Detached garage, rear extensions and front porch

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 August 2026 by M J Francis BA (Hons) MA MSc MClfA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 September 2026 Appeal A Ref: 6007606 Bland Hill Farm, Broad Dubb Road, Norwood, North Yorkshire HG3 1TE • 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 Adam Sinclair-Morris against the decision of North Yorkshire Council. • The application Ref is 26/00047/FUL. • The development proposed is detached garage, rear extensions and front porch. Appeal B Ref: 6007642 Bland Hill Farm, Broad Dubb Road, Norwood, North Yorkshire HG3 1TE • The appeal is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant listed building consent. • The appeal is made by Mr Adam Sinclair-Morris against the decision of North Yorkshire Council. • The application Ref is 26/00048/LB. • The development proposed is detached garage, rear extensions and front porch. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. As set out above, there are two appeals on this site, one for planning permission, and the other for listed building consent. Planning permission and listed building consent are under different legislation; however, I have dealt with both appeals together in my reasoning. 3. A revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 17 August 2026, and the main parties have been consulted on the implications of the revised Framework’s publication on the appeals. 4. The Council did not include any policies from the Local Plan in the decision notices. Therefore, I have relied on the relevant policies within the Framework, and as the proposal relates to a listed building and as required by sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Appeal Decisions 6007606, 6007642 2 Main Issue 5. The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve the Grade II listed building, known as Bland Hill Farmhouse and outbuilding1, or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses. Reasons Special interest and significance 6. The appeal site consists of a two-storey farmhouse and outbuilding of coursed squared gritstone of mid to late 18th century date. The house was originally two bays, but at some point, attached outbuildings have been incorporated into the farmhouse. The house is in turn attached to a two-storey former barn which has been converted into a separate residential property. The building is one of a line of several properties facing Broad Dubb Road. 7. The central doorway, with a modern door, is set in a plain stone surround. There are three light mullion windows with modern glazing on the ground and 1st floors of the front elevation. The roof is finished in graduated stone slates with copings on the gables and stone chimney stacks. Internally, there is exposed stonework and historic roof timbers surviving in parts of the house. On the rear, there are two single storey extensions. 8. There are sizeable grounds to the rear, where a modern double garage is located. To the side of the house there is an access drive leading to a parking and turning area. With fields to the east and moorland to the front, the property has extensive views and a feeling of remoteness. 9. The special interest and significance of the building, insofar as it relates to this appeal, is that it represents a vernacular farmhouse which retains a high degree of historic fabric and openings. Its location and attached former agricultural buildings attest to local farming practices and its connection to the surrounding landscape. Whilst there have been changes to the farm that was located to the west, and there has been intervening development which has changed the original setting of this property, this does not diminish the clear connection between the appeal site and the surrounding land to the south and east. Effect on the listed building 10. On the front elevation, a small porch is proposed. Whilst it would match the materials used in the farmhouse, there is limited evidence of its style and construction. Although the appellant states that it would not harm the historic fabric, there are no details of how it would be attached to the front elevation, where I noted a worn historic step on the threshold into the house. 11. The map regression provided in the Heritage Impact Assessment attests to the linear nature of this former farmstead. There is no doubt that front porches are found on rural farmhouses, but in this area, it appears that traditionally, smaller farmhouses did not have porches. Therefore, constructing a porch is not needed to reinforce the legibility of the central entrance, as the appellant contends, as the farmhouse was originally, and as can still be seen, a symmetrical front elevation. This established vernacular design is key to its significance, particularly as it has 1 List entry number: 1315344 Appeal Decisions 6007606, 6007642 3 seen less alterations than at the rear of the building. Therefore, I consider that constructing a porch would result in harm to the significance of the building. 12. The existing single storey, double pitched extension to the rear, is described as modern, having been rebuilt from a previous extension in this location. It currently provides a rear access to the house and contains a downstairs bathroom and utility area. It is proposed to build a 1st floor above this to provide a bathroom accessed from the landing and an en-suite and robes entered from bedroom 1. 13. Whilst I can appreciate the benefits of a 1st floor bathroom, the existing 1st floor plan does not identify that there is an existing en-suite containing a shower and toilet which has been built into the corner of bedroom 1. Although building upwards, as proposed, does not extend the footprint, it would result in two new door openings on the 1st floor: the one to the bathroom replacing an existing small window under the eaves and a new opening through the rear wall of bedroom one to connect it to the en-suite. There is no substantive evidence of how these new openings would be created and how they would interact with the existing fabric of the building. Whilst the loss of historic fabric would be limited, it would be irreversible and would alter the plan form of the property on the 1st floor. 