2B Minehead Avenue, Withington, Manchester

Decision

dismissed, 9 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: K Mee

Authority

Manchester (North West)

Appeal reference

6011458

Application reference

143665/FO/2025

Procedure

written representations

Development

Demolition of a semi-detached pair and replacement with 7 apartments

Homes

7

Site context

inside settlement

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

7.5 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S4(1), S4(2)

Development plan policies

Places for Everyone Joint DPD 2022-2039 JP-H1, JP-H3, Manchester Core Strategy 2012 SP1, DM1, Manchester Residential Quality Guidance SPD 2017

Main issues

character and appearance; neighbour noise and disturbance; outlook and light to No 2; amenity space for future occupiers

Summary

Demolition of a run-down semi-detached pair in an inter-war Manchester suburb and replacement with a block of 7 flats with a rear parking court. Dismissed. The block would harm the street's character, bring parking-court and communal-garden noise to the back of neighbouring gardens, overshadow the corner house next door, and give future occupiers no private outdoor space. Under S4 those harms "substantially outweigh" 7 homes, even though the inspector noted S4 applies whatever the supply position (7.5 years here).

Issues and findings

• Transition. "The main parties were provided with an opportunity to comment. I have had regard to the 2026 version of the Framework" (DL ¶3).
• Character — plan policies (DP3 by substance): HARM. "The proposed front gable, incorporating a window, together with the two front dormers give the building the clear appearance of a 3-storey structure, at odds with the prevailing character of the area" (DL ¶8). Removing the poor-condition houses "does not justify redevelopment with a scheme that is inconsistent with the street scene" (DL ¶10). Flatted precedents at Minehead Court were in "materially different contexts" (DL ¶9).
• Neighbour noise: HARM. Garden activity "would differ materially from the more frequent vehicle movements, arrivals and departures associated with the proposed parking area" (DL ¶12); combined with a communal space for "up to 22 people" this "would lead to an unacceptable level of noise and disturbance" (DL ¶13). Off-street parking benefit did not outweigh it (DL ¶14).
• Outlook and light to No 2: HARM. Appellant's shadow study showed "all of the rear garden remaining in shadow around the equinox" (DL ¶17).
• Future occupiers' amenity: HARM. "no apartment would benefit from private external amenity space, and the proposed communal areas would be fragmented and limited in size" (DL ¶19). "the use of public and private open space differs. Private outdoor space serves a distinct function" (DL ¶20).
• Neutral factors. No flood, heritage or privacy harm: "an absence of harm in these respects is a neutral factor" (DL ¶24).

Planning balance

S4 balance. Harms given "considerable weight"; plan policies "broadly align with the objectives of the Framework" (DL ¶25). "irrespective of the Council's housing land supply position, the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out within Policy S4 of the Framework is engaged given the appeal site's location within a settlement" (DL ¶26). Benefits (7 homes, efficient use of land, energy efficiency, asbestos removal, adaptable design) "significant weight" given "the modest scale of the development" (DL ¶27). "mindful of Framework Policy S4(2), the adverse effects of the development would substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶28). Plan-led conclusion under s38(6) (DL ¶29).

What made the difference

Accumulation of four distinct harms on a single plot: a block that read as three storeys and broke the building line in a very uniform inter-war street; a new parking court behind neighbours' quiet gardens; the appellant's own shadow study proving the corner neighbour's garden would be in full shade at equinox; and no private outdoor space for flats likely to house families. Benefits were capped at "significant" (not "substantial") weight in a council with 7.5 years' supply. A scheme that held the building line, kept a two-storey read and put parking to the front would likely have passed S4.

Transferable points

• S4 is engaged within settlements regardless of the five-year supply position (DL ¶26).
• Benefits of a small flatted scheme can be weighted at "significant" rather than "substantial" where supply is healthy (7.5 yrs) and the scale modest (DL ¶¶26–27); HO7 is not named.
• Several amenity/design harms together, each under compliant local policy, can meet the "substantially outweighed" S4 threshold (DL ¶¶25, 28).
• An appellant's own daylight/shadow study can supply the evidence of harm (DL ¶17).
• Nearby parks do not substitute for private amenity space for family-sized flats (DL ¶20).
• Poor condition of existing buildings is not a reason to accept a harmful replacement (DL ¶10).
• Drafting note: S4(2) is invoked (DL ¶28) without identifying which limb applies; DP3/L2(1)(d)(ii) are not cited by code — the harms were run through development plan policies.

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Agreed 5-year supply; confirmed current supply 7.5 years (DL 26)
• Inter-war semi-detached street with strong rhythm; replacement block projecting forward of building line with front gable and dormers reading as 3 storeys (DL 5, 7-8)
• Rear parking court and communal garden for up to 22 occupiers next to spacious private rear gardens (DL 12-13)
• Appellant's own shadow study showed all of No 2's rear garden in shadow around the equinox (DL 17)
• ~120 sqm fragmented communal landscaping, no private amenity for any flat; proximity of public parks did not compensate (DL 19-20)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.