Appeal 6003984

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the proposal would be suitably located, having particular regard to development plan policies concerning the accessibility of the appeal site.

Policy HS1 of the Calderdale Local Plan1 (LP), indicates that proposals for residential development on non-allocated sites will be supported provided that they complement the strategic objectives of the plan.

LP Policy CC1 specifies that development proposals should aim to be net zero emitters of greenhouse gases and explains that proposals must demonstrate appropriate mitigation and adaption measures. This includes by locating development in areas accessible by public transport, and safe, attractive well linked cycling and walking routes; whilst recognising the different needs of rural areas. LP Policy IM5 is more specific in that it states that proposals will take account of the public transport network. It goes on to advise that proposals will ideally be located where public transport service gives at least a 30 minute direct day time service to specific centres; accessed from a bus stop within 400m walking distance or a railway station up to 750m walking distance away.

The appeal site is located close to, but outside of the village of [name]. Nonetheless, the parties agree the appeal site is not isolated and is within an unnamed settlement. I have no reason to disagree with this assessment. Regardless, the unnamed settlement only comprises of residential and what appears to be agricultural development. There are no facilities within the settlement such as a post office, a convenience store, or a public house. 1 Calderdale Local Plan 2018/19-2032/33, [name], [name] 2023

The appellant has highlighted that there are four schools within 3km of the appeal site, including a primary school 800m away. The appellant has also advised there are several facilities within 2.5km of the appeal site, including those within [site address] Town Centre. However, these distances are as the crow flies. Whilst this shows how physically close these facilities are, the walking or cycling distances are much further. When reviewing walking and cycling distances, the primary school is over 1km from the appeal site and the nearest facility, a working men’s club, is only slightly closer.

Accordingly, there are no facilities in proximity to the appeal site. Occupiers of the proposed dwelling would have to walk or cycle along a rural road network, including [site address] , or a series of unlit and unsurfaced public rights of way to access the nearest facilities. There is not a continuous footpath along [site address] , and the road is sparsely lit. The road is narrow and along sections of the road there are tall walls either side. Consequently, there is little space for refuge. The surrounding area is hilly. As such, people walking or cycling to and from the nearest facilities would have to travel significantly uphill during their journey. Given the amount of development on [site address] , the road is likely to be lightly trafficked. Nevertheless, for the reasons given above, the walk or cycle to the nearest facilities in the dark or during inclement weather at best, would be unpleasant, and at worst, would be unsafe.

I acknowledge that there may be nice views of the landscape when walking, and during the day, in nice weather there could be attractive walks from the appeal site through the countryside. However, due to the distance to facilities and the surrounding road network, future occupiers would not be encouraged to regularly walk or cycle to access these facilities. Moreover, this assessment is supported by anecdotal evidence, where the appellant advises that their children walk to the local primary school, except in inclement weather.

There are two bus stops just over 1km walking distance from the appeal site. One of which accommodates regular services to Halifax and Ripponden, as well as a local hospital, and a nearby train station. The other accommodates a service to a school. Although these bus stops accommodate regular services to multiple locations, due to their distance from the appeal site and the surrounding road network, future occupiers would not be encouraged to walk or cycle to them. Likewise, [site address] [name] accommodates regular services to Leeds and Manchester, but it is over a mile walking distance from the appeal site. For the same reasons as above, future occupiers of the proposed dwelling would not be encouraged to walk or cycle to the [name].

Opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. Nonetheless, development proposals should pursue opportunities to promote walking, cycling, and public transport; and it should be ensured that sustainable transport modes are prioritised. On balance, future occupiers of the proposed dwelling would be largely reliant on the use of private motor vehicles to access the facilities necessary to support their everyday lives. Accordingly, sustainable transport modes would not be prioritised, and the proposal would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

The appellant has made references to guidance2 in relation to acceptable walking distances. Firstly, several of the references are in relation to urban environments where longer walking distances may be acceptable due to a more hospitable walking environment, such as well-lit, segregated footpaths. Secondly, it is guidance and does not have to be strictly complied with. In making my assessment on the acceptability of the appeal proposal, I have considered this guidance.

