Addition of front and rear dormer

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 September 2026 by Richard Gilbert BA (Hons) MSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012730 65 Essex Street, Halifax, Calderdale HX1 3UE • 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 Nazam Hussain against the decision of Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application reference is 26/00459/HSE. • The development proposed is addition of front and rear dormer. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. During the course of the appeal a new National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on the 17 August 2026. Whilst the format has altered, any considerations that are material to this decision have not fundamentally changed. I am satisfied that this has not prejudiced any party and I have had regard to the latest version in reaching my decision. Main Issue 3. The Council have not raised concerns regarding the proposed rear dormer described in the development description and set out on the submitted plans. Consequently, the main issue of the appeal is the effect of the proposed front dormer on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a mid-terrace dwelling which fronts onto Essex Street. Like the majority of its neighbours, it has a pitched slate roof that culminates in a chimney stack. The character and appearance of the street is established through the consistent run, and uninterrupted views of, roof slopes that provide uniformity to the street scene. This uniformity is strengthened by the even-spacing of tall, upright windows to the front elevations of dwellings along the street. However, it is also weakened by the infrequent presence of front dormers to a number of dwellings on the street, including at 59 Essex Street (No.59). 5. The proposed development includes installation of a pitched roof dormer to the front roof slope. The Calderdale Placemaking & Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (July 2024) (SPD) states that dormer windows must be sensitively designed and located so that they do not detract from the character of the building or surrounding area. To achieve this, the SPD states that dormer Appeal Decision 6012730 2 windows should not dominate the original roof slope and should not occupy more than half the width or depth of the roof. Furthermore, the proportion and arrangement of their windows should echo those on the floors below. 6. The proposed front dormer would consume more than half the width and depth of the front roof slope, preventing it appearing as a subordinate architectural feature. Furthermore, the window within the dormer would have a horizontal emphasis contrary to the vertical format of the windows in the elevation below. The combination of these design characteristics would result in the proposal dominating the front roof slope and reading as an incongruous extension upon it. Hence, the introduction of the dormer would be harmful to the appearance of the appeal property whilst simultaneously eroding the character of Essex Street. 7. The dormer would be finished in slate to help it integrate into the surrounding roof slope. However, the use of a sympathetic material would not be sufficient to disguise the overall mass of the dormer upon the appeal property. It would therefore be insufficient to alleviate the harm it would otherwise incur in respect of character and appearance. 8. Although front dormers are present, they are a minority feature in the street that does not establish its overarching character. As such, their presence, including the example nearby at No.59, does not overcome the harm that I have otherwise found, and in fact point to a need for such proposals to be carefully controlled if the character and appearance of the area is to be safeguarded. As such, I attribute limited weight to a comparison with them and they do not persuade me that the appeal proposal is acceptable. 9. For the reasons set out above, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area. Conflict therefore arises with Policy BT1 of the Calderdale Local Plan 2018/19 – 2032/33 (adopted March 2023) which seeks the design style proposed in new developments to respect or enhance the character and appearance of existing buildings and surroundings, taking account of its local context and distinctiveness. Conclusion 10. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed. Richard Gilbert INSPECTOR