# 79 Main Street, Seamer (listed building consent, curtilage outbuildings) - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: F Cullen - **Authority:** North Yorkshire (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6008732 - **Application reference:** SCAZF25/01311/LB - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Listed building consent to demolish two early 19th-century curtilage outbuildings, build a double garage with roof office, and tarmac the rear yard (Appeal B; planning Appeal A is PINS-6009092) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), HE4(2), HE6(3) - **Development plan policies:** Scarborough Borough Local Plan 2017 DEC1, DEC5 - **Main issues:** special interest of the listed building and its setting, conservation area - **Tags:** tier-2, listed-building-consent, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, private-benefit-not-public, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, linked-appeals ## Summary Listed building consent to replace two old curtilage outbuildings of a Grade II former school at Seamer with a large double garage, and to tarmac the yard. Dismissed. The outbuildings were treated as part of the listed building. Their loss, the garage's dominance and the stark tarmac caused a low level of harm to the listed building and a very low level to the conservation area. Little weight went to the unproven safety and salvage benefits, and there was no clear and convincing justification. The planning appeal (PINS-6009092) was dismissed in the same letter. ## Issues and findings - **Curtilage listing.** "I am satisfied that the outbuildings should be ‘treated as part of the [listed] building’ for the purposes of the Act" (DL ¶6). - **Condition evidence.** The condition report "has not been undertaken by a suitably qualified professional, such as a structural engineer. This limits the weight I can attach to its conclusions" (DL ¶20). - **HE4(3), deliberate neglect.** "the evidence before me is insufficient to establish that the neglect in this case was deliberate. I have therefore taken the present condition of the outbuildings into account" (DL ¶21). - **Degree of harm (HE5(2)(c)).** "I find that the proposal 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 SCA" (DL ¶29). - **HE6(1) and HE6(3).** "Policy HE6(3) states that any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶30). - **Public benefits.** "I attach little weight to these public benefits, both individually and collectively" (DL ¶33). Benefits to the occupier "would be private in nature" (DL ¶34). - **Conclusion.** "clear and convincing justification has not been provided for the identified harm ... the public benefits resulting from the proposal would not outweigh the harm to the assets’ significance" (DL ¶35). ## What made the difference The outbuildings' historic link to the former school, and a replacement garage far larger than any nearby outbuilding. A professionally prepared structural survey showing that the buildings could not be repaired, and a smaller, subordinate replacement, would have been needed. ## Transferable points - HE4(3) (deliberate neglect) needs evidence that the neglect was deliberate. Without it, the asset's actual condition is taken into account (DL ¶21). - A demolition case resting on structural condition needs a suitably qualified professional's report (DL ¶20, 33). - Harm to parts of a listed building not visible from public routes still counts: listed buildings are protected "irrespective of whether they, or any parts of them, are readily visible from public spaces" (DL ¶26). ## Policy findings - **HE5(1): pass.** Council said the heritage statement fell short, but the inspector could determine significance and effects (DL 11) - **HE5(2)(c): harm.** loss of curtilage-listed outbuildings plus a dominant garage and stark tarmac; "a low level of harm" to the listed building and "a very low level of harm" to the conservation area (DL 19-29) - **HE4(3): not-engaged.** deliberate neglect not established, so the outbuildings' present condition was taken into account (DL 21) - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conservation, irrespective of the level of effect (DL 30) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** any harm "a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL 30) - **HE6(4): fail.** time-limited economic benefits, unproven safety benefit and unproven salvage reuse given little weight; benefits to the occupier private (DL 31-35) - **HE4(2): fail.** no clear and convincing justification (DL 35) ## Key facts - Grade II 78, 79 and 80 Main Street, a former school and school house; outbuildings shown on the 1854 OS map and treated as part of the listed building (DL 4-6, 13) - Condition report recommending demolition was prepared by a joiner, not a structural engineer, so given limited weight (DL 20) - Garage about 7.5 m x 6 m x 4.6 m to ridge, markedly larger than nearby outbuildings (DL 22) - Same decision letter as PINS-6009092 (Appeal A, s78), where DP3(1)/DP3(3) and S4 were also applied (DL 40-43) - Parties consulted on the August 2026 Framework (DL 8) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008732 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6f81b914-0e41-4e53-854d-a1988f0cad55 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008732.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.