Appeal 3289700
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
5 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
described as side dormer.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the conservation area and the host property.
Section 04
Reasons
The site is within a predominantly residential area within the Skircoat Green Conservation Area. In accordance with the statutory duty imposed by section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990; I am required to have special regard to the effect of the proposed development on the character or appearance of the area.
Paragraph 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) states that great weight should be given to the conservation of a designated heritage asset when considering the impact of a proposal on such an asset. This is irrespective of the level of harm.
Neither party have provided any substantive details relating to the significance of the conservation area however during my site visit I noted that the area was characterised by predominantly two-storey, hipped roof, red bricked properties, some with partial rendering. Many properties in the surrounding area have been extended and altered.
The site is located within a residential estate where many of the properties share similar features and materials. The proposal would introduce a prominent form of development in the immediate area which despite the use of sympathetic materials, would be dominant and incongruous in the streetscene.
The proposed development would be an unsympathetic addition to the host property and immediate area. I find that the proposed development would diminish unacceptably the character and appearance of the area in general and would be out of keeping with the host property.
I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the conservation area and the host property. There would be conflict with Policies BE1 and BE18 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan (2006, as amended 2009) which amongst other things seeks to preserve or enhance the conservation areas and ensuring developments respect building form and local identity.
My attention has been drawn by the appellant to similar developments within close proximity to the appeal site. Substantive details have not been provided to allow me to assess these schemes against the proposal before me. Notwithstanding this I did observe a small number of side dormers on properties near the appeal site. These are not a common feature and did not persuade me that this form of development preserved or enhanced the area. In any event each development must be considered on its individual merits, and I have reached my conclusion based on the individual merit of the appeal proposal.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 126No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 17 March 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 8 March 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3289700
- Application reference
- 20/01472
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000033
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- Not recorded
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Yes
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 22 December 2021
- Valid date
- 22 December 2021
- Start date
- 21 January 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 27 October 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 17 March 2022
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- No
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 12484
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:26
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21