Basement conversion with an exterior side staircase, loft conversion, rear dormer and raised ridge height

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 April 2026 by Richard Gilbert BA (Hons) MSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 03 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005359 13 Yew Street, Salford M7 2HL • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Katz against the decision of Salford City Council. • The application Ref is PA/2025/1579. • The development proposed is a basement conversion with an exterior side staircase, loft conversion, rear dormer and raised ridge height. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. A revised development description was agreed by both parties during the course of the application. It does not materially alter what was applied for. I have adopted the revised description in the banner heading above, as the original description was submitted in list form. I am satisfied that it accurately describes the appeal proposal and I have determined the appeal on the same basis. Background and Main Issue 3. There is no dispute between the parties as to the acceptability of the proposed basement conversion or the external staircase to access it. Based on the evidence before me I am satisfied that these aspects of the appeal proposal would not cause material harm to the character and appearance of the area, and I have not been made aware that these elements would result in any conflict with any development plan policies. Therefore, I have confined my consideration to the proposed dormer and raised ridge height of the rear outrigger to facilitate a loft conversion. 4. In light of the above, the main issue is, therefore, the effect of the proposed rear dormer and raised ridge height on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area, including the Cliff Conservation Area. Reasons 5. The appeal property is a substantial semi-detached dwelling located on Yew Street. It is similar to the majority of other properties in this section of the road which predominantly consists of period semi-detached properties with windows to the front elevations and gabled roofs. A common feature of these dwellings is their asymmetrical main roofs which means that they appear as two storeys at the front and three storeys at the rear. Appeal Decision 6005359 2 6. It lies within the Cliff Conservation Area (CCA) which is notable for its contribution to mass housing created to meet the needs of a growing working population at the turn of the 20th century particularly for wealthy entrepreneurs and businessmen. Buildings are laid out in a well-ordered manner and have retained many of their original features as well as a consistent use of materials. As such the appeal property contributes positively to the character and appearance of the CCA. The Cliff Conservation Area Appraisal (2008) (CCAA) states that the CCA has no unifying character due to the wide variety of building styles and ages. Nevertheless, the appeal property is typical of the scale and style of houses on this section of Yew Street. 7. The appeal proposal would introduce a flat roof dormer which would run almost the entire length of the existing two storey outrigger to the rear of the property. The ridge height of the outrigger would be raised in order to facilitate the dormer. It would dominate the roof slope of the outrigger and would be visible in part from Yew Street and would also be readily visible from the school grounds behind. The increased height of the ridge would be higher than the adjoining roof slope on the neighbouring property and would be higher than the eaves height of the main house. 8. As a result, the proportions of the dormer, when viewed in both elevation and profile would appear out of character with its surroundings. The proposal would unbalance the appearance of the roofscape of this pair of dwellings. This would be at odds with the existing building and detract from the character and appearance of the CCA. Whilst I accept that the main roofscape, ridge height, chimney positions, façade detailing and fenestration would remain unchanged this does not diminish the harm that I have found 9. As set out above, the appeal proposal would introduce a form of development which is not consistent with the style of the appeal property which contributes to the character and appearance of the CCA and would appear as an incongruous feature, out of place in this part of the CCA. In accordance with paragraphs 213 and 214 of the Framework, in finding harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, the magnitude of that harm should be assessed. In this case, I consider the harm to amount to a low to medium level of less than substantial harm. However, less than substantial harm does not equate to less than substantial weight in the planning balance and, therefore, this harm is of considerable importance and weight. 10. Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservations Areas) Act 1990 places a statutory duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. In considering the effect of the proposal on the CCA the impact must be weighed against the harm it would have on the heritage asset. 11. Paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that where the harm is less than substantial, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The proposal would provide additional living accommodation for the appellant’s family. This is largely a private benefit. Although the refurbishment of the property offers a public benefit, in terms of maintaining its viability as a dwelling, I have no substantive evidence before me that the property is inhabited or unhabitable in its current form. Furthermore, I am Appeal Decision 6005359 3 unconvinced that this form of development is required to ensure its continued use as a dwelling. 12. The Council consider the building to be a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA), although I have not been provided with details of the local listing. From my observations and from the evidence before me, it is a house typical of its age with traditional features which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the CCA. The CCA has, however, been identified as ‘At Risk’ by Historic England. No information has been provided to the reason for this. Although there are other examples of similar dormers in the locality, I do not find that, on the basis of the evidence before me, this to be a reason to allow unacceptable development in this location. 13. Consequently, I conclude that the proposed dormer would have an unacceptably harmful impact on the character and appearance of the appeal property and would fail to preserve and enhance the CCA. As such it would be contrary to policies D1, D2 and D8 of the Salford Local Plan 2023 (SLP) which, among other things, seek to ensure that development is of high design quality which protects, enhances and responds to positive character and distinctiveness and respects the scale, character and proportions of the original building. It would also conflict with the aims of SLP Policies HE1 and HE2 to ensure that heritage assets are protected and conserved to ensure they continue to make a positive contribution to the character of the area. Other Matters 14. My attention has been drawn to several other dormers in the CCA and in other areas in the wider Manchester area. I do not have all the details before me. 15. However, the local examples cited at Lower Broughton Road and Grassfield Road all appear to be different styles of property with dormers on the main roof slope. Their physical separation from the appeal property, however, is significant. The example at Priory Avenue has a different outrigger roof arrangement and resulted in a much smaller dormer. No details of a front dormer at Howe Street have been provided and I saw no evidence of a dormer in this location on my site visit. These examples are neutral factors in my consideration and do not persuade me that the appeal proposal is acceptable nor do they lead me to an alternative conclusion on the main issue above. 16. I have also been provided with appeal decisions elsewhere in Salford and other Manchester boroughs. Although I have their reference numbers and selective quotes I have no other details before me. I am therefore uncertain as to a whether these examples are even broadly comparable with the appeal proposal and consequently afford them limited weight. I have, in any event determined the appeal on its own planning merits. Conclusion 17. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed. Richard Gilbert INSPECTOR