The appellant has also highlighted three planning permissions3 for rural houses granted by the Council. [name] acknowledge there is a need to be consistent in the approach to decision making, each proposal is determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance, the grant of planning permission by the Council for houses in rural locations, which may not be suitably located, does not lead me to conclude that I should allow an appeal for a proposal in an unsuitable location.

I acknowledge the appellant’s personal circumstances would reduce the need to travel for work. Nevertheless, the proposal is not for a personal permission. There is no guarantee that the appellant’s would remain in their current jobs or that the proposed dwelling would not be sold in the future to people who need to commute to a place of employment. Therefore, little weight is ascribed to the appellant’s personal circumstances in my assessment.

Taking all of the above into account, I conclude that the proposal would not be suitably located, having particular regard to development plan policies concerning the accessibility of the appeal site. It would be contrary to LP policies HS1, IM5, and CC1 for the reasons given above. It would also not be supported by LP Policy IM4, where it indicates that applications which demonstrate a commitment to the principle of sustainable travel will be viewed favourably.

The appellant has raised concerns with the Council’s conduct during the determination of the planning application. In particular, the appellant asserts that the Council did not consider relevant material considerations when considering the potential benefits of the proposal. This is a matter between the parties and does not affect my assessment on the acceptability of the appeal proposal.

The Council has indicated on the Decision Notice that the proposal would be contrary to LP Policy BT4. Although the Policy considers the need to provide convenient and safe pedestrian routes, this is in the context of the design and layout of highways and accesses. Accordingly, the Policy is not strictly relevant to the matter in dispute.

When refusing a previous planning application4 for a similar proposal at the appeal site, the Council concluded that the proposed development was significantly divorced from the nearby amenities and services. Although the Council has not specified that for this proposal, its assessment on both proposals is consistent. The fact the Council did not repeat the phrase ‘significantly divorced,’ does not mean that it concluded that the proposal was not significantly harmful. 2 Chartered Institute of Highways and Transportation 2015 ‘Planning for Walking’; Chartered Institute of Highways and Transportation 2018 ‘Buses in [name]; Manual for Streets; Chartered Institute of Highways and Transportation 2000 ‘Guidelines for [name] on Foot’. 3 Planning permission Refs. 22/01267/FUL, 24/00542/FUL, and 25/00913/FUL 4 Planning application Ref. 25/00658/FUL

The proposal would support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes and would contribute toward the Council’s supply of deliverable housing land. The proposed dwelling would not be isolated and would make an effective use of previously developed land. The proposal would be an example of a small site which supports the development of self-build housing. The Framework identifies that this type of development can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area.

The proposed dwelling would include energy efficient measures such as an air source heat pump and photovoltaic panels. These measures would exceed the regulatory requirements set out in building regulations and the LP. The proposed dwelling would also benefit from ample external space. The parties agree that the proposed development would enhance the appearance of the appeal site. Furthermore, there would be economic benefits associated with the construction period and the occupation of the proposed dwelling.

As such, there would be several benefits of the proposal. Nonetheless, the proposal is modest in scale. There is also no mechanism before me to ensure that the proposed dwelling would meet the definition of self-build and custom housebuilding as set out within the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended). Consequently, I ascribe moderate weight to these benefits.

There are no policies in the LP which positively favour residential development in this location. As the proposal would be contrary to LP policies HS1, IM5, and CC1 it would conflict with the development plan, when read as a whole.

It is unclear whether the Council can demonstrate five years’ supply of deliverable housing land. The appellant has indicated within their Statement of Case, dated January 2026, that the Council can demonstrate 5.22 years’ supply. However, they refer to a January 2025 [name]. The Council has indicated within the [name], dated December 2025, that it cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing land. For the purposes of my assessment, I have assumed that the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing land.

In these circumstances, footnote 8 of the Framework establishes that the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date. Consequently, planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, amongst other matters.

Even when taking account of the Government’s objective to significantly boost the supply of housing, and the Council’s housing land supply position, I still ascribe moderate weight to the benefits of the proposal. The Framework gives substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes, rather than the countryside. The Framework also indicates it should be ensured that sustainable transport modes are prioritised. Accordingly, I ascribe significant weight to the harm that would be caused by locating residential development outside a settlement and away from facilities and public transport. Therefore, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan, when read as a whole, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.