The Teapot, East Pier, Sandside, Scarborough (outdoor seating hours condition)

Decision

dismissed, 1 October 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: Chris Mayes

Authority

North Yorkshire (Yorkshire and the Humber)

Appeal reference

6009880

Application reference

SCAZF25/01322/FL

Procedure

written representations

Development

Appeal against condition 3 of a permission for an external seating area, which requires furniture and barriers to be in place only between 09:00 and 18:00 and stored away at other times

Site context

inside settlement, conservation area, listed building setting

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

HE6(1), HE6(3), HE6(4)

Development plan policies

Scarborough Borough Local Plan 2017 DEC5

Main issues

whether the condition is necessary and reasonable; heritage

Summary

An appeal to extend the hours during which cafe furniture and barriers may stand on Scarborough's East Pier was dismissed. Leaving them out until 22:00 through the tourist season would erode the open harbourside setting of the listed pier and the character of the conservation area, at the lower end of the scale. The modest benefit of extra trading hours did not outweigh that harm, so the condition was necessary and reasonable.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "In the interests of procedural fairness, the parties were given an opportunity to comment on the implications for the appeal" (DL ¶2).
• Harm: lower end. The effects would be seasonal and limited in extent: "The resulting heritage harm would therefore be at the lower end of the scale" (DL ¶11).
• Benefits: modest. "The benefits before me are therefore confined to those arising from the additional period during which the furniture and barriers could remain in place. In that context, the public benefits would be modest" (DL ¶12).
• Weight. "The Framework makes clear that harm to the significance of a heritage asset is a matter of considerable importance and that substantial weight should be given to the asset’s conservation" (DL ¶13).
• Balance: FAIL. "the modest public benefits arising from the additional period during which the furniture and barriers could remain in place would not outweigh the identified heritage harm" (DL ¶14).

Planning balance

The heritage balance only, in Framework terms but without policy numbers. Harm to the non-designated Toll Bar is added to the designated-asset harm: "the collective heritage harm carries substantial weight in the balance" (DL ¶13).

What made the difference

The baseline. The seating area already had permission, so the only benefit was the extra hours, while the harm came from furniture standing in an otherwise open historic harbour setting for much longer each day.

Transferable points

• On an appeal against a condition, the public benefits are those of the variation sought, not of the development already permitted (DL ¶12).
• Seasonal and temporary paraphernalia can harm the setting of a listed structure where openness contributes to its significance (DL ¶7, ¶10–11).
• Lower-end harm to a listed building's setting and a conservation area outweighs modest commercial benefits (DL ¶13–14).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Section 78 appeal against a condition on a permission granted 19 March 2026 (header)
• Appellant sought 08:00 to 22:00 from April to September (DL 9)
• The East Pier area keeps a more open, historically legible character than the commercialised Foreshore and Sandside (DL 8)
• Benefits limited to the extra hours, since the seating area already has permission and can operate (DL 12)
• Parties had the opportunity to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 2)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

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.