The Barn, Spring House, Common Lane, Barmby Moor, East Yorks, YO42 4DE

The Barn, Spring House, Common Lane, Barmby Moor, East Yorks, YO42 4DE — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 February 2026 by A Caines BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 5 February 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/E2001/W/25/3375891 The Barn, Spring House, Feoffee Common Lane, Barmby Moor, East Yorks YO42 4DE • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs Mitchell against the decision of East Riding of Yorkshire Council. • The application Ref is 25/01657/PLF. • The development proposed is single-storey extensions to existing dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The site address differs across the appeal documents. I have used the address that is common to the Council’s decision notice and the appeal forms for consistency. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the extensions on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Reasons 4. The appeal property forms part of a former farmstead, now in residential use.

The Barn, Spring House, Common Lane, Barmby Moor, East Yorks, YO42 4DE — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision The buildings are arranged around the former yard and, although the wider complex has evolved, the setting is distinctly rural in character within a wider agricultural landscape. The site is enclosed by walls, fencing, hedgerows and other mature planting that afford partial screening from the public highway. 5. Despite its residential use, the host building remains readily identifiable as a barn conversion. It is constructed in traditional red brick with pantile roofing, and its modest plan form, restrained domestic detailing and irregular pattern of relatively small openings are consistent with its agricultural origin. These characteristics remain appreciable and contribute positively to the legibility of the group and to local distinctiveness. Although the single-storey outbuilding on the west elevation incorporates large glazed openings, the evidence before me indicates that the building was intended as a garage and that the current glazing was introduced after the conversion. Consequently, this element is a secondary feature that attracts limited weight in establishing the building’s prevailing character. 6. The proposal would add a single-storey extension wrapping around the south and west elevations.

The Barn, Spring House, Common Lane, Barmby Moor, East Yorks, YO42 4DE — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision It would contain extensive full-height glazing, including wrap-around ‘curtain-style’ doors. A flat-roofed linking element with a roof lantern https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

The Barn, Spring House, Common Lane, Barmby Moor, East Yorks, YO42 4DE — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision It would contain extensive full-height glazing, including wrap-around ‘curtain-style’ doors. A flat-roofed linking element with a roof lantern https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

The Barn, Spring House, Common Lane, Barmby Moor, East Yorks, YO42 4DE — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/E2001/W/25/3375891 would connect to the existing outbuilding, and a roof terrace enclosed by a glazed balustrade would be formed above part of the extension. 7. The wrap-around configuration and cumulative footprint would substantially enlarge and reconfigure the dwelling, resulting in a more sprawling and suburban form. Furthermore, the extensive areas of full-height glazing, together with the glazed balustrade and the number and arrangement of new openings, would depart markedly from the modest, punctuated fenestration typical of a former barn. The East Riding Design Code (2025) requires extensions to appear subservient, not to dominate the host building, and for openings and elevational treatment to reflect the established character of the building. The proposal would conflict with these expectations, resulting in a distinctly modern domestic addition that would dominate rather than complement the rural character of the dwelling. The single-storey height and use of matching external materials would not mitigate the fundamental change in the building’s established character. 8.

The Barn, Spring House, Common Lane, Barmby Moor, East Yorks, YO42 4DE — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision I have had regard to alterations at other dwellings in the complex and to the presence of similar features on the adjoining property. However, each case must be assessed on its own merits within the current policy context. The Council’s evidence indicates that the large glazed doors to the former garage were not approved as part of the original conversion and that neighbouring examples arose under different planning histories. Accordingly, they do not establish a precedent, nor do they lessen the sensitivity of this building, which remains the most intact and therefore the most contributory remnant of the original agricultural group. 9. While boundary enclosures and vegetation provide some screening, the degree of visibility is not the sole determinant of acceptability. Policy ENV1 of the East Riding Local Plan Update (2025) (ERLP) seeks high-quality design that safeguards and respects local character through appropriate scale, massing, height, materials and detailing. Even if public views are filtered, the harmful change to the building’s established character would be apparent within the site and to neighbouring occupiers, and the proposal would not read as a sympathetic, subservient addition. 10.

The Barn, Spring House, Common Lane, Barmby Moor, East Yorks, YO42 4DE — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision For all these reasons, I conclude that the extensions would significantly harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and its immediate surroundings, contrary to Policy ENV1 of the ERLP. 11. I have noted the Council’s reference to Policy S4 of the ERLP. Amongst other things, that policy addresses the re-use of redundant or disused buildings. As the appeal concerns extensions to an existing dwelling rather than a fresh conversion, I do not find Policy S4 determinative in this case. However, this does not lead me to a different conclusion. Other Matters 12. The appellant states that the proposal is necessary to achieve a modern family living arrangement with improved circulation, natural light, and passive heating. However, the local design policies and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework seek high-quality, contextually sensitive design. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. The minor environmental and other functional benefits of the scheme do not outweigh the identified harm or the clear conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

The Barn, Spring House, Common Lane, Barmby Moor, East Yorks, YO42 4DE — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/E2001/W/25/3375891 Conclusion 13. The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.

The Barn, Spring House, Common Lane, Barmby Moor, East Yorks, YO42 4DE — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — A Caines INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3