# Eastlands, Bull Moor Lane, Flaxton (replacement rear extension)

- **Decision:** allowed, 28 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Martin Seaton (on the recommendation of appeal planning officer Andrew Morrison)
- **Authority:** North Yorkshire (Yorkshire and the Humber)
- **Appeal reference:** 6008713
- **Application reference:** ZE25/01413/House
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Demolition of a single-storey rear extension and a larger contemporary oak-framed replacement to a Victorian house in Flaxton Conservation Area (non-determination)
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** HE6(1)
- **Development plan policies:** Ryedale Local Plan Strategy SP12, SP16
- **Main issues:** character and appearance, conservation area
- **Tags:** tier-2, householder, appeal-planning-officer, transitional-no-consultation, conservation-area, heritage-no-harm, non-determination, old-heritage-wording, old-wording-slip

## Summary
A contemporary oak-framed replacement rear extension to a Victorian house in Flaxton Conservation Area, appealed for non-determination. On an appeal planning officer's recommendation, the inspector found it subordinate and contextually responsive, preserving the CA. Allowed.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** The changes "do not have a material bearing on the substance of the main issue" (DL ¶5).
- **Design.** Features not on the host house are acceptable: "this is not an explicit requirement of the development plan and each development should be assessed on its own design merits" (DL ¶14).
- **Heritage: no harm.** The Framework "requires great weight to be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets" (DL ¶17). This is 2024 wording (HE6(1) says substantial weight); incidental, as no harm was found.

## What made the difference
The extension's single-storey scale kept it subordinate, and the rear elevation contributes less to the CA than the principal elevation.

## Transferable points
- Absent an explicit plan requirement, a contemporary extension need not replicate the host's traditional detailing (DL ¶14).

## Policy findings
- **HE6(1): neutral.** subordinate contemporary extension preserves the CA; letter says the Framework requires great weight to conservation (DL 16-17)

## Key facts
- Appeal against non-determination; the Council would have refused on character and CA grounds (DL 3-4)
- Switch paragraph - changes, including minor alterations to heritage matters, have no material bearing; no consultation (DL 5)
- Development plan does not require extensions to be strictly in keeping with the host's traditional character (DL 14)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008713
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/bef11016-42f1-40c9-a16e-aab06faff978

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008713.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.