I have no reason to disagree and am satisfied that the proposal would preserve its character and appearance.

The host property is set back from the road in an elevated, imposing position and has a gated alleyway to the rear. Like the adjoining property at No. [address], it has an existing outrigger with a small rectangular space between them, separated by a dividing common boundary fence. No.[address] also has a rear outrigger which is three storeys in height.

The proposed development includes two elements, one of which is for a single storey extension facing No. [address], and which would fill in the space up to the common fence line and extendi outwards from the existing dwelling by about 7 metres. It would leave a linear gap on the side of the neighbouring property of approximately 1.4 metres wide between its own outrigger and the boundary fence.

On my site visit, I was able to note that the boundary post and panel fence when seen from No.[address] has a height of approximately 1.25 metres, though there is a small section which is higher where an external door faces the fence. The proposed extension, with a proposed height of about 3 meters, would appear above it.

The second element is for a single storey rear extension which would follow the line of the existing outrigger, extending outwards by about 5.8 metres, with a width of 4.2 metres, with a flat roof at 3.8 metres and a roof lantern projecting an additional 0.7 metres. It would retain the same distance of the existing outrigger from the communal fence line with No. [address]. Nevertheless, it would unacceptably contribute to an increased tunnelling effect when viewed from the adjoining property.

No. [address] has a main window in its rear outrigger facing the rear access. On my site visit, I was able to note the presence in front of the window of a single storey Sukkah made of a lightweight frame and with a canvass or similar covering, and which are normally erected for a short time in relation to a religious festival and then taken down and stored away. There are side windows (and a door) to the outrigger facing the boundary fence. [name] consider the Sukkah, by its construction and appearance, to be a experienced as a temporary structure erected for a very short period of time, I do not find that these side windows should be considered to be main habitable windows as distinct to secondary windows. Nevertheless, they are still likely to play an important part to room light levels overall, and the proposed extensions, by their proximity and lengths, are likely to have an adverse effect in this regard. The orientation of the outriggers and proposed extensions have a generally eastern facing direction.

The appellant considers that the LPA, when determining the application, did not carry out any independent survey, BRE assessment, or obtain technical evidence of any kind. However, it is for the appellant to make the case in support of the proposed development.

The LPA did have regard to its House Extensions Supplementary Planning Document 2006 (SPD) which contains recommended distances between windows in order to maintain adequate light levels and to avoid adverse effects upon outlook but which the proposal does not meet. The SPD is not part of the development plan but is nevertheless a material planning consideration. It does allow some flexibility in terms of the proposed minimum distances for extensions to older terraced dwellings if an extension is the only practicable way to introduce basic amenities such as a kitchen, or to upgrade any that are considered to be substandard. However, no such claim is made in this case.

I find that the narrowing of the gap between the two outriggers, caused by construction up to the boundary, and by its additional length caused by the proposed rear extension, would create an enhanced tunnelling effect which would have an unacceptably overbearing effect on the outlook enjoyed by the occupiers of No. [address].

I am aware that no objections to the proposed development have been received by the occupiers of no. [address], (or from No.[address]), though there can be various reasons why occupiers choose not to do so. In any event, it is important that I also consider acceptable living conditions for future occupants.

The appellant refers to a similar extension approved by the LPA in 20191 at No.[address]. Consistency in decision making is an important tenet of the planning system. The LPA maintains that the internal arrangements of the two properties are different, so that no precedent has been established by the approved development. However, even if there are such differences, internal changes can often be made relatively easily and without the need for planning permission.

The current appeal is to be determined by reference to the Salford Local Plan (LP) which was adopted in 2023 and therefore after the 2019 decision. Policy D5 of the LP requires that new development does not have an unacceptable impact upon the amenities of the users of other buildings and spaces.

The LPA, when determining the proposal at No.[address], did consider the impact upon the living conditions of adjoining occupiers and concluded that the impact would be acceptable. However, I have not been made aware of any reference made at that time to the advisory distances in the SPD with regard to light and outlook, but which now forms part of the LPA’s reason for refusal.

In the circumstances and given the adoption of a new LP since then, I afford the earlier approval at No.[address] only limited weight in the decision making process. In my judgement, it does not set a precedent which must be followed for the current appeal. I have determined the appeal based upon its individual merits and using my own professional planning judgement.

The appellant argues that if the site was not within a CA then the proposed development would have been considered under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended), and where a single-storey rear extension of up to 6 metres would ordinarily be permissible under the [name] procedure for a terraced dwelling, without the need for full planning permission or detailed living conditions assessment. Even if that were the case, the appeal before me is not a [name] case, and I must therefore determine it while considering the effect of the proposed development upon the living conditions of the adjoining occupants.

Many of the above issues are relevant to an assessment of the effect of the proposed development upon the living conditions of the occupants of No. [address] in terms of light and outlook. The proposal would not meet the advisory distances in the SPD relating to light and outlook, though there would not be the same severe tunnelling effect to which I have referred with regard to No. [address]. In addition, the siting of No. [address] on the south side of the appeal property would be beneficial in terms of light other than in the early mornings. 1 19/73186/HH

[name] acknowledge some conflict with the advice in the SPD, I do not find that the proposed development would have a significantly adverse effect upon the living conditions of the occupants of No. [address] in terms of light or outlook.

However, when considered overall, I conclude that the proposed development would not accord with policy D5 of the LP, with the SPD, or with the Framework , all of which seek to preserve the living conditions of adjoining occupiers, including light and outlook, where new development is proposed.

There are no material planning considerations that indicate that the application should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.