# 3 Booth Terrace, Dean House Lane, Luddenden

- **Decision:** dismissed, 8 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Hartley
- **Authority:** Calderdale (Yorkshire and the Humber)
- **Appeal reference:** 6014250
- **Application reference:** 26/00306/HSE
- **Procedure:** householder
- **Development:** Single-storey full-width front extension
- **Site context:** green-belt, valued-landscape, listed-building-setting
- **Green Belt:** yes
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** DP3
- **Development plan policies:** Calderdale Local Plan 2018/19-2032/33 BT1, GN4, Calderdale Placemaking and Design Guide SPD 2024
- **Main issues:** Green Belt, character and appearance, Special Landscape Area, heritage
- **Tags:** not-inappropriate, proportionate-extension, design-refusal, transitional-no-consultation, householder

## Summary
A small full-width front extension to a stone terraced cottage in the Calderdale Green Belt. It was not inappropriate: an increase of about one fifth on an unextended original is not disproportionate under GB7(1)(b). It was dismissed on design (DP3) and minor harm to the Special Landscape Area.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** The Framework is of "critical importance", but it "has not materially changed the assessment in this appeal", so the parties were not consulted (DL ¶2).
- **GB7(1)(b): PASS.** "I find that the proposal would not constitute a disproportionate addition to the original building" (DL ¶10).
- **Design / DP3: FAIL.** "it would have a significantly harmful effect upon the pleasing rhythm of the terrace, and would interrupt its building line" (DL ¶13).
- **Heritage: neutral.** No objective evidence that the terrace is a non-designated heritage asset (DL ¶¶23–24).

## Planning balance
Development plan conflict on design and SLA was "of overriding concern" (DL ¶25).

## What made the difference
Green Belt passed easily. Design against a uniform terrace decided the case.

## Transferable points
- An increase of about 20% on an unextended original building is not disproportionate (DL ¶¶9–10).
- A Council's claim of non-designated heritage asset status needs objective evidence (DL ¶23).

## Policy findings
- **GB7(1)(b): pass.** 7.2 sqm on c.34 sqm unextended original (about one fifth) → not disproportionate (DL 5-11)
- **DP3: fail.** full-width front extension breaks rhythm and building line of uniform stone terrace (DL 12-15)
- **Calderdale GN4 (Special Landscape Area): harm.** minor adverse impact on Luddenden Dean SLA (DL 16-19)
- **HE5: neutral.** no effect on Grade II Broadfold Hall or Lower Holme House; terrace not shown to be a non-designated heritage asset (DL 20-24)

## Key facts
- Original dwelling c.34 sqm GEA over two floors, never extended; extension 7.2 sqm
- Uniform stone terrace; neighbours have small porches, not full-width additions

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6014250
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/1e6a1420-999a-4bd2-a842-e1d785177a7a

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6014250.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.