Extension to the rear to form an additional bedroom and WC facility for the benefit of persons with disabilities (retrospective application)

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: 6013302 30 Law Lane, Southowram, Halifax HX3 9QU • 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 Mr Tel Sultan (Sansaar Holdings Limited) against the decision of Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application reference is 26/00137/HSE. • The development proposed is an extension to the rear to form an additional bedroom and WC facility for the benefit of persons with disabilities (retrospective application). Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for an extension to the rear to form an additional bedroom and wc. facility for the benefit of persons with disabilities at 30 Law Lane, Southowram, Halifax HX3 9QU in accordance with the terms of the application reference 26/00137/HSE, subject to the following condition: The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following unreferenced plans submitted at the time of the application: - - Location plan, site plan and existing ground floor plan - Proposed ground floor plan - Proposed elevations Procedural Matters 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 been necessary for me to consult the main parties upon it. 3. The appeal is made retrospectively for development already constructed. Main Issues 4. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development upon (i) the character and appearance of the area; (ii) the living conditions of the occupiers of No.1 Townley Avenue in respect of light and (iii) if harm is identified and/or conflict found with the development plan, whether any such harm and/or conflict is outweighed by the personal circumstances of the appellant. Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: 6013302 2 Reasons Character and appearance 5. The appeal property is a stone built, two-storey, two-bedroom, semi-detached dwelling with a hipped roof in a residential area of similar properties. It is set at a higher level to Law Lane and from which the house and rear garden are densely screened by high hedging. 6. The application relates to a single storey extension for a bedroom and WC. The walls are timber clad, and the flat roof is of corrugated steel. 7. The area is within a landscape area (but not a Special Landscape Area) known as Coalfield Edge Urban Fringe Farmland. Policy GN4 of the Calderdale Local Plan 2023 (LP) requires all landscape areas to protect and enhance the landscape character of Calderdale. By its limited size and impact, and by the limited views of it from the public realm, I do not consider that the development has a harmful impact upon landscape quality, 8. In my judgement, the single storey extension is subordinate by its size and its extent to the existing dwelling, though its external materials contrast sharply with the natural stone and slate of the host property and surrounding buildings. However, I am aware that extensions do not always have to reflect absolutely the design and appearance of their main buildings, including the use of materials, to be acceptable in design terms. Each case should be considered on its own merits from a context point of view. 9. In this case, I conclude that the different use of external materials from the host property, its use of a flat roof, and its overall design and appearance, are sufficiently acceptable so as to accord with LP policies BT1 and GN4 of the LP and with policy DP3 of the Framework and which require developments to be respectful to, and compatible with, the surroundings within which they are set. Living conditions 10. The single storey development extends outwards in a south-easterly direction from the rear of the host property by approximately 8 metres. It adjoins No. 1 Towneley Avenue, which is the other half of the pair of semidetached dwellings and where there is a rear garden party fence of approximately 2 metres in height. 11. Annexe 2 to the LP states that approval would not normally be permitted for extensions projecting over 3 metres which cross a 45-degree line drawn from the centre of the nearest main window of the adjoining house. 12. The local planning authority (LPA) considers that the development does not accord with the guidance in annexe 2 of the LP. I have no reason to disagree with such a finding. However, the annexe also considers that the orientation of the sun should be a consideration in any decision. This is a factor which is pertinent to the issue of light and which the 45-degree rule aims to protect. 13. In this case, the extension projects in a south easterly direction, and where any loss of light to the adjoining property is more likely to be during the earlier part of the day. Even at that time, due to the single storey height of the extension and its flat roof ,the sun would predominantly shine above it. Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: 6013302 3 14. In addition, there is already a boundary fence between the properties of about 2 metres high, and while the extension is slightly taller, it is not significantly so. In addition, I have no objection before me from the occupants of the adjoining property at No.1 Towneley Avenue. 15. While there would be some technical conflict with annexe 2 of the LP, overall that conflict would not in this case lead to any material harm to the living conditions of No.1 Townley Avenue in respect of light. Therefore, I afford the technical conflict with annexe 2 and policy BT2 of the LP only limited adverse weight in the overall planning balance. Other Considerations 16. The appellant states that the extension is needed to meet the needs of those occupiers who suffer from disabilities and which includes difficulties with stairs. While the LPA makes little or no mention of the matter other than when validating the application description, it has presented no dispute to the stated need. 17. Therefore, I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. 18. While I have found no conflict with LP polices in relation to the effect of the development upon character and appearance of the area, I also attach considerable weight to the specific needs of the occupants of the property from a disability point of view. This outweighs the conflict which I have found with regard to LP policy BT2 and annexe 2 concerning the matter of daylight. Conditions 19. I have imposed a condition relating to the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty. This is because I am not certain whether the extension which has been constructed fully accords with the submitted plans. Conclusion 20. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. S. Hartley INSPECTOR