First floor extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 February 2026 by S Manson DipTP MRTPI Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6003368 Brandy Hall, Bradshaw, Halifax HX2 9XE • 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 R Fisher against the decision of Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is 25/00500/HSE. • The development proposed is a first floor extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issues 3. The main issues are a) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; b) its effect on the openness of the Green Belt; and c) if the scheme is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, as to amount to very special circumstances required to justify it. Reasons for the Recommendation Inappropriate Development 4. The National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) sets out, amongst other things, that development is inappropriate in the Green Belt, unless it falls within a given set of exceptions. One is the extension or alteration of a building provided it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Policy GB1 of the Calderdale Local Plan 2018/19-2032/33, 2023 (LP) reflects the stance of the Framework in this regard. Neither defines what disproportionate is or set any benchmark in terms of size of extensions. It is therefore a matter of judgement. 5. The dwelling appears to have been extended to the side, and has a porch added to the front. A detached garage is also positioned within the plot. The site is surrounded by open rural views on three sides with a small cluster of buildings to the east. Appeal Decision 6003368 2 6. The main parties disagree on the overall level of additional built form that the appeal proposal would introduce. Both have factored previous extensions, including the detached garage, into their calculations, in addition to the floor‑space and volume created by the current scheme. The appellant contends that the appeal proposal would amount to a 47.6% increase in volume over the original dwelling, with differing figures regarding the uplift from a previously approved scheme of being either 3.6% or 10%. The Council’s own calculations suggest a larger increase, equating to approximately 62% over the original building. 7. Even adopting the lower figures, such an uplift would be considerably more than slight or modest. An increase approaching half the volume of the original dwelling represents a pronounced intensification of built form. The first-floor extension alone would introduce a significant and bulky addition, that would extend across more than half the width of the original dwelling. This would materially increase the scale and massing of the building and alter its form, resulting in a sizeable enlargement. 8. Taking these matters together, the proposal would amount to disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building when taken together with what has gone before. As such, it would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. This would conflict with both the identification of such by the Framework and the aims of Policy GB1 of the LP as set out above. Openness 9. Openness is a fundamental attribute of the Green Belt and comprises both spatial and visual elements. Spatial openness is generally taken to refer to the absence of built form. The appeal proposal would introduce a first‑floor addition across a substantial portion of the existing dwelling, resulting in a two‑storey built form where only single‑storey development currently exists. This would represent an increase of some noticeable substance in both the height and volume of the building. 10. Given the site’s rural, hillside location, the increase in height and mass would inevitably result in a notable reduction in both the spatial and visual aspects of the Green Belt’s openness. The extension would introduce a substantial volume of new built form, thereby intensifying the presence of such in an area characterised by sporadic and dispersed development. This harm, combined with the inappropriateness of the development, attracts substantial weight. Other Considerations 11. It is submitted that the proposal would represent an improvement over a previously approved scheme for a smaller extension, which the appellant feels is poorly designed and incongruous with policy. However, I have not been presented with the full details of this development and therefore cannot make any meaningful assessment of its design merits or its relevance as a fallback position. The design of the scheme before me is not a contentious matter in the appeal, with the main issues primarily concerned with its size and effect on the Green Belt. Noting that the approved scheme is also smaller than that proposed in the appeal. Taking into account my earlier findings, this matter attracts very limited weight. 12. Paragraph 154(g) of the Framework concerns, in part, the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land. As the appeal scheme is for an extension to an existing dwelling and takes the form of development in the true sense rather than redevelopment, this exception would not apply to the proposals. Appeal Decision 6003368 3 13. Without full details of 24/01223/FUL, I am unable to determine whether its circumstances are sufficiently comparable to the appeal scheme or whether it carries any relevance to the current appeal in other respects. 14. Concerns regarding the Council’s handling of the application and the level of engagement during its determination are administrative matters between the main parties and do not alter my assessment of the planning merits of the appeal. The Council’s evidence provides a clear and proportionate justification for its decision, setting out the reasoning relied upon. Conclusion and Recommendation 15. The appeal scheme would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would also result in a reduction in openness, both spatially and visually. In accordance with the Framework, I give substantial weight to this harm. In totality, weight ascribed to the other considerations would be insufficient to clearly outweigh it. Accordingly, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposed development do not exist. 16. The proposal would therefore conflict with the development plan as I have set it out above and there are no other material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, that indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. S Manson APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 17. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. John Morrison INSPECTOR