- Decision
- dismissed, 24 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: F Cullen
- Authority
- North Yorkshire (Yorkshire and the Humber)
- Appeal reference
- 6009092
- Application reference
- SCAZF25/01310/HS
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Demolition of two curtilage-listed outbuildings and a replacement one-and-a-half-storey double garage with office, plus tarmac yard, at a Grade II former school (planning appeal A; LBC appeal B is 6008732)
- Site context
- inside settlement, conservation area, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE6(3), HE6(4), HE4(2), DP3(3), S4
- Development plan policies
- Scarborough Borough Local Plan 2017 DEC1, DEC5
- Main issues
- Grade II listed building and setting; Seamer Conservation Area
Summary
Replacing two dilapidated curtilage-listed outbuildings behind a Grade II former school in Seamer with a large generic garage and a tarmac yard. The inspector found a low level of harm to the listed building and a very low level to the conservation area. The claimed structural and salvage benefits were unevidenced and the rest were private. The letter walks through HE5(2), HE6(1), HE6(3), HE6(4) and HE4(2) in order, then S4 with DP3(3). Dismissed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "The update includes policy changes which are relevant to the main issue of these appeals." Parties were invited to comment (DL ¶8).
- Condition and neglect. The condition report "is fairly basic and has not been undertaken by a suitably qualified professional, such as a structural engineer" (DL ¶20). On HE4(3), "the evidence before me is insufficient to establish that the neglect in this case was deliberate" (DL ¶21).
- Visibility. "listed buildings are safeguarded for their inherent architectural and historic interests irrespective of whether they, or any parts of them, are readily visible from public spaces" (DL ¶26).
- Degree (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 (3). Substantial weight to conservation applies to any effect: "This is irrespective of whether any potential effect amounts to a positive effect, harm, substantial harm, or total loss of its significance." (DL ¶30).
- HE6(4) and HE4(2): FAIL. "I attach little weight to these public benefits, both individually and collectively" (DL ¶33). "clear and convincing justification has not been provided for the identified harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets" (DL ¶35).
- DP3(3). "the Framework requires that development should be refused if, without clear justification, it does not respond to its context in terms of integrating with and enhancing its surroundings" (DL ¶42).
Planning balance
HE6(4) first, then S4: "having applied the national decision-making policies in the Framework, I find that the benefits of approving the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects" (DL ¶43).
What made the difference
The outbuildings' group value with the listed school and school house, and a replacement garage that would compete with the host building. The appellant's case that the outbuildings were beyond repair rested on a basic report not by a structural engineer.
Transferable points
- A model 2026 heritage sequence: significance, HE5(2)(c) degree (low / very low), HE6(1), HE6(3), HE6(4), HE4(2), then S4 (DL ¶18, ¶29-35, ¶40-43).
- HE6(1) substantial weight to conservation applies whatever the degree of effect (DL ¶30).
- A structural-condition claim needs a report by a suitably qualified professional; a joiner's report carries limited weight (DL ¶20, ¶33).
- HE4(3) deliberate neglect needs evidence; otherwise present condition counts (DL ¶21).
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(1) | neutral | Council said the heritage statement fell short, but the inspector could assess significance from the evidence and site visit (DL 11) | |
| HE5(2)(c) | harm | degree identified - low harm to the listed building, very low harm to Seamer CA (DL 18, 29) | |
| HE4(3) | neutral | neglect not shown to be deliberate, so present poor condition taken into account, but the condition report was basic and not by a structural engineer (DL 20-21) | |
| HE6(1) | harm | substantial | substantial weight to conservation, irrespective of the degree of effect (DL 30) |
| HE6(3) | harm | considerable | loss of early-19th-century outbuildings of group value; oversized generic garage and tarmac erode setting (DL 19, 22-25, 30) |
| HE6(4) | fail | time-limited economic, claimed safety and salvage benefits little weight; private benefits; no clear and convincing justification (DL 31-35) | |
| DP3(3) | fail | DP3(1) context conflict cited with the refusal direction (fn 10 cites DP3(1) and DP3(3)); no separate clear-justification sentence (DL 41-42) | |
| S4 | fail | inside development limits; benefits substantially outweighed (DL 40-43) |
Key facts
- Outbuildings treated as curtilage listed (pre-1948; structure shown on 1854 OS map) despite appellant's doubt (DL 4-6)
- Proposed garage about 7.5 m x 6 m x 4.6 m to ridge, markedly larger than other outbuildings nearby (DL 22)
- Harm not visible from public routes but listed buildings protected irrespective of visibility (DL 26)
- Joint letter with LBC appeal 6008732 (other batch); both dismissed
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.