- Decision
- dismissed, 14 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: M J Francis
- Authority
- North Yorkshire (Yorkshire and the Humber)
- Appeal reference
- 6007642
- Application reference
- 26/00048/LB
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Detached garage, rear extensions and front porch to Grade II farmhouse (linked s78 appeal 6007606, 26/00047/FUL)
- Site context
- open countryside, national landscape, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE6, HE4, N4, S5(2)
- Main issues
- special interest of listed building; national landscape
Summary
A front porch, first-floor and infill rear extensions, and a large replacement garage at a Grade II 18th-century farmhouse in the Nidderdale National Landscape. Both linked appeals were dismissed. The inspector found medium harm to the listed building and low harm to its setting from the 6 m garage, with only private benefits. The garage also harmed the NL (N4). The inspector ran S5 for a householder scheme outside a settlement: S5(1)(c) (extensions) was considered, but under S5(2) the benefits were substantially outweighed (DL ¶¶35–37).
What made the difference
The house is already in active residential use, so "optimum viable use" arguments failed. There was no evidence of how the new openings and roof would meet the historic fabric. The garage's height on rising ground made it conspicuous in the NL. The Council cited no local plan policies, so the decision rests on the Framework and the Act alone.
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| HE6 | harm | considerable | medium harm from extensions and porch, low harm from 6 m garage to setting; private benefits not public (DL 24, 29-33) |
| N4 | harm | large agricultural-style garage on rising ground in Nidderdale NL fails to conserve natural beauty; LURA s245 duty (DL 25-27) | |
| S5(1)(c) | fail | extension limb considered; listed-building harm and S5(2) route mean benefits substantially outweighed (DL 34-37) |
Key facts
- Council cited no Local Plan policies in decision notices, so decided on the Framework and the Act (DL 4)
- Parties consulted on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 3)
- Joint letter covers Appeal A 6007606 (planning) and Appeal B 6007642 (LBC); both dismissed
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.