Abbey Wharf: Council refuse plans for roof terrace extension to restaurant in Grade II-listed Whitby Market Hall

An application seeking to construct a roof terrace with a balcony and to extend the existing second-floor level mezzanine within Abbey Wharf restaurant and bar has been refused by the council due to concerns about overdevelopment, amenity, and preservation of the original building.

Submitted by Paul Clemitshaw, the scheme proposed multiple changes to the Grade-II listed site at the Market Hall in Whitby, which is made up of an original 19th-century building and a 1960s two-storey extension

The building is currently in a “poor state of structural repair” with one report stating that the building requires propping at the first-floor level as “a matter of urgency”.

The proposal sought to increase the capacity of the existing bar and restaurant to more than 70 covers by extending the second-floor mezzanine level into the adjoining extension to form a part-covered and part-open roof terrace.

According to the applicant, the works would have had “no detriment to the roof and roofscape, whilst also rectifying the structural issues”.

However, Scarborough Council said the plan would “adversely impact upon the appearance of the listed building” and the Whitby conservation area.

A report by the council states: “The main concern in relation to amenity is the impact of the open roof terrace and additional capacity with 78+ covers to what is already a relatively large establishment within this part of Whitby.”

The planning authority noted that while the scheme proposed to “enliven this part of the harbour and extend a public meeting place” as well as improve a “structurally unsound building” it could not approve the changes.

In rejecting the scheme, the planning authority said: “It is not considered that the limited public benefit accrued from the extension to the existing business and formation of an open roof terrace outweighs the significant harm to the designated heritage asset.

“There are no exceptional circumstances identified by the authority that would justify such harm.”

It also stated that noise and disturbance “likely to arise from such a development would” result in an adverse impact on surrounding amenity.

The plan was rejected on Wednesday, February 15.