# Land adjacent 837 Manchester Road, Linthwaite

- **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Armstrong
- **Authority:** Kirklees (Yorkshire and the Humber)
- **Appeal reference:** 6006003
- **Application reference:** 2025/62/91903/W
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Erection of a single dwelling (stated as self-build) on an open, treed gap in the Manchester Road frontage
- **Homes:** 1
- **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge, conservation-area
- **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted)
- **Housing land supply (years):** 4.18
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** DP3(1), DP3(3), S5(5), S5(2), HE6(4)
- **Development plan policies:** Kirklees Local Plan 2019 LP24, LP33, LP35, Kirklees Housebuilders Design Guide SPD 2021
- **Main issues:** Green Belt appropriateness, character and appearance, trees, conservation area
- **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, not-inappropriate, s5-5-balance, sustainable-location-pass, dp3-refuse-trigger, design-refusal, heritage-harm-decisive, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, self-build, self-build-unsecured, bng-exemption-not-shown, substantially-outweighed, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
One dwelling on an open, treed gap in the ribbon of Manchester Road, Linthwaite, in the Green Belt and the Linthwaite Conservation Area. The inspector accepted grey belt and found the scheme not inappropriate under GB7(1)(g). But the loss of the visual break and larger trees caused moderate harm to the conservation area and conflicted with DP3(1) without clear justification. Under S5(5), applying S5(2), the benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** The main parties "have had the opportunity to make any comments on the implications of that relevant to the appeal" (DL ¶2).
- **Grey belt and GB7(1)(g)(i): PASS.** On purpose (c), "any encroachment into the countryside beyond the existing built form, and in relation to the extent of the Green Belt as a whole, would be limited. Consequently, the proposal would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt" (DL ¶9).
- **GB7(1)(g)(ii)-(iii): PASS.** No five-year supply; "due to the site’s proximity to local amenities, services, footpath links and public transport, the proposal would be in a sustainable location in the context of policy TR3 of the Framework" (DL ¶10). No route facts are given.
- **Not inappropriate.** "I am not required to consider any effects on the openness of the Green Belt, or if very special circumstances exist to justify the development" (DL ¶11).
- **Heritage, HE6: HARM, moderate.** "the harm to the significance of the CA would be moderate" (DL ¶20); HE6(1) and considerable importance and weight stated (DL ¶21); "the public benefits would not be sufficient to outweigh the substantial weight that should be given to the conservation of the CA" (DL ¶25).
- **DP3(1)/DP3(3) and N2(1)(d): CONFLICT.** "Policy DP3(3) states that proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with policy DP3(1). The application does not provide clear justification in this regard" (DL ¶27).
- **Housing.** HO7 substantial weight, but "given that the proposal relates to a single dwelling and the extent of the shortfall, the contribution it would make to housing supply would be limited" (DL ¶23). Self-build: limited weight, unsecured (DL ¶24).

## Planning balance
S5(5), applying S5(2), for grey belt development that is not inappropriate (DL ¶32). The DP3(3) failure, with the heritage harm, meant "the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework" (DL ¶33). Conclusion also plan-led (DL ¶31, ¶34).

## What made the difference
The site is one of the gaps the conservation area appraisal asks to keep, with mature trees and no arboricultural evidence. The Green Belt tests were passed easily; the case was lost on character and heritage. A scheme keeping the larger trees and more of the gap might have changed the result.

## Transferable points
- A grey belt pass does not settle the case: S5(5) still applies S5(2), and a DP3(3) failure makes the benefits substantially outweighed (DL ¶32-33).
- Purpose (c) is argued under the "fundamentally undermine" limb, not the grey belt definition; modest contained encroachment does not fundamentally undermine the purposes (DL ¶8-9).
- HO7 substantial weight can sit with a finding that one dwelling's contribution is "limited" (DL ¶23).
- No arboricultural impact assessment means no evidence that the trees cannot be retained (DL ¶19).
- Weak on location: (g)(iii) was passed on a one-line proximity statement (DL ¶10), so do not cite it as TR3 authority.

## Policy findings
- **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** undisputed; no strong contribution to (a), (b) or (d) (DL 8)
- **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** disputed on purpose (c); modest, contained encroachment, would not fundamentally undermine the purposes taken together (DL 8-9)
- **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** no five-year supply (4.18 years in the officer report) (DL 10, 23)
- **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** "due to the site’s proximity to local amenities, services, footpath links and public transport"; no route facts given (DL 10)
- **GB7(1)(g): pass.** not inappropriate; openness and VSC not considered (DL 11)
- **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** moderate harm to Linthwaite CA from loss of the open visual break and larger trees; no clear and convincing justification (DL 20-21)
- **HE6(4): fail.** one dwelling and unsecured self-build do not outweigh; HE6(1) substantial weight to conservation stated (DL 21-25)
- **DP3(1): conflict.** loss of open gap and trees harms character (DL 17-20, 27)
- **DP3(3): fail.** explicit - "The application does not provide clear justification in this regard" (DL 27, 33)
- **N2(1)(d): conflict.** larger established trees lost; no arboricultural impact assessment (DL 18-19, 27)
- **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight under HO7 but contribution of one dwelling "limited" (DL 23, 28)
- **HO5: benefit (limited weight).** mapped: self-build benefit limited; no mechanism to secure it (DL 24)
- **S5(5): fail.** S5(5) with S5(2) applied; DP3(3) failure means benefits substantially outweighed (DL 32-33)

## Key facts
- Council supply 4.18 years (officer report) (DL 23)
- 13 trees; larger trees at the rear judged high amenity; no arboricultural impact assessment submitted (DL 18-19)
- CA appraisal says undeveloped spaces between buildings give glimpses of the rural setting (DL 13)
- Self-build occupancy condition offered but no detailed securing mechanism; BNG self-build exemption therefore also doubtful, not pursued (DL 24, 29)
- Other matters (amenity, highways, PROW) acceptable but neutral (DL 30)
- Parties had the opportunity to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 2)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006003
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/d1bf0c14-2224-4939-bffc-9d6a69986a53

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006003.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.