14. Constructing a double pitched, stone slate roof, including rooflights, would visually interrupt the existing, simple, plain, rear roofscape. However, as there is no substantive evidence of the existing roof structure, it is not clear how the proposed roof would physically connect to the rear of the dwelling. This includes how it would interact with historic roof timbers which I saw in bedroom 1, and that extend into a cupboard at roof height. 15. The size of the existing single storey extension, even if it is not original, appears in scale with the house and is barely seen at the rear. However, an upwards extension would increase the massing of this elevation and be highly visible and dominant from Broad Dubb Road when approaching the site from the east. This is despite the house being built into rising ground with terracing above it. 16. On the ground floor, part of the western elevation of the existing extension would be removed and a snug would be created by an infill extension between the two existing rear projections. A small window opening would be removed on the rear elevation and a new doorway created, resulting in the removal of historic fabric. Access would be created from the snug into a utility area and toilet in the outshoots, however, removing their existing internal walls would be of limited benefit to the listed building, as this structure is known to be relatively modern in date and there is no evidence of its original layout. 17. I understand that rear elevations of buildings can be more functional and capable of change. Although there are indications that the rear of the building has had extensions in the past, there is only limited evidence from historic mapping of the siting of these, and no evidence of their original form. 18. In this case, the proposed infill extension would enclose a considerable part of the rear elevation. Although the rear wall would be visible through the proposed French doors, and a window would be re-used, the design and form of the extension, attached to the projections either side, would result in a sizeable increase in the built form at the rear of the property. Whilst the appellant considers that it would provide more useable space and improve circulation, it would alter the plan form of the ground floor, extending it in a non-traditional form. This would Appeal Decisions 6007606, 6007642 4 overwhelm and be unsympathetic to the character and appearance of the existing house and would harm its significance. 19. The existing garage, built in stone with a slate roof, is relatively low in height and is subservient to the house. Set back from the rear of the house, it has a neutral effect on the setting of the farmhouse. This would be replaced by a larger, agricultural style building in the north-west corner of the plot. The evidence suggests that this would be used to store a horsebox and tractor and for the appellant’s hobby of collecting cars. I saw a container and several vehicles parked at the rear of the property, however, there is limited evidence that the building would be able to accommodate all of these. 20. The proposed garage would be some distance from the listed farmhouse and has been designed to be partially set into the ground to reduce visual prominence and finished in timber cladding to give it a recessive appearance. The evidence includes photographs of two agricultural style buildings adjacent to other historic farmhouses within the vicinity of this site. However, there is no evidence whether these farmhouses are listed, or whether the buildings are on agricultural units where such buildings are to be expected. In this instance, the garage is proposed within the grounds of a residential site where buildings are generally smaller in scale. 21. Furthermore, the land slopes upwards away from the house and road. Therefore, even though the building would be sited next to some small trees and built into the ground, at over 6 metres in height, it would be a conspicuous feature on the skyline at the rear of the site, particularly when travelling along Broad Dubb Road to the west. 22. The appellant has drawn my attention to other buildings at the rear of houses fronting Broad Dubb Road. I saw from the appeal site an outbuilding on land to the west, however, this was relatively close to the property, and roughly in line with the container on the appeal site. Beyond this, were horse boxes and farm equipment. From the evidence and what I saw, there were no outbuildings on the sloping land to the north, with the only outlier being a house to the north-east of the Social Hall, as shown on the 1972 OS map extract. Furthermore, I have no evidence whether these buildings are listed, or the circumstances under which they have been built. Therefore, the evidence does not suggest that these examples are directly comparable to the appeal site. 23. Consequently, I consider that the proposed building would be large in relation to the size of the house within this residential setting. Although sited further away from the listed building than the present garage, it would result in some harm to the setting of the farmhouse, 24. Given the above, I find that the proposed works would fail to preserve the listed building and its setting and any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. This would harm the significance of the heritage asset. Consequently, I give this harm considerable importance and weight in the planning balance of these appeals. Other Matters 25. The site is within the Nidderdale National Landscape (NL). National Landscapes are designated for the purposes of enhancing natural beauty. Section 245 of the Appeal Decisions 6007606, 6007642 5 Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 places a duty upon me to seek to further the statutory purposes of protected landscapes in this decision. Policy N4 of the Framework advises that development proposals within Protected Landscapes should be limited in scale and extent and sensitively located and designed to avoid harm to the statutory purposes and special qualities of the Protected Landscape. 