Erection of extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 December 2025 by L Wilson BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11th December 2025 Appeal Ref: 6001339 White Acre Farm, Walton Lane, Clifton, Brighouse, Calderdale BD19 6PJ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs Lees against the decision of Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is 25/00344/HSE. • The development proposed was originally described as erection of extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies; • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and • Whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal. Reasons Whether inappropriate development 3. Paragraph 154 of the Framework states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless one of the listed exceptions applies. One such exception being the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. This exception is also reflected in Policy GB1 of the Calderdale Local Plan 2018/19 – 2032/33 (2023) (LP). Neither the Framework or LP specify what might be considered as a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. 4. The host building is a large, detached dwelling which has been extended over the years. Although the proposed extension would be modest, it would further increase the scale and massing of the dwelling compared to the original building. The Council set out that the existing extensions have already increased the volume of the original building by around 45%. They go on to state that the proposed Appeal Decision 6001339 2 extension, along with the existing extensions would result in approximately a 50.5% increase. No substantive evidence has been provided to challenge the accuracy of these figures. 5. Consequently, when considering the scale and massing of the extension alongside the cumulative impact of previous additions, the proposal would result in a disproportionate increase. The extension, in conjunction with the previous extensions, would therefore result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. 6. For these reasons, the proposal would not fall under any of the exceptions listed in the Framework and LP Policy GB1. The development would therefore be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to chapter 13 of the Framework along with Policy GB1 of the LP. Openness 7. Paragraph 142 of the Framework states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. 8. The proposal would have a spatial impact upon the Green Belt as it would result in an increase in built development. The extension would add to the bulk, scale and massing of the dwelling. From a visual perspective, the proposal would not be conspicuous from public vantage points due to its location to the rear of the dwelling, and the presence of boundary features and nearby buildings. 9. Consequently, for the reasons given above, the development would not preserve the openness of the Green Belt, albeit to a very limited degree having regard to its siting, size and visual impact. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy, as stated in the Framework, to keep land permanently open. Other considerations 10. The appellants state that as an alternative to the proposal they would construct a detached building under permitted development rights. The building would be located in the rear garden and used ancillary to the main dwelling. A building, such as that suggested, is likely to have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt due to it’s size and siting away from the dwelling. 11. The proposed scheme seeks to extend the existing kitchen, whereas the fallback position involves constructing a detached building. As a result, the fallback would not deliver the same functional or integrated outcome as the proposed extension. Thus, for these reasons and based on the information presented, there is limited evidence to demonstrate that there is a greater than a theoretical possibility or a real prospect that such development might take place. I therefore give the fallback position limited weight. Other Matters 12. In addition to matters addressed above, a support comment highlights that the extension would be in keeping with the original building and the Council have granted permission for a large building project nearby. Such absence of harm and compliance with local and national planning policies does not amount to a positive Appeal Decision 6001339 3 factor in favour of the scheme. Furthermore, each application must be determined on its individual planning merits. Consequently, the other matters are given neutral weight. Conclusion 13. I have found that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. It would also cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt, albeit that harm would be very limited. Paragraph 153 of the Framework is clear that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness, and that ‘very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. 14. I give the fallback position limited weight, and the other matters highlighted are given neutral weight. When drawing this together, the other considerations advanced in support of the appeal do not clearly outweigh the harm that I have found. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. I therefore conclude that the scheme would conflict with Policy GB1 of the LP and chapter 13 of the Framework. 15. For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other material considerations, the appeal does not succeed. L Wilson INSPECTOR