Two-storey side extension

Appeal Decision by Chris Mayes CMLI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 7th September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009584 42 Fountayne Road, Hunmanby, North Yorkshire YO14 0LU • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr M Jackson against the decision of North Yorkshire Council. • The application reference is 26/00747/FUL. • The development proposed is ‘two-storey side extension’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Applications for Costs 2. An application for cost was made by Mr M Jackson against the North Yorkshire Council. This is the subject of a separate decision. Preliminary Matter 3. Since the appeal was lodged, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been updated. I have determined the appeal on the basis of the current Framework. The parties, through the evidence submitted with the appeal, have had the opportunity to address the planning merits of the proposal. I am satisfied that the changes to the Framework do not alter the substance of the main issue in this appeal or disadvantage either party. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Reasons 5. The appeal property occupies a corner plot at the junction of Fountayne Road and Constable Road. The surrounding area is characterised by semi-detached bungalows of similar scale and proportions set within modest plots. Along the same side of Fountayne Road as the appeal property, the dwellings are dormer bungalows, whereas those on the opposite side generally do not incorporate dormers. Nevertheless, the scale, proportions and spacing between pairs of dwellings results in a coherent and consistent rhythm and pattern of development within the street scene. 6. Although a conservatory currently occupies part of the side garden to the appeal property, the openness retained around the junction makes a positive contribution to the character of the area. In particular, the gap between the built form of the appeal property and Constable Road mirrors that found adjacent to 40 Fountayne Appeal Decision 6009584 2 Road on the opposite side of the junction, reinforcing the spacious character of this part of the street scene. 7. The proposed extension would substantially increase the overall length and mass of the building. In doing so, it would markedly reduce the existing gap alongside Constable Road and would result in a dwelling that appears appreciably larger than others in the immediate vicinity. As a consequence, the building would appear visually dominant within its plot and would erode the harmonious pattern of development and an important component of the spacing and openness that presently characterises this part of the street scene. 8. Furthermore, the resulting building would appear disproportionately elongated when viewed from both Fountayne Road and Constable Road. Rather than appearing as one of a group of similarly proportioned dwellings, it would present as a noticeably larger and more dominant building that sits uncomfortably within its surroundings. In this respect, the proposal would appear incongruous and would disrupt the balanced relationship that currently exists between the appeal property, adjoining dwellings and the wider street scene. 9. The use of matching materials and continuation of the existing roof form would assist in integrating the proposed extension with the existing dwelling. However, these matters would not overcome the visual effects arising from the substantially increased scale of development. The harm that I have identified arises principally from the proposal's effect on the proportions of the building and the erosion of openness around the corner plot rather than the detailing of the extension itself. 10. I have also been referred to the Scarborough Borough Council Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (August 2021). While that document indicates that side extensions should typically be set back from the principal elevation and below the existing ridge line, I do not regard the absence of those features as determinative in itself. Rather, my concerns arise from the effect of the completed development on the character and appearance of the area. Even applying the SPD flexibly, the scale and disposition of the proposed extension would remain harmful for the reasons given above. 11. Similarly, whilst the surrounding area exhibits some variation in detailed design, I saw little evidence during my site visit of extensions or alterations that materially depart from the prevailing pattern of development. Moreover, I have been provided with no substantive examples of development comparable in scale or effect to that now proposed. Consequently, this matter does not alter my conclusions. 12. Drawing these matters together, I conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would therefore conflict with Policy DEC1 of the Scarborough Borough Local Plan (July 2017), which seeks, among other things, to ensure that development reflects the local environment and responds positively to the local context. Other Matters 13. There is no dispute between the parties that the proposed development would not result in harm to the living conditions of occupants of neighbouring properties, and I have no reason to find otherwise. However, the absence of harm to residential amenity is not a benefit of the scheme. Rather, it is simply a characteristic of Appeal Decision 6009584 3 development that would ordinarily be expected to be acceptable. Accordingly, this matter does not alter my overall conclusion. 14. I have also considered the concern raised regarding the extent of engagement undertaken during the determination of the application. However, my role is to determine the appeal on the basis of the proposal before me and the evidence submitted by the parties. Consequently, irrespective of the process that led to the decision, that matter does not affect my assessment of the planning merits of the proposal. 15. The proposal would provide additional living accommodation for the occupants of the dwelling. While I have taken that matter into account, it would predominantly amount to a private benefit for the appellant and does not lead me to a different conclusion regarding the planning merits of the proposal. Conclusion 16. The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Chris Mayes INSPECTOR