# Mill Farmhouse, 7 Bridlington Street, Hunmanby (rear extension, FUL and LBC)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 4 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: F Cullen
- **Authority:** North Yorkshire (Yorkshire and the Humber)
- **Appeal reference:** 6007221
- **Application reference:** 25/04324/LB
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Single-storey rear extension to a Grade II mid-late 18th-century former farmhouse in Hunmanby Conservation Area (linked s78 appeal 6007220, 25/04326/FUL; both against non-determination)
- **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
- **Tags:** listed-building-consent, heritage-harm-decisive, cc2-not-engaged, s4-substantially-outweighed, s5-2-refusal-policy, design-refusal, fallback, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, non-determination

## Summary
These were linked non-determination appeals for a single-storey rear extension to a Grade II farmhouse in the Hunmanby Conservation Area. Both were dismissed. The letter is a clean template of the new heritage sequence:
- HE5(2)(c) degree of harm;
- HE6(1) substantial weight to conservation, "irrespective" of the level of effect;
- HE6(3) considerable importance and weight;
- HE6(4) balance against public benefits;
- then the S4 "substantially outweighed" test, with DP3(3) as a refusal limb.

Only low harm was found, and it still decided the case.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "The revisions include policy changes which are relevant to the main issue of these appeals. In the interest of fairness, the parties were given the opportunity to comment" (DL ¶5).
- **Degree of harm (HE5(2)(c)).** "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). The letter does not use the "less than substantial" label.
- **Weight (HE6(1), (3)).** "substantial weight should be given to the asset's conservation. This is irrespective of whether any potential effect amounts to a positive effect, harm, substantial harm, or total loss of its significance. Additionally, Policy HE6(3) states that any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶34).
- **Energy efficiency.** "Enabling" efficiency in the new extension is an important public benefit carrying moderate weight (DL ¶37). But "with reference to Policy CC2(2) … there is no substantive evidence presented which demonstrates that, of itself, the proposed development and works would improve the energy efficiency of the 'existing' host building. Consequently, this asserted benefit carries little weight" (DL ¶38).
- **Precedent and fallback.** A 2000 consent was given little weight because of "a significant and material change in the national and local policy context … the publication of the Framework in 2012 (last updated 17 August 2026)" (DL ¶44), and because there was little real prospect of it being built (DL ¶45).
- **S4: FAIL.** "the benefits of approving the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework" (DL ¶51), citing HE6(1) and (3) and DP3(3) and (1) (DL ¶50 fn 7-8).

## Planning balance
First, an HE6(4) balance: low and very low harm, with substantial weight to conservation and considerable weight to the harm, against benefits of little to moderate weight. Then S3(1)/S4 (within a settlement): benefits of moderate weight overall, substantially outweighed.

## What made the difference
HE6(1) and (3) make even "low" harm weighty. The inspector held that the bold detailing borrowed from the front façade disrupted the "status differentiation" between front and rear. The appellant's benefits were private or small. Getting the design right, or offering real energy upgrades to the existing house, were the only routes to a different result.

## Transferable points
- Under HE6(1), substantial weight applies "irrespective" of the level of effect, and HE6(3) adds considerable importance and weight to any harm. Low harm can therefore defeat moderate benefits (DL ¶34, ¶40).
- The 2026 sequence replaces "less than substantial" with an identified degree (HE5(2)(c)): low, very low, moderate (DL ¶24, ¶33).
- CC2(2) is about the existing building. A well-insulated extension gets little weight under it (DL ¶38).
- Heritage harm plus DP3(3) is an S4 "substantially outweighed" case even inside a settlement (DL ¶47-51).
- An old consent given under a pre-2012 policy context carries little weight as precedent (DL ¶44).

## Policy findings
- **HE5(2): harm.** HE5(2)(c) degree identified - low harm to listed building, very low harm to the conservation area (DL 24, 33)
- **HE6(1): harm (considerable weight).** substantial weight to conservation "irrespective of whether any potential effect amounts to a positive effect, harm, substantial harm, or total loss"; HE6(3) considerable importance and weight to harm (DL 34)
- **HE6(4): fail.** little weight to construction, housing stock, lime repointing and salvage; moderate to "enabling" energy efficiency in the extension (DL 36-40)
- **CC2(2): not-engaged (limited weight).** no evidence the works improve the energy efficiency of the existing host building (DL 38)
- **DP3(3): conflict.** fails to respond positively to context in scale, form and detailing; "should be refused … without clear justification" (DL 49-50)
- **S4: fail.** within settlement; benefits (moderate) substantially outweighed by adverse effects assessed against national decision-making policies (DL 47-51)

## Key facts
- Revised scheme after 2022 appeals dismissed (APP/H2733/W/22/3306732 and Y/22/3306733); reduced fabric loss and width, steep pitched roof (DL 11, 25)
- Extension spans just under half the rear width, with ridge at first-floor level; decoration borrowed from the formal front façade judged "overly designed" on the rustic rear (DL 26, 28)
- A 2000 LBC for a smaller extension (only the demolition carried out) got little weight as precedent and as fallback (DL 9-10, 43-45)
- Parties invited to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework because the revisions were "relevant to the main issue" (DL 5)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007221
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/576d7cb2-760e-481f-9add-ebc37dc8c97a

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007221.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.