2 storey rear extension and internal reconfiguration

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 August 2026 by J Buxton BA(Hons) DipArch ARB RIBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27th August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008700 45 Kirkgate, Sherburn in Elmet, North Yorkshire LS25 6BH • 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 and Mrs James against the decision of North Yorkshire Council. • The application reference is ZG2025/0968/HPA. • The development proposed is 2 storey rear extension and internal reconfiguration. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for 2 storey rear extension and internal reconfiguration at 45 Kirkgate, Sherburn in Elmet, North Yorkshire LS25 6BH in accordance with the terms of the application, reference ZG2025/0968/HPA, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Applications for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Mr and Mrs James against North Yorkshire Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision. Background and Main Issue 3. During the course of the appeal a new National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on the 17 August 2026. Whilst the format has altered, any considerations that are material to this decision have not fundamentally changed. I am satisfied that this has not prejudiced any party and I have had regard to the latest version in reaching my decision. 4. There is no dispute between the parties about the acceptability of the garage conversion or the internal alterations to the dwelling. Based on the evidence before me I am satisfied that this aspect of the appeal proposal would not cause material harm to the character and appearance of the appeal property, and I have not been made aware that this element would result in any conflict with any development plan policies. Therefore, I have confined my consideration to the proposed rear extension. 5. In light of the above, the main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the property. Appeal Decision 6008700 2 Reasons Character and Appearance 6. The appeal site includes a detached dwelling set within a substantial residential plot; the site is screened from the road by an existing front boundary wall and mature hedging. The surrounding streetscene comprises an eclectic mix of dwelling types, scales and architectural styles, with no single prevailing form of development. The original house subject to the appeal was designed in 1965 by architect Derek Bottomley as his own residence and occupies the northern part of the site, with parking and garage accommodation to the front and extensive garden areas to the rear. It is an example of mid-20th century modernist architecture. Its form has a strong horizontal emphasis and incorporates extensive glazing to the garden elevation. These features are readily apparent in the composition of the building and contribute significantly to its architectural identity. 7. The dwelling has an established relationship with the large rear garden through the terraces and balcony. Planting along the site boundaries provides a degree of screening from neighbouring properties, as such public views into the garden are limited. 8. The appeal proposal comprises a two-storey rear extension and a further single- storey projection which provides a first-floor balcony above. The extension would be located wholly to the rear of the dwelling. The appellant advises that the appeal design derives from the original architectural approach of the dwelling, and a review of the evidence shows that the extension would continue its strong horizontal emphasis and similarly incorporate extensive glazing to the garden elevation. As a result, when viewed from the rear garden the proposal would reflect the proportions of the current elevation and it would also retain the established relationship between the dwelling and its rear garden. Accordingly, the proposal would appear as a natural evolution of the original building and would remain consistent with the architectural composition, identity and character of the host dwelling. 9. The Council's concerns relate principally to the scale of the proposal and the extent to which it would be subordinate to the host dwelling. Whilst the officer report identifies the increase in massing and bulk arising from the proposal, I find that the evidence before me does not demonstrate that this would result in material harm to the character and appearance of the dwelling. I accept that the extension would represent a substantial addition. However, whilst subservience can be a relevant design consideration, Policy SP19 does not contain a specific requirement for extensions to be subservient to the original building. Rather, it seeks high quality design that responds positively to character, identity and context. In this respect, the proposal has been informed by the architectural character of the host dwelling. Its form, materials and extensive glazing would continue the strong horizontal emphasis of the existing building. Although, the extension would increase the massing of the dwelling when viewed from the rear, the combination of the two- storey and single-storey elements would create a layered form that reflects the composition of the existing building. As a result, notwithstanding its scale and limited degree of subservience, the extension would be successfully integrated into the overall design. Appeal Decision 6008700 3 10. The proposal would make effective use of the residential curtilage without resulting in overdevelopment of the site. From my site visit, I observed that the dwelling occupies a generous plot and that the additional built form would not appear excessive or overwhelm the original building. The plot is of a sufficient size to accommodate the extension comfortably and a substantial rear garden would remain. Furthermore, the proposed location of the rear façade would be broadly in line with neighbouring properties and the relationship between the dwelling and its private outdoor space, which is a key aspect of its design, would also be retained. Whilst the overall rearward projection would be relatively deep, the extension would be viewed in the context of a generous plot and extensive rear garden. 11. The proposal follows the architectural principles of the existing dwelling and reflects the context-led approach advocated by the National Design Guide through the continuation of the dwelling’s horizontal emphasis, glazing and relationship with the rear garden. These considerations further support my conclusion that the proposal can be accommodated within the site without giving rise to wider planning harm. 12. Taking these matters together, I find that the proposal would respect the defining architectural characteristics of the dwelling and would appear as a coherent continuation of the existing building. Accordingly, I conclude that the proposed extension would not harm the character and appearance of the property. As such, it accords with Policy SP19 of the Selby District Core Strategy which, amongst other things, seeks to promote high quality design that recognises and enhances the character and distinctiveness of the locality and is well integrated with its surroundings both visually and physically. Conditions 13. I have considered the conditions having regard to the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. In addition to the standard time limit, plans and materials conditions are necessary and reasonable in the interest of certainty. Conclusion 14. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed. J Buxton INSPECTOR Appeal Decision 6008700 4 Schedule of Conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: • 2655NON-SCN-XX-XX- DR- A- 01_003- A3-P1 Proposed Site Plan; • 2655NON-SCN-XX-XX- DR- A- 10_003- A3-P1 Proposed Ground Floor Plan; • 2655NON-SCN-XX-XX- DR- A- 10_004- A3-P1 Proposed First Floor Plan; • 2655NON-SCN-XX-XX- DR- A- 20_003- A3-P1 Proposed North + South Elevations; • 2655NON- SCN-XX-XX- DR- A- 20_004- A3-P1 Proposed West + East Elevations; • 2655NON- SCN-XX-XX- DR- A- 01_001- A3-P1 Proposed Location Plan + Site Block Plan. 3) The external surfaces of the extension shall be constructed of the materials shown on the approved plans and as specified on the application form. ** End of Schedule **