Proposed 2 storey side and rear extensions and single storey rear extensions

1 Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 May 2026 by J Somers BSocSci (Planning) MA (HEC) MRTPI IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 08 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6007167 6 East Lane, Shipton by Beningbrough, York YO30 1AH • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs Lee Gaskell against the decision of North Yorkshire Council. • The application reference is ZB25/01979/FUL. • The development proposed is described on the Application Form as the ‘proposed 2 storey side and rear extensions and single storey rear extensions.’ Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon: • The character and appearance of the existing building and the surrounding locality, and • The living conditions of the neighbouring dwelling, with particular regard to privacy. Reasons Character and Appearance 3. The appeal site is part of a linear residential estate that extends along both sides of East Lane that appears to date from the mid-late twentieth century. The extension of residential development along East Lane extends the village to the east with much of the village concentrated along Main Street. To the north of east lane are predominantly detached bungalows whereas to the south the dominant dwelling form are semi-detached dwellings. The positive characteristics and materials include two storey brick construction, hipped roof forms with large coaxial chimney stack, with two storey bow windows with hanging tile feature. The dwellings have been laid out in a regimented position with similar setbacks from front and side boundaries with large vegetated front gardens behind either low brick boundary wall or hedging, many of which have a vehicular access and long driveway to a small garage to the side of the dwelling. The setbacks and gaps in and around the dwellings reinforce a spaciousness and status within the street scene and enables glimpses to the tops of trees in rear gardens, particularly at first floor level over the smaller garages. Given the linear positioning along East Lane, there is no built development to the rear where long distance views can also be appreciated between some of the dwellings. These positive aspects assist in creating positive elements which reflect the qualities of character, appearance and local Appeal Decision: 6007167 2 distinctiveness for this particular location. Whilst there is evidence of extensions and alterations seen along East Lane, they are generally subservient to the main dwelling and retain the positive characteristics which contribute to local distinctiveness. 4. The appeal site displays a number of positive qualities which are experienced within the street scene, being one of the characteristic semi-detached dwellings extending along East Lane and containing many of the important design elements and original roof forms and visual gaps between properties. In this case there are glimpses to vegetation beyond which reinforce the local character and distinctiveness of the area particularly where there is an emphasis on vegetation, spaciousness and visual gaps around and between properties. 5. In assessing new development the Hambleton Local Plan Policy E1 is a design related policy which has a number of design criteria to adhere to such as being high quality, well designed, respond positively and reflect the character of the area in terms of materials, design, architectural detailing, and are designed to respect the scale, character and visual appearance and visual relationships, amongst others. This policy is also supported by the Council's Supplementary Planning Document: Domestic Extensions (SPD). The SPD gives further guidance around the considerations for designing residential extensions such as maintaining proportionality, visual relationships and subservience to host dwellings. 6. The proposed two storey side extension would be set back from the front façade leaving a gap of 90 centimetres which would erode much of the visual gap between the properties. Whilst I appreciate the commentary with regards to the design approach that the applicant has progressed in order to design an appropriate scheme, the erosion of the visual gap combined with the increased massing, the proposal would introduce a more built-up form when experienced from the street scene. The proposed amount of visual bulk and massing would be unlike other extensions constructed within the immediate vicinity and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the existing building, and the positive gaps that contribute to the local distinctiveness of the locality. 7. Whilst I appreciate that the scheme would be in broad conformity with elements of the SPD, this is guidance and applies suggestions based upon ideal scenarios and commonly found instances. The SPD also comments around proposals needing to be site specific and respond to the context of the location, so sometimes the suggested standards may not be appropriate. This is the case here with an important visual gap between the buildings which is why the proposal appears more dominant within the street scene despite meeting some of the suggested distances and setbacks of the SPD. 8. In conclusion of this matter, the proposed extension would not be a suitable architectural approach as a result of its massing and dominant appearance that erodes a positive visual gap. The proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the existing building, and would not reinforce the positive characteristics of local distinctiveness of the locality. The proposed scheme would therefore be contrary to LP Policy E1 which is supported by the SPD as described previously. Appeal Decision: 6007167 3 Living conditions 9. The main concern that the Council raise is regards to the loss of privacy is with regards to the windows of the side elevation of the proposal, where the first floor window would provide light to the landing and the two ground floor windows would provide light to the utility room and bathroom. The adjacent neighbour at No.4a has a window at first floor which given the positioning of the pipework and soil pipe appears to be a bathroom, and four windows to the ground floor. The proposed landing window at first floor is not a habitable room so detriment caused from overlooking is unlikely to occur. 10. Paragraph 56 of the National Planning Policy Framework also states that ‘Local planning authorities should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions.’ I also agree with the Appellant that a condition seeking the obscure glazing of this window would be able to resolve this matter with regards to living conditions. 11. Taking the above into account, it is considered that a condition would be able to satisfactorily resolve this matter around living conditions. As such in this instance, the proposed scheme would not cause adverse living conditions and be made in accordance with LP Policy E2 which seeks to ensure that proposals provide appropriate living conditions to current and future occupiers. Conclusion 12. Whilst I have agreed with the Appellant that there is no adverse detriment caused to the living conditions of the neighbour from the proposed development, this would not be enough to outweigh the harm present to the character and appearance of the area when the development plan is read as a whole. As such, based upon the evidence before me, the Development Plan and any material considerations, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed. J Somers INSPECTOR