New dormer extension to the western pitch of the roof

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 August 2026 by S Hartley BA (Hons) Dist.TP (Manc) DMS MRTPI MRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6013227 33 Pudsey Road, Todmorden, Calderdale OL14 8NR • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mrs. Sofie Corfield against the decision of Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application reference is 26/00213/HSE. • The development proposed is a new dormer extension to the western pitch of the roof. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. On 17 August 2026, the Government published a revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). This is a relevant material planning consideration of ‘critical importance’ from a decision-making point of view. In respect of the main issues, the Framework has not materially changed their assessment in this appeal, and it has not therefore been necessary for me to consult the main parties upon it. Main Issue 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development upon (i) the character and appearance of the area and (ii) the Special Landscape Area. Reasons Character and appearance 4. No.33 Pudsey Road forms part of a two-storey, stone built, pre-twentieth century terrace in a semi-rural setting. The roof of the terrace is double pitched, natural blue slate, and its front face includes one flat roofed dormer to the end property in the terrace, and which adjoins the appeal proposal. 5. The individual dwellings in the terrace are not stepped along the contours but have unbroken ridge and eaves lines. The overall simple design of the terrace, together with the use of natural stone for the walls and blue slate for the roof, add distinctively and positively to its character and appearance and to that of the area. Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: 6013227 2 6. In my judgement, the adjoining box dormer detracts from the uniformity of the terrace and therefore to its overall character and appearance. Its impact is mitigated to some extent by its position at the very end of the terrace, rather than being in the middle where the disruption to the roof line would have had a greater and more adverse visual impact. Nevertheless, I do not consider that it sets a positive precedent for the appeal proposal. In any event, the existing and proposed dormers differ in their designs and impact in terms of character and appearance. 7. Indeed, the existing dormer is set above the eaves and is contained entirely within the roof plane of the property, whereas the appeal proposal would cut through the eaves line and extend to the front, stone face of the dwelling above it and into the roof. It would include front facing windows with a vertical emphasis and a Juliet balcony, all of which would introduce an incongruous addition to the simple lines of the elevation of the rest of the terrace. 8. Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development would not accord with policy BT1 of the Calderdale Local Plan 2023 (LP) or with the Calderdale Placemaking and Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2024 (SPD) or with policy DP3 of the Framework, all of which require that proposals should be well designed. Landscape character 9. There is an overlap between an assessment of the character and appearance of the host property and the terrace of which it forms a part, and the Special Landscape Area (SLA) within which it is located. 10. The appeal site is listed within that part of the special landscape area known as the Cliviger Gorge SLA, characterised by its steep valleys with linear settlements along the valley floor with small lanes climbing the valley slopes including modest stone built terraces, all giving a cohesive quality to the SLA. 11. Policy GN4 of the LP aims to ensure that development does not adversely affect the scenic quality of the SLA, and those elements which contribute to its significance. 12. While I have found that the proposed development would have an adverse effect upon the existing building and the terrace of which it forms a part, by its limited size and impact when compared to the geographic extent and purpose of the SLA when considered as a whole, I do not consider that in this case any significant harm would be caused to the SLA. 13. Therefore, I conclude that there would be no conflict with Policy GN4 of the LP. Conclusion 14. While I have concluded that the proposed development would not conflict with policy GN4 of the LP in relation to it impact upon the SLA, I have found that the proposal would conflict with those stated policies which require good design. This is a matter of overriding concern. Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: 6013227 3 15. There are no material planning considerations that indicate that the application should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. S. Hartley INSPECTOR