Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

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 works

One-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’.

  1. 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

  2. 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.

  3. 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).

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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