Appeal 3311273
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
7 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
described as ‘New single-storey porch on front elevation of an existing cottage in a Conservation Area’.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a new single-storey porch on front elevation of an existing cottage in a Conservation Area at Northfield, [address], [site address] , [name] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2022/0772/HPA, dated 25 June 2022, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following
Section 03
conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with approved plans: 0266_004b 01, 0266_004b 02, 0266_004b 04, 0266_004b 06, 0266_004b 08, 0266_004b 09, 0266_004b 11, 0266_004b 13, 0266_004b 15, 0266_004b 16, 0266_004b 19, 0266_004b 20.
The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the building itself and the area, which includes the [site address] Conservation Area (CA).
Section 05
Reasons
The proposed development relates to a detached, double fronted cottage, two storeys in height. The cottage has a traditional appearance, simple in overall style and detailing, and is of a modest scale. Traditional materials of red brick and pantiles are retained along with timber multi-pane sash windows with a vertical emphasis, positioned either side of a central door with fanlight, providing a symmetry to the main elevation. The dwelling is set back from the main road through the village by a landscaped garden, with low brick wall.
[site address] is a linear village, comprised of a range of buildings, predominantly dwellings, that vary in both age and style. There are examples of larger villas set in more substantial plots, as well as more modest traditional cottages, both detached and terraced. The [site address] and Acaster Selby Neighbourhood Development Plan (NP) indicates that Georgian and Victorian dwellings reflect the wealth and status of the residents of that time, demonstrating the development of the village. These earlier buildings are now interspersed with more recent housing development.
The appeal building is an attractive property, providing one such example of this earlier housing and so it makes a positive contribution to the significance of the CA, in understanding the historical development of the village. As the proposal lies within the CA, I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the CA, as required by section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act). The Council considers that the appeal property itself is a non-designated heritage asset within the CA and this is not disputed by the appellant. I have no reason to disagree.
The proposal would involve the introduction of a porch to the front elevation of the appeal property. The porch would be simple in form and would be of a proportionate size to the host building, thereby ensuring that the modest scale of the cottage is retained. The central position and design of the porch would retain the symmetry of the existing cottage. It would re-introduce the detailing of the existing front door and it would include a window to the south elevation, consisting of a multi-pane sliding sash with vertical emphasis, consistent in style with existing window openings. Further, the proposal would utilise materials sympathetic to the existing dwelling. For these reasons, whilst the proposal would result in change to this non-designated heritage asset, it would be a sympathetically designed addition to the property, and so it would not harm the character or appearance of the building, or the contribution it makes to the significance of the CA.
Due to the set back of the existing cottage and the presence of mature vegetation, the proposed porch would not appear overly prominent along this part of [address]. The CA consists of a variety of properties in both age and style and at my site visit I noted several porches of differing sizes and styles throughout the village, on older and more modern properties. Therefore, the addition of the proposed porch would not be out of character at this location, it would preserve the character and appearance of the CA.
For the above reasons, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the building itself, or the area. The proposal would therefore comply with saved Policies ENV1 and ENV25 of the Selby District Local Plan, February 2005, Policies SP1, SP18 and SP19 of the Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan, Adopted 22 October 2013, and NP Policy ELH4. These policies, collectively, and amongst other matters, seek to ensure that new development considers the effect of scale, form, position, design and materials on local character and distinctiveness, whilst conserving and where possible enhancing the historic environment and any distinctive elements therein.
Further, the proposal is consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework, in terms of conserving heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, ensuring that new developments add to the overall quality of an area, and are sympathetic to the local character.
Section 06
Conditions
I have had regard to the conditions suggested by the Council. I have imposed a condition specifying the approved plans as this provides certainty. I have also imposed a condition requiring matching materials to safeguard the character and appearance of the appeal property and surrounding area.
Section 07
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, having had regard to the development plan as a whole and all other material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 4077No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 7 February 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 25 January 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3311273
- Application reference
- 2022/0772/HPA
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Selby District Council *
- Planning authority code
- E07000169
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- 5 m²
- Number of residences
- 1
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Yes
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 16 November 2022
- Valid date
- 16 November 2022
- Start date
- 3 January 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 26 August 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 7 February 2023
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 27768
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:26
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21