Single storey side and rear extensions

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 April 2026 by J Buxton BA(Hons) DipArch ARB RIBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005790 20 Chestnut Avenue, York YO31 1BR • 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 Edward Appleton against the decision of City of York Council. • The application reference is 25/02041/FUL. • The development proposed is single storey side and rear extensions. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey side and rear extensions at 20 Chestnut Avenue, York YO31 1BR in accordance with the terms of the application, reference 25/02041/FUL, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos; 125 - 02 Existing and Proposed Site Layouts, 125 - 04 Existing and Proposed Floor Plans and 125 - 06 Existing and Proposed Elevations. 2) The bin store as shown on Existing and Proposed Floor Plans drawing no. 125/04 shall be retained and maintained in working order for the lifetime of the development. Applications for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Mr Edward Appleton against the decision of City of York Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision. Background and Main Issue 3. At the time of my site visit, it was apparent that the extension had already been constructed. Retrospective as referred to in the application form and the decision notice does not constitute an act of development. I have dealt with the appeal on the basis that planning permission is being sought for the erection of a single storey side and rear extension. 4. There is no dispute between the parties about the acceptability of the scale of the rear extension or the proposed bin storage arrangements. Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that these aspects of the appeal proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area or the living conditions of neighbouring properties. Therefore, I have confined my consideration to the storage of cycles for the development. 5. In light of the above, the main issue is whether the cycle access and storage arrangements provide an acceptable level of provision, having regard to Policy T1 of the City of York Local Plan (LP). Appeal Decision 6005790 2 Reasons 6. The appeal property is a mid-terraced house located in a predominantly residential area. The street is characterised by a mix of terrace, semi-detached and detached two-storey properties The appeal property appears to be typical of the terraces along the street with stepped access to the front door along with a shared a ginnel access with its neighbour No 18 Chestnut Avenue. 7. LP Policy T1 seeks to ensure that development provides sufficient, convenient, secure and covered storage, ideally within the curtilage of new development. The supporting text makes clear that this requirement is directed primarily at new buildings and sets out that the aim is to encourage the ownership and use of cycles. In this case, the proposal relates to an extension to an existing dwelling, and a proportionate and context specific approach to the application of the policy is therefore required. 8. At my site visit it was evident that cycles are currently stored safely within a ‘ginnel’ to the side of the property, which provides direct external access independent of the main dwelling. The ‘ginnel’ is of sufficient width to allow cycles to be moved conveniently and without obstruction, and I was able to walk through it unhindered. This arrangement avoids the need to move cycles through internal living space and represents a practical, established means of storage. In addition, secure cycle storage is provided to the rear of the property within a shed, offering additional weather-protected and enclosed storage within the curtilage of the dwelling. Whilst this rear storage is accessed via the dwelling, it nonetheless represents a suitable and reasonable arrangement in the context of an existing terraced property. Taken together, these measures provide functional and workable cycle storage solutions and negate the need for storage within the front curtilage. As a result, the development would not give rise to harm to the streetscene in this regard. 9. Whilst I accept that LP Policy T1 also refers to provision for impaired mobility, the original dwelling was not designed to accommodate such needs. In these circumstances, it would be unreasonable and disproportionate to impose this requirement on an extension, as this would seek to remedy an inherent limitation in the original building rather than an impact arising from the appeal proposal itself. 10. The City of York Council: House Extensions and Alterations SPD is guidance rather than development plan policy and is intended to be applied flexibly. In this case, the existing side access and rear storage arrangements adequately meet the aims of the SPD. Paragraph 8.4 does not impose a fixed requirement for a 0.9 metre access gap in all circumstances, and the absence of such a gap does not, in itself, indicate non-compliance. 11. I have had regard to LTN 1/20, but as it is guidance rather than development plan policy, and LP Policy T1 sets no numerical requirement for cycle storage, I do not consider it to be determinative in this case. 12. I am not satisfied that the Councils reasoning demonstrates a justified conflict with the development plan, having regard to the outcome-focused and proportionate application of the LP Policy T1. As a result, I find that the development is in accordance with Policies D1, D11 and T1 of the City of York Local Plan (2025) which, among other things, seek to promote sustainable modes of transport. Appeal Decision 6005790 3 Other Matters 13. I note the neighbours’ comments regarding the scale of the development. However, there is no dispute between the Council and the appellant on this matter, either in relation to its appearance or any effect on living conditions, and I have no reason to disagree with those findings. This matter has not led me to an alternative conclusion on the main issue. 14. I note the Lead Local Flood Authority’s observation that the extension has been constructed over a public sewer and that separate consent would be required from Yorkshire Water. This is a matter for other regulatory regimes and does not indicate harm in planning terms. It therefore carries no weight in the determination of this appeal. Conditions 15. A condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is necessary for certainty. 16. A condition requiring the retention of the approved refuse storage in the front curtilage is also necessary to ensure that adequate refuse facilities remain available and that refuse storage does not give rise to harm to the character and appearance of the streetscene. Conclusion 17. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed. J Buxton INSPECTOR