Appeal 6001793

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building, a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA).

The appeal site comprises a semi-detached dwelling with a side/rear outbuilding, situated within a predominantly residential street. The proposal seeks to convert the outbuilding, which is an NDHA, into a residential annex. It also includes external alterations to the NDHA, notably the removal of the chimney stack and the installation of solar photovoltaic panels (PV panels).

The NDHA is a modest historic ancillary structure, constructed in stone with a simple rectangular footprint and a pitched, slate-covered roof. Its significance derives from its plain, functional character, typical of small service buildings historically associated with larger properties. The building’s authentic materials and simple form allow its original purpose to be readily understood, contributing to its evidential and aesthetic value within the local context. The slate roof is integral to the building’s legibility and authenticity, while the chimney stack provides vertical emphasis that balances the strong gable form and reinforces the reading of the structure as a coherent historic unit. Accordingly, both the slate roof and the chimney stack make an important positive contribution to the significance of the NDHA.

The proposed installation of PV panels across most of the roof surface would obscure the historic slate covering and disrupt the ability to appreciate the roof as a coherent traditional element. The reflective, modular appearance of the PV panels would contrast sharply with the building’s simple vernacular qualities and would distort its scale and composition. Owing to the building’s modest size, the array would be visually dominant, diminishing the roof’s contribution to the NDHA’s significance and eroding the authenticity and legibility that underpin its heritage value. This harm would be compounded by the removal of the chimney stack, which would flatten the roofscape, weaken the building’s distinctive profile, and further reduce the clarity with which its historic form can be understood.

Although the proposal limits the number of new or altered openings and avoids extensions, these measures do not mitigate or justify the scale of alterations associated with the proposed PV panels and the loss of the chimney stack. Taken together, these interventions would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the NDHA and diminish its significance.

The appellant contends that the chimney stack is structurally unsafe. However, no substantive evidence has been provided to support this claim. It is further suggested that a rebuilt chimney or amended solar-panel arrangement could have been negotiated. Nevertheless, I have considered the proposal based on the submitted evidence, including the proposed plans which show the extent of the PV panels and the lack of a chimney stack.

The nature of the proposed changes would result in harm falling within the “less than substantial” category. However, given the importance of both the historic roof covering and the chimney stack to the building’s significance, that harm would be at the moderate end of this spectrum. Paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires a balanced judgment in determining applications that affect NDHAs, having regard to the scale of the harm and the significance of the heritage asset.

While the proposal would bring the building into a viable residential use, I am not persuaded that such use could not be achieved through a less intrusive scheme. I therefore attach only limited weight to this benefit, which does not outweigh the harm identified.

In conclusion, the proposal would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the NDHA. Thus, it would be contrary to the aims of Policies HS1, BT1, and HE1 of the Calderdale Local Plan 2018/19 – 2032/33 adopted 2023, which collectively require, amongst other things, developments to be appropriate to their context and to conserve or enhance non-designated heritage assets. The proposal would also conflict with the aims of the Framework, as set out above, as in this instance the identified harm is not outweighed by the benefits.

The appeal site is within proximity to a grade II listed milestone ([address], [name]). The Council’s Conservation Officer stated that the proposal does not affect the setting of the listed structure. Based on the evidence before, including my site visit observations, I have no reason to reach a different conclusion on this matter.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.