Remodelling of property including formation of new hipped roof arrangement incorporating dormer windows to provide first floor accommodation; erection of balcony at rear with undercover canopy

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 September 2026 by A Caines BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6013856 Willowcroft, Stonepit Lane, Gristhorpe, Filey YO14 9PT • 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 and Mrs P Gale against the decision of North Yorkshire Council. • The application Ref is 25/03912/FUL. • The development proposed is described as remodelling of property including formation of new hipped roof arrangement incorporating dormer windows to provide first floor accommodation; erection of balcony at rear with undercover canopy. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. A revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 17 August 2026. The main parties were given the opportunity to comment on the changes introduced by the revised Framework, and I have taken their responses into account in determining the appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the dwelling and surrounding rural area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a detached bungalow located within the countryside. It occupies an elevated position and is surrounded by agricultural fields, trees and hedgerows, which gives the immediate setting a distinctly rural character. 5. Policy DEC1 of the Scarborough Borough Local Plan (2017) (the SLP) seeks development that responds positively to local context, having regard to matters including scale, form, height, materials and architectural detailing. Whilst Policy ENV6 principally addresses new development within the countryside, it also requires proposals to be compatible with their surroundings and to protect the character and appearance of the countryside. Similar objectives are reflected in the Council's Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2022) (SPD), which expects extensions and alterations to respect the scale and form of the original building and respond positively to the characteristics of the site and surrounding area. 6. The existing bungalow is of simple form and modest scale, with a relatively low profile, uncomplicated roofscape and brick finish. As a result, it has a restrained presence within its countryside setting and does not appear unduly conspicuous. Appeal Decision 6013856 2 7. The proposal would involve a substantial remodelling of the dwelling. In addition to the ground floor extensions, it would incorporate a roof lift of around 2 metres, a steeper roof pitch, hipped roof ends, several large dormer windows, a first-floor balcony and a rear canopy. The existing brick elevations would also be replaced with a painted render finish. Taken together, these changes would significantly transform the character of the dwelling. The enlarged roof form, prominent dormers, balcony and rendered elevations would create a building of considerably greater scale and visual presence than the existing bungalow. Whilst it would remain clearly identifiable as a dwelling, it would no longer exhibit the modest and understated qualities that currently allow it to assimilate into its rural surroundings. The increased height and bulk of the roof in particular would be readily apparent, especially in views from the south. 8. I acknowledge that good design need not replicate existing buildings and that contemporary approaches can make a positive contribution to local character. However, the appeal property is experienced predominantly within a landscape of open fields, trees and hedgerows. In that context, the proposed remodelling would introduce a more visually assertive and suburban form of development. The combination of enlarged rendered elevations, a dominant roofscape, sizeable dormers and a first-floor balcony would be at odds with the restrained character currently exhibited by the dwelling and would appear incongruous within its rural setting. Moreover, little substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate how the design has been informed by the characteristics of the local area or how it would reinforce local distinctiveness. 9. I recognise that the proposal would not result in the loss of landscape features, changes to landform, or encroachment into undeveloped countryside. Nevertheless, the countryside setting forms an important part of the context in which the development would be experienced. By reason of its increased scale, prominence and suburbanising design elements, the proposal would fail to respect the rural context in which it would be experienced and would detract from the character and appearance of the area. 10. The appellant draws attention to larger dwellings and other developments in the wider area, including at Cliff House Farm. I have also had regard to the previous planning permission granted in 2010 for alterations including a roof lift and additional accommodation. However, those matters do not alter my findings. The acceptability of development depends upon the particular characteristics of the proposal and its relationship with its immediate surroundings. The existence of other developments elsewhere, or a different unimplemented scheme, does not demonstrate that the appeal proposal would be compatible with the character of this site and its setting. 11. Drawing these matters together, I find that the development would fail to respond positively to the site's rural context and would neither respect nor reinforce local character. The resulting harm to the character and appearance of the dwelling and its rural surroundings would conflict with Policy DEC1 of the SLP and with the design-related objectives of Policy ENV6. 12. Whilst I have had regard to Policy ENV7 of the SLP, I have not identified any separate landscape harm beyond that arising from the proposal's effect on character and appearance and the dwellings relationship with its rural setting. Appeal Decision 6013856 3 Planning Balance 13. The development would provide improved and modernised living accommodation for the occupiers of the dwelling. It would also be likely to offer some enhancement to the building's energy performance. Whilst these are benefits of the proposal, they would primarily benefit the occupants of the appeal property and would not result in significant wider public benefits. Consequently, I attach limited weight to them. 14. Against those benefits, the development would harm the character and appearance of the dwelling and its rural surroundings. As such, it would conflict with policies DEC1 and ENV6 of the SLP. 15. The Framework identifies the extension and alteration of existing buildings outside settlements as a form of development that may be acceptable in principle and seeks to facilitate the transition to a low carbon future. However, that support is not unconditional. The Framework also places significant importance on achieving well-designed development that responds positively to local context and integrates successfully with its surroundings. 16. For the reasons set out above, the proposal would fail to respond positively to its context and would therefore conflict with Policy DP3 of the Framework. Given the importance attached to achieving well-designed places, I attach considerable weight to this conflict and the harm which arises from it. Furthermore, Policy S5(2) of the Framework identifies conflict with national-decision making policies requiring refusal as a circumstance in which the benefits of development are likely to be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects. 17. Having regard to the Framework as a whole, including the presumption in favour of sustainable development, I find that the limited benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the harm I have identified. Accordingly, the proposal would not represent sustainable development. Conclusion 18. For the reasons given, I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole. The material considerations, including the Framework, do not outweigh that conflict or indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed. A Caines INSPECTOR