26. The NL consists of heather moors to the west, with a softer, more pastoral landscape to the east where villages, towns, historic parks and gardens and country houses are located. The NL is a landscape that has been influenced by farming and industry and has evidence of mines and quarries, as found to the rear of the appeal site. 27. Whilst the extensions to the rear would be limited in scale, the new garage building would be conspicuous and overly large for a domestic setting. Therefore, based on its scale and location, I consider that it would fail to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the NL. Public Benefits and Heritage Balance 28. Policy HE4 of the Framework advises that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. Harm to the significance of heritage assets should be avoided and any harm should have a clear and convincing justification. 29. Policy HE6 of the Framework states that substantial weight should be given to the asset’s conservation, irrespective of whether any potential effect amounts to a positive effect, harm, substantial harm, or total loss of its significance. I find in this instance that the proposed extensions would cause a medium level of harm to the listed building, and the proposed garage a low level of harm. Nevertheless, any harm to a designated heritage asset is a matter of considerable importance and weight. Where a development proposal would harm the significance of a designated heritage asset, Policy HE6 states that the effect on the asset and its significance should be weighed against any public benefits resulting from the proposal. 30. The appellant has set out several public benefits. These are that it would secure the buildings optimum viable use through providing essential accommodation; supporting the long-term occupation and maintenance of the listed building; reducing reliance on externally stored materials and visual clutter; and enhancing the setting through replacing a modern garage with an agricultural style building. 31. However, the building has been used and occupied as a dwelling for a considerable time and so it is not underused. Whilst the provision of further bathroom facilities is desired on the 1st floor, there is already a toilet and shower upstairs. Although I understand that having a porch to prevent the front door opening directly into the living space would be useful, there is limited evidence of this structure and the physical effect it would have on the building. Moreover, there is currently a back door, which may not be as convenient, but this does provide access into a utility area, avoiding the loss of heat into principal rooms of the house. Additionally, owning a listed building requires regular management and maintenance which is not reliant on the proposed extensions and alterations to the building. Appeal Decisions 6007606, 6007642 6 32. Being able to store materials and vehicles in a larger building would remove visual clutter at the rear of the site. However, there is limited evidence as to what the building would be able to store, and what would to continue to be retained outside. Moreover, I have found that the existing domestic garage, which is well built in traditional materials, does not harm the setting of the listed building. 33. Given the above, and in the absence of public benefits that would outweigh the harm that would be caused, I conclude that the proposal would fail to preserve the special historic interest of the grade II listed building. This would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act and would conflict with Policy HE6 of the Framework. Planning Balance and Conclusion 34. Policy S3 of the Framework states that decisions on development proposals should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. In this case the development would be located outside a settlement, where Policy S5 indicates that only certain forms of development should be approved, unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the Framework’s national decision-making policies. 35. In this respect, policy S5 (1) c. refers, amongst other things, to the extension of an existing building, provided that it is of permanent and substantial construction, is lawful in planning terms, and any extension or alteration will not result in a disproportionate increase in size compared to the existing building. In this case, whilst the proposal comprises extensions, it is a listed building, and the extensions, because of their scale and form, would harm the significance of the heritage asset. 36. In addition, Policy S5 (2) states that in applying this policy, the circumstances in which the benefits of approving development proposals are likely to be substantially outweighed by adverse effects include, but are not restricted to, situations where a proposal would fail to comply with one of the decision-making policies which states that development proposals should be refused in specific circumstances. 37. In this case I have found that the proposed works would result in harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset. This harm is of considerable importance and weight and is not outweighed by public benefits. In addition, it would fail to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the NL. Taking all these points together, the benefits of granting planning permission would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects, when assessed against the Framework’s decision- making policies. 38. Consequently, the development conflicts with the Framework and there are no material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate otherwise. Therefore, I conclude that the appeals should be dismissed. M J Francis INSPECTOR