The Granary, Old Carlton Farm, Stockton on the Forest

Decision

dismissed, 8 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: C McDonagh (on recommendation of appeal planning officer T Morris)

Authority

York (Yorkshire and the Humber)

Appeal reference

6008579

Application reference

25/02300/FUL

Procedure

householder

Development

Retrospective single-storey and first-floor side extensions to a converted agricultural building

Site context

green belt, open countryside

Green Belt

Yes (grey belt not argued)

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

GB6(2), GB7(1)(b), GB7(1)(e), DP3

Development plan policies

City of York Local Plan 2025 GB1, D11, House Extensions SPD 2012

Main issues

inappropriate development; openness; character; VSC

Summary

Retrospective extensions to a converted granary in the York Green Belt. Dismissed. The extensions were disproportionate under GB7(1)(b). The appellant's reliance on the PDL redevelopment exception GB7(1)(e) failed, because extending a building that remains in place is not "redevelopment" of land. The permitted development fallback was unsupported by an LDC and got limited weight.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "the relevant exception put forth by the appellant was not materially altered. As such, it was not necessary to consult the main parties" (DL ¶4).
• GB7(1)(e): FAIL. Adopting the earlier inspector: "the redevelopment of land almost always involves the construction of new buildings, typically after demolition of previous ones" (DL ¶10-11). "Even if the previous extensions were fully demolished to make way for the extensions subject of this appeal, the original building remains in situ. Consequently, the works do not constitute the redevelopment of previously developed land" (DL ¶12).
• Openness. "Although it would not amount to substantial harm to openness specifically, it is still harm. This should be given substantial weight" (DL ¶15).
• Character: harm (DP3). "just because a development may not be readily visible does not mean it would not be harmful to the character of a building" (DL ¶20).
• Fallback. "the correct approach is for them to make an application for a lawful development certificate" (DL ¶23).

Planning balance

GB6(2) VSC. Substantial weight to Green Belt harm and to character harm, against limited weight to the PD fallback and to energy efficiency and family needs (DL ¶28-29).

What made the difference

The attempt to recast householder extensions as PDL "redevelopment" to reach the more permissive (e) test (no substantial harm to openness) was rejected. The original building survived, so the proposal was extension, governed by (b).

Transferable points

• GB7(1)(e) PDL redevelopment does not cover extending a retained building. Householder additions stay under GB7(1)(b) (DL ¶10-12).
• Openness harm short of "substantial" still attracts substantial weight once development is inappropriate (DL ¶15).
• A PD fallback without an LDC carries limited weight, and outbuilding-based fallbacks are less likely to be pursued (DL ¶23-25).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Previous appeal on the site dismissed Dec 2025 (APP/C2741/D/25/3370861) on the same PDL point (DL 10)
• PD fallback advanced without an LDC; limited weight; much of it would be outbuildings (DL 22-25)
• Not referred back to parties because the relevant exception "was not materially altered" (DL 4)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

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.