Demolition of a single storey detached garage, front porch and front bay window, and erection of a two-storey side/front and single storey front/porch extension, together with associated external alterations including a two-storey box bay window surround

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 August 2026 by N McGurk BSc (Hons) MCD MBA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012119 5 Grey Knotts, Worsley, Salford, M28 1US • 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 Mr Jonathan Barrow against the decision of Salford City Council. • The application Ref is PA/2026/0475. • The development proposed is demolition of a single storey detached garage, front porch and front bay window, and erection of a two-storey side/front and single storey front/porch extension, together with associated external alterations including a two-storey box bay window surround. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The description of development varies between the application form and the Council’s decision notice. I have used the description provided by the Council on its decision notice, as this most accurately and comprehensively describes the proposal the subject of this appeal. 3. One of the Council’s reasons for refusal relates to insufficient information regarding the effect of the proposed development on a protected Oak tree within the neighbouring garden of No. 3 Grey Knotts, subject to a Tree Preservation Order. The Council’s own arboricultural consultant identified specific outstanding matters, relating to tree protection measures and supervision during construction, rather than concluding that the development would necessarily result in unacceptable harm to the tree. I consider that, notwithstanding the outcome of this appeal, such matters could ordinarily be addressed by way of an appropriately worded planning condition or conditions. 4. The appellant raises concerns regarding a perceived lack of engagement from the Council’s case officer during the determination of the application. This is a matter between the appellant and the Council. Main Issue 5. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Appeal Decision 6012119 2 Reasons 6. The appeal property is a two storey detached dwelling of buff brick construction, with a pitched roof, located at the end of a cul-de-sac within a relatively modern residential estate at Grey Knotts, Worsley. Whilst accessed and visible from Grey Knotts, the dwelling’s principal elevation faces Booths Hall Way. 7. The surrounding estate is characterised by consistency in the general designs, materials and appearance of the dwellings within it, resulting in a strong sense of uniformity. Where extensions have previously been carried out, these have largely been undertaken sensitively, reflecting the character and features of host dwellings and the surrounding area, with only a few instances of contrasting materials being used. 8. The proposal comprises the demolition of the appeal property’s existing detached garage, front porch and front bay window, together with the erection of a two-storey side/front and single storey front/porch extension. The extension would incorporate a two-storey box bay window surround, finished in black timber/composite cladding, together with tall, Crittall-style aluminium framed openings finished in black ash to the forward projecting gable and box bay surround. 9. During my site visit, I observed that the host dwelling and its neighbours are finished predominantly in buff facing brick with mostly white and occasionally darker, window frames. Thus, apart from slight differences, development largely appears in keeping with the estate’s consistent modern vernacular and sustains an attractive sense of uniformity. 10. The stark contrast between the proposed black-framed openings combined with black cladding, and this established local palette of materials would, I find, appear jarring and incongruous against the host dwelling and surrounding properties. 11. Further, I find that the arrangement of the tall, Crittall-style openings and the box bay window surround would appear poorly proportioned in relation to the host dwelling’s existing fenestration. This would compound the visual discordance arising from the proposed change in materials. 12. Given the property’s prominent corner position, with visibility from both Grey Knotts and Booths Hall Way, I find that the resultant development would fail to sit comfortably within its surroundings but would rather serve to dominate and visually compete with neighbouring dwellings, to the detriment of the area’s established character. 13. Whilst the appellant states that the extensive glazing proposed is in response to the presence of a mature, protected tree that reduces natural daylight to the dwelling, this does not, in my view, justify a scale and style of glazing and materials that would lead to the identified harm. 14. Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and to Policies D1, D2 and D8 of the Salford Local Plan: Development Management Policies and Designations1, which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character. 1 Salford Local Plan: Development Management Policies and Designations (2023). Appeal Decision 6012119 3 Other Matters 15. The appellant, in support of his case, refers to a number of other developments elsewhere within the locality. However, there is no substantive information before me to lead me to find that these examples are so similar to the proposed development as to provide a precedent for it. Notwithstanding this and in any case, I have found that the proposed development would result in significant harm and hence the decision below. 16. Whilst the appellant has stated a willingness to replace the proposed box bay surround with a more traditional brick-built treatment should this be considered necessary, no amended scheme incorporating any such change was formally submitted for consideration. Conclusion 17. For the reasons given above, the appeal does not succeed. N McGurk INSPECTOR