- Decision
- dismissed, 4 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: F Cullen
- Authority
- North Yorkshire (Yorkshire and the Humber)
- Appeal reference
- 6007220
- Application reference
- 25/04326/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Single-storey rear extension to a Grade II mid-late 18th-century former farmhouse in Hunmanby Conservation Area (Appeal A, s78, non-determination; linked LBC Appeal B 6007221)
- Site context
- inside settlement, conservation area
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE6(1), HE6(3), HE6(4), DP3(3), S4
- Development plan policies
- Scarborough Borough Local Plan 2017 DEC1, DEC5
- Main issues
- special interest of listed building; conservation area; public benefits; S4 balance
Summary
The planning-permission half of the Hunmanby appeals. The full distillation, including the heritage sequence, is in PINS-6007221 (the listed building consent appeal, same letter). For Appeal A the S4 test was applied: low harm to the Grade II farmhouse and very low harm to the conservation area, given HE6(1) and HE6(3) weight and routed with DP3(3) into an S4 "substantially outweighed" conclusion (DL ¶51). Dismissed.
Issues and findings
- Degree of harm. "I find that the scheme would result in a low level of harm to the significance of the listed building and a very low level of harm to the significance of the HCA" (DL ¶33).
- HE4(2) / HE6(4). "clear and convincing justification has not been provided for the identified harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets" (DL ¶40).
- DP3(3). "development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they do not, amongst other things, respond to their context" (DL ¶50).
- S4: FAIL. "the benefits of approving the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects" (DL ¶51).
Planning balance
HE6(4) first, then S4 inside a settlement with DP3(3) as the refusal limb; Appeal A dismissed as contrary to the development plan (DL ¶52).
What made the difference
See PINS-6007221. Low harm still carried considerable weight, and the benefits were small or private.
Transferable points
- For a joint planning and LBC letter, only the s78 appeal runs the S4 test; the LBC appeal turns on s16 and HE6 alone (DL ¶52-53).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| HE5(2) | harm | degree identified - low harm to the listed building, very low harm to the conservation area (DL 33) | |
| HE6(3) | harm | considerable | HE6(1) substantial weight to conservation irrespective of the level of effect, plus considerable importance and weight to harm (DL 34) |
| HE6(4) | fail | benefits of little weight each, moderate for enabling energy efficiency in the extension; no clear and convincing justification (DL 36-40) | |
| DP3(3) | fail | does not respond to context in scale, form and detailing; should be refused without clear justification (DL 49-50, fn 8) | |
| S4 | fail | moderate benefits substantially outweighed (DL 47-51) |
Key facts
- Joint letter with LBC Appeal B 6007221; this file records the planning appeal (Appeal A); both against non-determination (DL 1-2, 6)
- Parties invited to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework as the revisions were relevant to the main issue (DL 5)
- Earlier 2022 appeals dismissed (APP/H2733/W/22/3306732); revised scheme narrower with less fabric loss (DL 11, 25)
- A 2000 LBC (only demolition carried out) got little weight as precedent and as fallback (DL 43-45)
- Costs applications by the appellant, the subject of separate decisions (DL 3)
Related decisions
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.