# 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
- **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, pdl-e-limb, extension-not-redevelopment, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, fallback, retrospective

## 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
- **GB7(1)(b): fail.** disproportionate; appellant offered no reason to disagree (DL 8)
- **GB7(1)(e): fail.** site is PDL but extending a building that remains in situ is not "redevelopment" of PDL (following APP/C2741/D/25/3370861) (DL 9-12)
- **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** considerable added bulk; spatial harm; visual harm limited by screening (DL 14-15)
- **DP3: harm (substantial weight).** extensions dominate a modest former agricultural building; flat roof jars (DL 16-21, 28)

## 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008579
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b966ae00-2403-43f4-b9a4-440af2c10921

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008579.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.