Salford City Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Salford?
See which local examples raised outlook, light and noise concerns, and what the allowed example concluded.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 12 of 21
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 1
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 11
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 9
- of 12 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Salford LPA (53.489558, −2.370159). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Salford City Council appeal findings
Salford outlook, light and neighbour noise
The selected examples are less dismissal-heavy than the matched local set and offer limited allowed comparison. The allowed case concerns future occupants, not a neighbour.
Counted against appeals
Outlook, light and noise concerns
Harmful outlook from rear extension
The Inspector concluded that the rear extension would unacceptably harm a neighbour's outlook.
Advisory light distances not met
The side and rear extension did not meet advisory distances for light and outlook.
Parking activity near No. 17
Expected on-street parking would bring door-slamming, engine idling and in-car audio closer to No. 17, eroding residents' living conditions.
Helped or needed
What the annex decision accepted
Residential-annex use accepted
The stated basis was the scheme’s residential-annex use, which the Inspector found provided satisfactory living conditions.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does your refusal identify harm to outlook, light, privacy, noise or disturbance?
- Does it explain the building position, distance or activity said to cause harm?
- Is the affected person a neighbour or a future occupant?
The allowed annex example gives only a conclusion, not the assessment behind it. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
1 example
26 May 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of a two storey replacement dwelling and outbuilding without complying with conditions attached to planning permission Ref 22/80469/FUL, dated 26 May 2023.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: i) Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; ii) The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and the openness of the Green Belt; iii) Whether the proposal would be an independent dwellinghouse; iv) Whether the proposal would provide an adequate standard of living conditions for future residential occupiers, with particular regard to overlooking and privacy; and v) Whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, on the basis of its residential annex use, I find that the appeal scheme provides satisfactory living conditions and does not conflict with the residential amenity aims of LP policies including D4 and D5.
Paragraph 28 · Source page 5
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
23 May 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the impact of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address] with regard to outlook.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In conclusion, the proposed development would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address], with particular regard to their outlook. It would therefore fail to comply with Policy DES7 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan (2006) which amongst other things seeks to ensure that development does not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers of other developments. It would also conflict with the guidance in the SPD, as set out above.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
29 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single storey side and rear extension to include a roof lantern.
Issue identified by the Inspector
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.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
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
Paragraph 19 · Source page 3
23 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a change of use from a 6 person HMO (C4) to an 8 person HMO ([name]) including construction L-shaped dormer across the main rear roof slope and the roof of the rear outrigger, and three windows to the rear elevation of the outrigger.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of occupiers in the neighbouring properties, with particular regard to noise and disturbance.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
With regard to the main issue, the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with reference to noise and disturbance. It would conflict with Policies H10 and D5 of the Salford Local Plan: Development Management Policies and Designations (2023) which, amongst other things, will support the conversion of an existing dwelling into a HMO only where it can be demonstrated that it would not have an unacceptable impact upon the positive residential character of the surrounding neighbourhood having particular regard to potential increases in noise and disturbance, and does not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the users of other buildings and spaces.
Paragraph 21 · Source page 4
30 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
change of use from a dwellinghouse (Class C3) to a large House in [name] (HMO) ([name]) for up to 8 persons.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the living conditions of the occupants of No. [address], with specific regard to noise and disturbance.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Owing to the limited on‐site parking provision, it is reasonable to expect that attendees would park along [address], thereby increasing associated activity in the immediate vicinity, particularly outside of No. 17, given its adjacent position. As such, noise sources such as door‐slamming, engine idling, and in‐car audio would be brought closer to this residential property. Taken cumulatively, the intensified activity on both sides of No. 17 would materially erode the living conditions of its occupants, particularly in relation to noise and general disturbance.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2