# The Barn, Bridle Stile Lane, Queensbury (Bradford)

- **Decision:** allowed, 8 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J D Westbrook
- **Authority:** Bradford (Yorkshire and the Humber)
- **Appeal reference:** 6012648
- **Application reference:** 26/01097/HOU
- **Procedure:** householder
- **Development:** Raised decking (reduced, part-retrospective) to a converted barn dwelling
- **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside
- **Green Belt:** yes
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** DP3, GB7(1)(b)
- **Development plan policies:** Bradford Core Strategy DS1, Householder SPD
- **Main issues:** character and appearance
- **Tags:** householder, disproportionate-extension, gb-incidental, not-inappropriate

## Summary
Raised decking to a converted barn in the Bradford Green Belt. Refused on character; allowed because removing the modesty panels makes it unobtrusive. Green Belt was incidental: the extension was accepted as not disproportionate, so not inappropriate.

## Issues and findings
- **Character: PASS.** "The overall appearance of the decking, without the composite modesty panels, would be light and unobtrusive" (DL ¶8).
- **Green Belt (Other Matters).** "the Council accepts that the proposed extension would not result in a disproportionate addition … I concur with that view … the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt" (DL ¶10).

## Planning balance
No balance was needed: no harm on the main issue and not inappropriate.

## What made the difference
Detailing: open sides and slim railings instead of solid panels.

## Transferable points
- Raised decking is assessed as an extension under the GB7(1)(b) proportionality test (DL ¶10).

## Policy findings
- **GB7(1)(b): pass.** Council accepted, and inspector concurred, that it is not a disproportionate addition; not a refusal reason (DL 10)
- **DP3: pass.** removing composite modesty panels makes the decking "light and unobtrusive" (DL 8-9)

## Key facts
- About 4 m x 5 m decking, 1-1.4 m above ground on a sloping site, with slim metal railings
- Green Belt was not a refusal reason

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012648
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/75bd7dc6-e104-4b00-b1f4-e9e24125c947

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012648.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.