- Decision
- dismissed, 25 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: M J Francis
- Authority
- Calderdale (Yorkshire and the Humber)
- Appeal reference
- 6011008
- Application reference
- 26/00038/HSE
- Procedure
- householder
- Development
- Demolition of conservatory and two-storey side extension to a Grade II listed farmhouse in the Green Belt
- Site context
- green belt, listed building setting, open countryside
- Green Belt
- Yes
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE6(4), S5(5), S5(2)
- Development plan policies
- Calderdale Local Plan 2023 GN4, HE1
- Main issues
- special interest of Grade II listed building; Special Landscape Area
Summary
A two-storey side extension to a Grade II listed 1745 farmhouse at Luddenden, in the Green Belt, was dismissed together with the linked listed building consent appeal. The extension was not inappropriate in the Green Belt, since historic maps showed the original building had been larger. But it would be too tall and prominent for a hillside farmhouse and would cut through the gable, causing medium harm. Beneficial repairs and removal of a poor conservatory did not outweigh that harm, and the extra space was a private benefit. Under S5(5) the heritage harm meant the benefits were substantially outweighed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "the main parties have been consulted on the implications of the revised Framework on the appeal" (DL ¶3).
- Green Belt: not inappropriate. "evidence in the form of extracts of Ordnance Survey maps dated to 1933 and 1949 show that the building was originally larger" (DL ¶27). The letter cites "Policy GB7 1) a." for extensions; the extension category is GB7(1)(b).
- Heritage harm. "the massing of the two-storey extension would result in it being too high and unduly prominent" (DL ¶13). "the proposed extension would cause a medium level of harm to the listed building, whilst the proposed works to the fabric of the building, subject to suitably worded conditions, would have a positive effect" (DL ¶21).
- Public benefits: insufficient. "Whilst the extension and the internal works would rationalise and provide additional accommodation for the appellants, overall, this would be a private benefit" (DL ¶22). "in the absence of any defined public benefit that would outweigh the harm that would be caused" (DL ¶23).
- Special Landscape Area: no harm (DL ¶19).
Planning balance
S5(5) applied correctly: GB7 first, then, as not inappropriate, the S5 "substantially outweighed" test applying S5(2) (DL ¶31–32). "This harm is of considerable importance and weight and is not outweighed by any public benefits. Therefore, the benefits of granting permission would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects" (DL ¶33).
What made the difference
The farmhouse's hillside setting, which the inspector said "dictate[s] that any extension requires a greater level of subservience" (DL ¶12). A lower, single-storey addition on the old extension's footprint might have been acceptable. The repairs were welcome but could have been done without the extension.
Transferable points
- For GB7(1)(b), historic OS maps showing a larger original building can support a finding that an extension is not disproportionate (DL ¶27).
- Heritage harm that is not outweighed under HE6(4) feeds straight into the S5(5)/S5(2) balance for a Green Belt scheme that is not inappropriate (DL ¶33).
- Conservation repairs bundled with a harmful extension do not count as public benefits if they could be done separately and their feasibility is uncertain (DL ¶22).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| GB7(1)(b) | pass | letter cites "GB7 1) a." for extensions; about 25% increase after conservatory removal; OS maps of 1933 and 1949 and a photo show the original building was larger; not disproportionate (DL 25-27) | |
| HE6(1) | harm | substantial | substantial weight to conservation stated (DL 21) |
| HE6(3) | harm | considerable | a "medium level of harm" - two-storey extension too high and prominent on a hillside farmhouse of 1745; new opening through the gable loses historic fabric (DL 12-16, 21) |
| HE6(4) | fail | removing paint, cement render and soil pipe would benefit the building (positive effect) but deliverability of the render removal unclear; extra accommodation a private benefit; no defined public benefit outweighs the harm (DL 10, 21-23) | |
| HE4(2) | fail | clear and convincing justification required (DL 20) | |
| S5(5) | fail | not inappropriate, then S5(5) with S5(2); heritage harm not outweighed means benefits substantially outweighed (DL 30-33) | |
| N2(1)(a) | pass | mapped - no harm to Luddenden Dean Special Landscape Area (local GN4) (DL 17-19) |
Key facts
- Joint letter with Appeal B (listed building consent, 6011013), also dismissed (DL 1-2)
- Farmhouse dated 1745 with lintel inscribed to Thomas and Hanna Lister; clockmaking association; list entry 1134535 (DL 7-8)
- Extension frontage 3.9 m but covers most of the side elevation (DL 12)
- [object Object]
Related decisions
Sources
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.