Erection of part two storey, part single storey rear extension and erection of two storey front extension and external alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 April 2026 by A Morrison MTCP MRTPI Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 7 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004570 Stone House, Old Quarry Lane, Lumby LS25 5JA • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs Atkinson against the decision of North Yorkshire Council. • The application Ref is ZG2025/0989/HPA. • The development proposed is erection of part two storey, part single storey rear extension and erection of two storey front extension and external alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure and Main Issues 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal scheme. The main issues in regard to which are a) whether it would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; its effect on the openness of the Green Belt; and c) whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal. Reasons for the Recommendation Inappropriate Development 3. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless one of a closed list of exceptions set out by paragraphs 154 and 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) applies. In regard to the appeal scheme, this is the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. 4. Policy SP2 of the Selby District Core Strategy 2013 (CS) provides that development must conform to Policy SP3 and national Green Belt policies. SP3 requires that, in accordance with the Framework, planning permission will not be granted for inappropriate development unless very special circumstances exist. 5. The Framework does not define what disproportionate might be, and neither party has referred me to any relevant local policy or guidance on this matter. The Council calculates that the proposal would result in a total volume increase of 93% over that of the original building. The appellant’s revised calculations, submitted during the Appeal Decision 6004570 2 appeal, suggest a lower increase of 82.4%. Even if I were to accept the appellant’s lower figure, the size and scale of the proposal would still be substantial, adding considerable mass to the original building. The appellant’s own statement accepts that the scheme represents a disproportionate addition on its own. Having regard to the extensions’ siting, height, prominence and overall bulk, I see no reason to reach a different conclusion. 6. Therefore, the appeal scheme would be inappropriate development within the Green Belt as defined by the Framework. It would, by association, be defined as such by CS Policies SP2 and SP3, the aims of which I have set out. Openness 7. The Government attaches great importance to the Green Belt. Two of its key components are its openness and permanence. Openness has both spatial and visual dimensions. 8. Spatially, and following the removal of the existing conservatory, the sizeable footprint and massing of the rear elements would occupy areas of the plot that are currently undeveloped. The additional volume created by introducing gabled roof forms to the front elevation would also further encroach into currently open space, though to a lesser extent. Taken together, these elements would unavoidably reduce the site’s existing degree of spatial openness. 9. The massing created from the front extension and associated roof alterations would be plainly apparent from the access on Old Quarry Lane. Part of the two storey rear extension would also be visible in briefer, more angled views. Given the dwelling’s open aspect across the adjoining field to the rear, the full breadth of the rear enlargements would also be appreciable in more distant views from Cass Lane. 10. Overall, there would be a plainly noticeable reduction in Green Belt openness in both aspects. This would result in further harm thereto. This would be as well that arising from the scheme’s inappropriateness resulting, accordingly, in further conflict with the Green Belt protection aims of both the Framework and the aforementioned development plan policies. Other Considerations 11. The Courts have held that in considering the concept of a fall-back development as a material consideration, there should be a “real prospect” of it being implemented, and not just a theoretical possibility that the development might take place. It is for the decision-maker to exercise their planning judgement on this matter and to ascribe the appropriate weight. 12. The first Lawful Development Certificate (LDC) scheme cited concerns an extant 2010 planning permission for the erection of a two storey extension to the rear and conversion of garage roof void to include dormer windows. The Council calculates that this scheme would result in a 69.5% volume increase over and above that of the original building. The appellant does not dispute this figure and provides no information or further comment to suggest that there is any realistic likelihood of this dated permission being implemented. 13. A second LDC relates to the erection of a two storey rear extension, single storey side extension, front porch and detached outbuilding (garden room) under permitted development rights. The appellant highlights that while this scheme Appeal Decision 6004570 3 includes an outbuilding with a volume of 90 cubic metres, a considerably larger structure could be erected under the same permitted development provisions. 14. Although it is asserted that this fallback could, and would, be implemented if the appeal fails, that claim is undermined by the appellant’s own description of the development as piecemeal and incongruous, and as failing to reflect or assimilate with the character and appearance of its surroundings. This acknowledgement of its design shortcomings, including lower quality materials, casts significant doubt on whether the scheme would in fact be pursued, particularly given the costs associated with its substantial scale. That prospect is further reduced by the inherent limitations of the permitted development regime, which would inevitably produce a distinctly different layout and configuration of the dwelling from that sought through the appeal proposal. 15. It is further contended that the appeal proposal, by retaining a single building envelope, would have a lesser effect on openness than a permitted development scheme that incorporates a large outbuilding. In this context, the appellant offers the removal of future permitted development rights to allow tighter control over any subsequent development on the site. In 3339761, such an approach was taken. 16. Planning conditions should not be used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there is clear justification to do so. Such conditions may not pass the test of reasonableness or necessity. The above appeal concerned an enforcement notice relating to a single storey side extension. As explained therein, the restriction of permitted development rights was justified on the specific circumstances of that case, which differ widely from those in the appeal before me. I am therefore not satisfied that there would be a clear justification to impose a condition withdrawing future permitted development rights in the manner suggested by the appellant. Accordingly, the potential to erect a garden outbuilding under such rights as a separate, additional development to the appeal proposal would remain. 17. The appellant’s calculations indicate that the extensions under the permitted development scheme would result in a volume increase to the original building of around 10% lower than that generated by the appeal proposal. Therefore, in both fallback scenarios, the uplift in volume arising from extensions to the original building would be markedly less than the proposal before me. As a result, they would, by comparison, be less harmful to openness. With this and the above in mind, I afford the perceived fallback positions limited weight. 18. The proposed extensions would provide increased living space for the appellant’s family. However, this is a private benefit that attracts only limited weight. No objections have been raised by neighbours, nor has any harm been identified in respect of living conditions. However, these are neutral factors in my assessment and do not weigh in support of the development. Conclusion and Recommendation 19. The appeal scheme would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would also unacceptably reduce its openness. These harms attract substantial weight. The other considerations I have taken into account would not, for the reasons I have set out, be sufficient to clearly outweigh these harms, such that the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal are not demonstrated. Appeal Decision 6004570 4 20. The proposal therefore conflicts with the development plan and there are no material considerations, including the approach of the Framework, which indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with it. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. A Morrison APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 21. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. John Morrison INSPECTOR