First floor infill extension over existing entrance hall, rear single storey infill extension with lantern roof, rear roof modifications to form roof terrace with parapet and mansard. Juliet balcony to principle elevation. Conversion of garage into habitab le space with three dormers added. Oak frame loggia connecting house to converted garage. Remodelling internally

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 August 2026 by Mrs Chris Pipe BA(Hons), DipTP, MTP, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012139 Common Botton Farm, Thorganby, North Yorkshire YO19 6DN • 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 Chris Greenall against the decision of North Yorkshire Council. • The application Ref is ZG2026/0122/HPA. • The development proposed is described as First floor infill extension over existing entrance hall, rear single storey infill extension with lantern roof, rear roof modifications to form roof terrace with parapet and mansard. Juliet balcony to principle elevation. Conversion of garage into habitab le space with three dormers added. Oak frame loggia connecting house to converted garage. Remodelling internally. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and area in general. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a farmhouse set within an extensive rural plot and associated with a group of buildings that has altered and expanded over time. Its present form reflects successive phases of adaptation, and the existing buildings now comprise a more complex composition than the original farmhouse alone. 4. Policy H14 of the Selby District Local Plan (2005) (the Local Plan) seeks to ensure developments are not visually intrusive in the landscape, would not result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original dwelling, would not over dominate and to ensure the design and materials would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the dwelling. 5. Policy H14 does not impose a fixed numerical threshold, rather what constitutes a disproportionate addition is a matter of planning judgement. Volume calculations are not determinative in themselves. Nevertheless, they are relevant to understanding the cumulative scale of development alongside the proposal’s form, massing, relationship to the original building and visual effect. 6. The proposed development would add substantial built form within an already enlarged farmstead complex. Both parties agree that the proposed development would result in a cumulative increase of approximately 67.4% over the original farmstead. Appeal Decision 6012139 2 7. The proposed development would erode the established visual hierarchy of the farmstead. While the original farmhouse would remain physically present, its visual primacy would be diminished by the cumulative massing and architectural emphasis of the proposed additions. In particular, the oak-framed glazed loggia and first-floor infills, by reason of their scale and lack of subservience, would create a bulky and visually prominent entrance to the property that would be at odds with the simple character of the original farmhouse. These elements, together with the roof terrace, would draw the eye away from the original building and add visual weight to the elevations. The dormers associated with the garage conversion would create an unbalanced and top-heavy roof form, while the ground-floor infills would add to the cumulative sense of bulk. Consequently, the proposal would overwhelm the original farmhouse and undermine its established character and visual appearance. 8. The existing buildings form a coherent cluster, with repeating materials of course brick under pantile roofs. Contemporary materials can be appropriate in rural locations where they are used sensitivity. Timber, glass and modern detailing are not objectionable as a matter of principle. However, the substantial oak framed loggia and roof terrace treatment would introduce a contemporary character which due to the positioning and lack of subservience would compete with the traditional farmhouse and associated rural buildings. 9. The contained nature of the site and its separation from public vantage points reduce the extent of wider landscape visibility. Nonetheless, harm to character and appearance is not confined to long public views. The scale, massing and design of the proposed development would result in harm to the character of the host property and would disrupt the established composition and visual hierarchy of the immediate farmstead. I therefore find that the proposal would represent a disproportionate and visually intrusive addition to the existing building group. 10. I have had regard to the appellant’s submissions concerning the historic evolution of farmsteads and the absence of a uniform architectural pattern in the surrounding area. Nevertheless, I find that the proposed development would not be sympathetic to the design and form of the existing farmstead. 11. I conclude that the development would harm the character and appearance of the host property and area in general. There is conflict with Policies SP1, SP2 and SP19 of the Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan (2013) and Policies H14 and ENV1 of the Local Plan which seek amongst other things to ensure developments are of high quality design having regard to the local character, identity and context of its surroundings. Conclusion 12. For the above reasons I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed. Chris Pipe INSPECTOR