Nelson Inn, Scarborough: Plan for seven new rooms at ‘landmark’ inn refused over design ‘inconsistencies’

The creation of new letting rooms at a ‘landmark’ Scarborough inn has been refused over ‘problematic plans’.

Plans for the Nelson Inn, on 29 Victoria Road, had proposed the erection of a first and second-floor extension as well as alterations to the roof elevations in order to provide seven new letting bedrooms.

But the council said that Colin Cain’s application created “cause for concern” as a result of “inconsistencies and discrepancies” in submitted plans.

North Yorkshire Council added that this created difficulties assessing the “possibility of an impact on the amenity of neighbours as well as legal implications if permission was granted with such problematic plans”.

The Nelson Inn is regarded as “a landmark building” in the area and is “an imposing feature in the street scene” according to a planning report.

Officers said that the proposed use “did not raise any particular concerns” but noted that the design of the changes would constitute “poor design” and would be “harmful to the architectural character of this building and the street scene of the locality”.

Despite submitting five sets of plans to the council, the authority noted errors and discrepancies with the height of the building, the roof elevations, drawings of the stairs and landings, the second-floor windows, the fire escape and stairs, and several other aspects.

A council report also stated that in order to access the beer garden and smoking area, occupants of the letting rooms would have to use “several flights of stairs and go out of the front door and around the corner of the street to get to the access gate on Nelson Street”.

Officers said this could lead to the use of the escape door and stairs onto the flat roof “with the potential to cause a loss of privacy for the adjacent property”.

In refusing the proposal, the authority said it had suggested that the application could be withdrawn to allow “sufficient time to address the concerns raised, but the applicant decided that the application should be formally determined as it stood”.

The proposal, which was first submitted three years ago, was formally rejected on Wednesday, January 10.