# 17 Willow Court, Pool in Wharfedale (rear dormer with solar panels)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 4 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C McDonagh (on recommendation of Appeal Planning Officer T Morris)
- **Authority:** Leeds (Yorkshire and the Humber)
- **Appeal reference:** 6008813
- **Application reference:** 26/01083/FU
- **Procedure:** householder
- **Development:** Loft conversion with large flat-roofed rear dormer and roof-mounted solar panels
- **Site context:** conservation-area, inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** HE6(3), HE6(4), W3
- **Development plan policies:** Leeds Core Strategy 2014 P10, P11, Leeds UDP Review 2006 GP5, N19, BD6, Householder Design Guide SPD 2012
- **Main issues:** character and appearance of CA
- **Tags:** householder, conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, w3-small-scale-renewables, private-benefit-not-public, transitional-no-consultation

## Summary
A large rear dormer with solar panels in the Pool in Wharfedale Conservation Area was dismissed. It is the first householder case recorded where W3's "substantial weight" to small-scale renewables was set directly against conservation-area harm under HE6(3)/(4). Even minor, localised harm, carrying considerable weight, was not outweighed by substantial-weight renewable benefit.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "As the changes do not affect the main issue in this appeal, it was not necessary to seek the views of the main parties" (DL ¶3).
- **Character and CA: HARM.** The dormer "would dominate the rear roof slope … appear top heavy" (DL ¶9). "the solar panels would be slightly visible above the roof ridge, which would introduce a further incongruous feature" (DL ¶10).
- **HE6(4) balance.** The harm is "relatively localised and minor in scale" (DL ¶15). "it is the appellant's desire to provide additional family accommodation. However, this would be of private rather than public benefit … As per policy W3 of the Framework, substantial weight should be given to the contribution that small-scale projects can make to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, this must still be balanced against the harm to the CA to which I must give considerable weight to in this case as per policy HE6(3)" (DL ¶16).

## Planning balance
The HE6(4) harm-versus-public-benefits balance: W3 renewables (substantial weight) against minor CA harm (considerable importance and weight). The public benefits did not outweigh.

## What made the difference
The dormer's bulk was the main harm. The solar panels added only marginally to it and brought the W3 benefit. A smaller, set-in dormer with panels kept below the ridge would likely have passed.

## Transferable points
- W3's "substantial weight" to small-scale renewable projects applies to householder solar, but can be outweighed by even minor heritage harm, which carries "considerable weight" under HE6(3) (DL ¶15-16).
- Extra family accommodation is a private, not public, benefit in the HE6(4) balance (DL ¶16).

## Policy findings
- **HE9: harm.** dominant flat-roofed dormer and solar panels above ridge harm the discreet roofscape of CA Character Area 4 (DL 5-14)
- **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** localised, minor harm to CA significance; "considerable weight" per HE6(3) (DL 15-16)
- **W3: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight to contribution of small-scale renewable projects (DL 16)
- **HE6(4): fail.** extra family space is a private benefit; public benefits (renewables) do not outweigh CA harm (DL 15-16)

## Key facts
- 20th-century detached house in a CA character area valued for discreet, unaltered pitched roofs
- Dormer set barely back from ridge, eaves and sides; solar panels slightly above ridge
- No consultation on the new Framework; decided on an Appeal Planning Officer's recommendation (DL 2-3)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008813
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/98bf35e4-561c-4cdf-8b3b-bf92b07e8e24

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008813.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.