For a detached garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 June 2026 by Richard Gilbert BA (Hons) MSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008161 Wildacre, 810 Rochdale Road, Todmorden, Calderdale OL14 7UA • 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 Steven Scholes against the decision of Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is 25/00740/HSE. • The development proposed is for a detached garage. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a detached bungalow occupying a corner plot at the end of a row of similar detached dwellings. Like its neighbours, it sits on raised ground and is set well back within its plot behind a generous, green front garden. The spacious, verdant character of these plots contrasts with the more compact arrangement of the terraced dwellings opposite. The orientation of the bungalow, alongside its dry-stone walls and hedging help the appeal property to transition visually into the green hillside that forms an open backdrop to the side and rear. 4. The proposed garage would have a square footprint and a pitched roof. Being detached, it would be sited in the left-hand corner of the plot between the dwelling and the road. 5. The ‘Calderdale Placemaking and Design Guide’ Supplementary Planning Document (2024) (SPD) states that extensions, additions and alterations must be subservient to the original building and should respect its scale, form, proportions, character and appearance, and that of the locality. 6. Owing to its size and location, the garage would take up a significant proportion of the front garden and erode the sense of space it contributes to this side of the street. Despite being at a lower land level, the foreground position of the garage in a highly visible corner position would dominate views of the host dwelling impeding its form and appearance within the street. This impact would be lessened by the use of natural facing materials and the shielding effect of the wall and hedge. However, given its height, the roof of the garage would rise above Appeal Decision 6008161 2 these boundary treatments and obstruct views of the bungalow and the surrounding hillside. In this context, the proposal would not act as a subservient form of development, would not enhance the appeal property and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the streetscene. 7. Although the architectural detailing of each neighbouring bungalow may differ, they share a common layout in respect of the position and composition of their boundaries, gardens and dwellings. Being immediately adjacent the roadside, the garage would be out of character with its neighbours who possess no similar form of development to the front of their staggered build line. Likewise, the garage cannot be defined as a small extension akin to a porch or bay window and would not meet the exception definition set out at Section 2.10.2 of the SPD. 8. For these reasons, the proposed development would demonstrably harm the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area. Conflict therefore arises with Policy BT1 of the Calderdale Local Plan (2023) (CLP) which seeks new development to respect or enhance the character and appearance of existing buildings and surroundings, taking account of its local context and distinctiveness. 9. Allowing the proposal would secure species enhancement through a condition to secure installation of a bat box in compliance with Policy GN3 of the CLP. This would amount to a very minor benefit that does not outweigh the harm the garage would cause to character and appearance. The principle of development is not in dispute, and the Council have confirmed that the proposal would cause no harm in relation to highway safety, flood risk or its effect on the living conditions of neighbouring residents. As a result, it would also comply with Local Plan policies that relate to these matters. However, the absence of harm is neutral in the planning balance and the harm that I have identified in relation to the main issue, and resulting conflict with the development plan, is sufficient for the proposal to be contrary to the development plan considered as a whole. Conclusion 10. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed. Richard Gilbert INSPECTOR