# Shaws Lane Top Farm, Triangle, Sowerby Bridge

- **Decision:** dismissed, 11 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: M J Francis
- **Authority:** Calderdale (Yorkshire and the Humber)
- **Appeal reference:** 6010825
- **Application reference:** 26/00173/LBC
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Listed building consent for glazed rear porch extruding from approved rear utility extension of Grade II 17th-century farmhouse
- **Site context:** open-countryside, listed-building-setting
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), HE6(1), HE6(3), HE4(2)
- **Development plan policies:** Calderdale Local Plan 2023 HE1
- **Main issues:** special interest of listed building
- **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, he6-substantial-weight, private-benefit-only, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, householder

## Summary
Listed building consent for a small glazed rear porch on a Grade II 17th-century farmhouse. Dismissed. The letter is a clean application of the 2026 heritage policies: harm graded as "a low level of harm", HE6(1) substantial weight to conservation, HE6(3) considerable importance and weight, HE4(2) clear and convincing justification, and an HE6(4) public-benefits balance. The only benefit was private.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** The parties were consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶3).
- **Effect on significance: HARM.** Attaching the porch "would visually disrupt the natural evolution of the house and the clear legibility that currently exists at the rear" (DL ¶9). Building it close to the mullion window "would 'encroach' onto it and detract from its significance" (DL ¶11).
- **Private views are irrelevant.** "listed buildings are safeguarded for their inherent architectural and historic interest irrespective of whether public views of the building can be gained" (DL ¶16).
- **HE6 grading and weight.** "Policy HE6 of the Framework states that substantial weight should be given to the asset's conservation … I find that the proposal would cause harm to the listed building and would be a low level of harm. Nevertheless, any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶15).
- **Benefits.** "constructing another porch on the property would represent a private benefit only" (DL ¶18).

## Planning balance
HE6(4): low-level harm against no public benefit. It is a one-sided balance, so the harm wins by default.

## What made the difference
No public benefit at all. The asserted draught and weather protection was already provided by the existing utility room.

## Transferable points
- A model 2026 heritage paragraph. After "less than substantial" was removed, harm is graded in free words ("a low level of harm"), then HE6(1), HE6(3) and HE6(4) are applied in sequence (DL ¶14-15).
- Even low-level harm is decisive where the only benefits are private (DL ¶18-19).
- Lack of public visibility does not reduce harm to a listed building's special interest (DL ¶16).

## Policy findings
- **HE6(4): harm (considerable weight).** grading — "would be a low level of harm"; HE6(1) "substantial weight should be given to the asset's conservation" stated; HE6(3) "considerable importance and weight" stated; s16(2) duty cited; benefits (weather buffer to utility entrance) = "private benefit only", no public benefit (DL 4, 12, 15-19)
- **HE4(2): fail.** harm should have "clear and convincing justification" — none shown (DL 14)

## Key facts
- Grade II early/mid-17th-century farmhouse (list entry 1134470) (DL 5-6)
- Porch would overlap onto two-storey range and crowd a four-light hoodmoulded mullion window (DL 9, 11)
- Existing utility room and front porch already buffer principal rooms from draughts (DL 17-18)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010825
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/1a816007-4931-40e3-b1e8-63e2a4ffcc27

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010825.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.