- Decision
- dismissed, 25 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: M J Francis
- Authority
- Calderdale (Yorkshire and the Humber)
- Appeal reference
- 6011013
- Application reference
- 26/00039/LBC
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Listed building consent to replace a conservatory with a two-storey side extension, remove paint and cement render, repoint in lime, apply lime harling and make internal alterations to a Grade II 1745 farmhouse (Appeal B; planning Appeal A is PINS-6011008)
- Site context
- green belt, listed building setting, valued landscape
- Green Belt
- Yes
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE6(4), HE6(3)
- Development plan policies
- Calderdale Local Plan 2023 HE1, GN4
- Main issues
- special interest of the listed building
Summary
Listed building consent for a two-storey side extension and repairs to a Grade II 18th-century hillside farmhouse near Luddenden. Dismissed with the linked planning appeal. The repairs (removing paint and cement, relining in lime) would be positive. But the extension was too tall for the sloping site and meant cutting a new opening through the historic gable: a medium level of harm. The benefits were largely private or uncertain.
Issues and findings
- Extension. "the massing of the two-storey extension would result in it being too high and unduly prominent. This would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the existing house and would harm its significance" (DL ¶13).
- Degree of harm and positive effects. "I find in this instance that 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).
- Benefits. "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).
- HE6(4). "in the absence of any defined public benefit that would outweigh the harm that would be caused, I conclude that, on balance, the proposal would fail to preserve the special historic interest of the Grade II listed building" (DL ¶23).
Transferable points
- Positive repair works in the same package do not offset harm from an over-scaled extension where the repairs are uncertain in extent (DL ¶21-23).
- On a sloping site, the contours "dictate that any extension requires a greater level of subservience" (DL ¶12).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| HE5(2)(c) | harm | the two-storey extension is too high and prominent for a hillside farmhouse, and the new opening loses historic fabric, so "a medium level of harm"; the fabric repairs would have "a positive effect" (DL 12-16, 21) | |
| HE6(1) | harm | substantial | substantial weight to conservation irrespective of the level of effect (DL 21) |
| HE6(3) | harm | considerable | "any harm to a designated heritage asset is a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL 16, 21) |
| HE6(4) | fail | removing the conservatory and paint and relining in lime benefit the building, but the lime works are uncertain and the extra accommodation is private; "absence of any defined public benefit" (DL 22-23) |
Key facts
- Same decision letter as PINS-6011008 (Appeal A, householder), which applied GB7 (cited as "GB7 1) a.", really the extension limb) and S5(5) (DL 25-33)
- Letter's banner says the LBC appeal was made under s20 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (a slip for the Listed Buildings Act)
- Parties consulted on the August 2026 Framework (DL 3)
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.