- Decision
- dismissed, 28 August 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: N Teasdale
- Authority
- North Yorkshire (Yorkshire and the Humber)
- Appeal reference
- 6007535
- Application reference
- ZG2025/0803/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Demolition of a single-storey warehouse and erection of a 32 m x 10 m steel portal-frame timber storage building (B8) for a business based elsewhere
- Site context
- open countryside, PDL, flood zone 2, flood zone 3
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- F5, S5(1)(d), DP3
- Development plan policies
- Selby District Local Plan 2005 ENV1, EMP2, Selby Core Strategy 2013 SP2, SP13, SP15, SP18, SP19
- Main issues
- character and appearance; flood risk; location of employment development
Summary
Replacement of a small warehouse in open countryside near Burn with a much larger steel timber-storage shed, for a firm based in the East Riding. Dismissed. The site partly lies in Flood Zones 2 and 3, and the sequential test covered just one alternative site, itself in Flood Zone 3. The building would be industrial and prominent. As a new standalone storage use it did not support the local rural economy. S5(1)(d) PDL support was "substantially outweighed".
Issues and findings
- Transition. "the changes relevant to this appeal are not substantive or determinative to the outcome of my decision. I have therefore not gone back to the parties" (DL ¶2).
- Flood risk — F4/F5: FAIL. The FRA "is however very brief and does not provide me with sufficient confidence that the sequential test need not be applied. The requirement of a sequential test applies irrespective of the presence of an existing building" (DL ¶13). The search "does not consider other reasonably available sites across the district ... does not demonstrate other land for sale or any search of commercial land platforms" (DL ¶14). No exception test was needed because the use is less vulnerable (DL ¶12).
- Character: FAIL. "A building like this is something commonly seen within a modern employment site or more urban area rather than in a location within the open countryside" (DL ¶8).
- Location — S5(1)(d): FAIL. "While the appeal site may comprise previously developed land which is offered support by Policy S5 (1) (d), the proposals must still be assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework ... the benefits of the scheme would be substantially outweighed" (DL ¶23). It is a new use "rather than expand an existing rural business" (DL ¶21).
- Travel. Accessibility was not held against the scheme: with no staff and two deliveries a week, it would not generate "greater travel demand than the site's existing or previous use" (DL ¶25).
Planning balance
The S5 balance was run briefly inside the location issue (DL ¶23). Flood, character and economic-location harms substantially outweighed very limited direct economic benefits. The final conclusion is plan-led under s38(6) (DL ¶28).
What made the difference
A thin sequential test. The appellant looked at one site, which was itself in Flood Zone 3, and ignored the Council's list of allocations and windfall sites. Add a building much larger than the one it replaced, and a user with no local business link, and the PDL status could not carry it. A district-wide search, a building close in size to the existing one, or an existing local operator expanding on site would have changed the picture.
Transferable points
- S5(1)(d) PDL status does not end the inquiry. The scheme is still tested against the national decision-making policies, and flood and design failures can substantially outweigh it (DL ¶23).
- The sequential test applies even where an existing building occupies the site, and must search district-wide, including allocations, windfalls and online commercial listings (DL ¶¶13-14).
- A new standalone storage use serving a business based elsewhere is not "rural economy" development (DL ¶¶21-22).
- A nearby approval for an established business expanding is distinguishable from a new operator (DL ¶22).
- Drafting slip: 2024-style chapter references ("chapter 14", "chapter 18", "chapter 7") appear alongside the 2026 codes (DL ¶¶10, 11, 15, 26).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| F5 | fail | brief FRA does not show the F5(2)(b) exception applies; sequential test looked at one Flood Zone 3 site only and ignored allocations, windfalls and commercial listings (DL 11-15) | |
| F4 | fail | site-specific FRA inadequate (DL 11, 13) | |
| S5(1)(d) | fail | PDL "offered support" but benefits substantially outweighed by adverse effects under the national decision-making policies; use does not need a rural location (DL 23) | |
| DP3 | fail | substantially larger, industrial-looking building prominent from Burn Lane; cited as Framework "chapter 14" (DL 8-10) | |
| E4 | fail | new standalone B8 use for an off-site business, not expansion of an existing rural business; cited as Framework "chapter 7" (DL 21-22, 26) |
Key facts
- No staff on site; maximum 2 deliveries a week, so no greater travel demand than the previous use (DL 24-25)
- Similar building approved at the nearby Websters Timber (an established rural business) distinguished (DL 9, 22)
- Decided without consulting the parties on the 2026 Framework; changes "not substantive or determinative" (DL 2)
- Letter cites Framework "chapter 14", "chapter 18" and "chapter 7" alongside the 2026 F-codes (DL 10, 11, 15, 26)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.