Middle Earth Tavern, Whitby: Yorkshire pub's outdoor seating plan rejected over 'pedestrian safety'

Scarborough Council has rejected plans proposed by the Middle Earth Tavern on Church Street in Whitby to considerably extend its outdoor seating capacity onto the pavement and towards the road. The plan was rejected on December 22.

Various objections and issues were raised by local organisations and members of the public over concerns about limited pavement space and the behaviour of customers. Plans submitted by Jill Blackburn proposed 10 tables and seating for up to 50 people within the area to the front of the pub, which would be enclosed with “a post and advertisement type fence”.

A report by the planning authority states that “photographs provided by the applicant show that use has already commenced”. Refusal of the plans was recommended by Whitby Town Council, the Highway Authority, and Whitby Civic Society, as well as five letters of objection from members of the public.

One letter of objection by a disabled neighbour stated: “I personally have had instances where I can’t get past the pub on the pavement in my wheelchair, due to people blocking the pavement. I have also been jeered at by intoxicated people outside this pub due to me being in a wheelchair.

“On a sunny day, I now choose not to go out as I would have to pass this pub. It has left me housebound on sunny days and I wish it would revert to the quiet pub it was a few years ago.”

Whitby Civic Society said that if the plan was approved it would “take up part of the pavement and from the photographs submitted it appears to be bounded by garish advertising hoardings”:

A report by the local planning authority also asserted that the proposed extension of the seating area “would detract from both the character and setting of the listed public house” and would “undermine the character and appearance” of the Whitby conservation area in which it is located.

The planning authority concluded that objections to the plans were “so fundamental” or would have required such significant modification, that refusal was “the only decision which was appropriate in this case”.