|
Appendix
B - Summaries of Planning Appeals decided between 1 January and 31
March 2025
|
|
|
|
|
Case
number
|
Appeal
by
|
Description
|
Address
|
Outcome
|
|
24/00029/REF
|
Mrs
T Brooks
|
Change
of use to children's day nursery (use class E) including
alterations and extensions (resubmission)
|
71
Osbaldwick VillageOsbaldwickYorkYO10 3NP
|
Appeal
Dismissed
|
|
Notes
|
|
Tiddlywinks
Nursery has been operating from their site on Murton Way in
Osbaldwick since 2004. The proposal was to expand the existing
facility into the adjoining detached bungalow with garden and
garage adjoining the site to the north. Planning permission was
refused on the grounds of significant highways safety concerns from
the additional customers accessing the nursery and on the living
conditions of occupiers of the adjacent residential premises with
regard to noise and disturbance. The Inspector visited the site
unannounced to observe the traffic and parking situation at peak
drop off time. They noted that many arrived on foot and bike,
despite poor weather and that the cars parked on the street were
parked on average no longer than five minutes when dropping off.
Cars did not block driveways and when multiple cars were parked
outside the nursery this caused some minor inconvenience to other
drivers and buses, but that it did not cause heavy congestion, long
delays or road safety issues and was typical of most built up areas
close to schools and nurseries at peak times. Whilst there would be
an increase in on street parking with the proposed nursery
expansion, the Inspector found that the proposal would not be
detrimental to highways safety and the nursery is in a sustainable
location. However they did agree that the additional noise and
disturbance from the expansion of the nursery into the adjoining
property would have an unacceptable impact on the reasonable
amenity of the neighbours. The neighbours garden which would be
additionally affected is currently peaceful and away from the
existing nursery and road and the adverse noise would also be
experienced by the neighbours in the property with windows open.
Conditions could not address the additional noise. Insufficient
mitigation had been proposed. Whilst there is demand
for childcare places, and additional jobs would be created, this
would not outweigh the harm to neighbour amenity.
|
|
|
|
Case
number
|
Appeal
by
|
Description
|
Address
|
Outcome
|
|
24/00030/REF
|
Mrs
Assia Matova
|
Change
of use from dwelling house (use Class C3) to House in Multiple
Occupation (use Class C4) (retrospective)
|
234
MelrosegateYorkYO10 3SW
|
Appeal
Allowed
|
|
Notes
|
|
This
appeal related to change of use of a three-bed property to a 4no.
bed HMO. The proposal was retrospective. The application was
refused on the grounds that it would exceed density thresholds and
thus would be in conflict with policy H8 of the DLP 2018,
considered to have a detrimental impact on the character of the
area, result in harm to neighbour’s amenity, and contribute
to an erosion in the balance of the wider community. The proposal
was also considered to have a sub-standard provision of parking.
One of the bedrooms comprised a floor space less than the minimum
standard defined within the Guidance Notes for HMO Licensing, and
therefore considered to reflect a poor provision of occupant
amenity, depending on omission of this bedroom and/or layout
changes. The Inspector paid close attention to the methodology for
calculating densities, placing lesser weight on these calculations,
querying the true relevance of some included properties. The
Inspector could not be certain that all properties included were in
use as HMOs or that they contributed towards the concentration of
such properties in those areas. It was not considered that the use
of the appeal property has to date, or will in future, result in
any negative effects or community imbalance. The smallest bedroom
was conditioned to only be used as a study or storage space, or a
bedroom occupied by a child aged 10 or under that is a relative of
an occupier of one of the larger bedrooms. On this basis, the
Inspector was satisfied that the HMO would provide appropriate
living conditions. Although of limited depth, the Inspector
observed that two vehicles were suitably parked at a neighbouring
address, of the same conditions, at the time of their visit.
Although they acknowledged tandem parking could result in one
resident's car being blocked in, the Inspector was not persuaded a
small group of no more than 4 adults could not manage parking
arrangements in a suitable manner.
|
|
|
|
Case
number
|
Appeal
by
|
Description
|
Address
|
Outcome
|
|
24/00032/REF
|
Mr
Sam Chamberlain
|
Erection
of 1no. dwelling to rear following demolition of detached
garage
|
2
Norfolk StreetYorkYO23 1JY
|
Appeal
Dismissed
|
|
Notes
|
|
The
appeal relates to a detached garage associated with the host
property, a large three storey end of terrace which has previously
been converted to 9 flats. Proposals sought to construct a
detached single 'coach house' style dwelling. The application was
refused on three grounds: character and appearance, amenity and
cycle and waste storage. The Inspector agreed that the scale of the
'coach house' style property was subordinate to the prevailing
terraced development and that there were no other similar
outbuildings or structures in the immediate locality and that
within the context the proposal would appear as a contrived and
incongruous development. Officers also considered the proposals to
result in overdevelopment however the Inspector disagreed with this
point. In terms of amenity, the Inspector agreed that the
impact on the outlook and light of the adjacent property would be
compromised. Similarly in terms of cycle and waste storage,
whilst the garage to be demolished is currently rented to a third
party and does not form part of the existing residential storage,
the flats currently have no cycle storage provision. The
applicant proposed 2no. cycle spaces which the Inspector concluded
was insufficient, and the applicant failed to demonstrate that
adequate storage facilities could be provided on site for the
existing and future occupants. It was concluded that whilst the
proposed dwelling would add to the mix and supply of housing in the
area, and would be in a sustainable location with good access to
services, despite the Council's lack of housing land supply, the
provision of additional housing did not weigh highly enough to
overcome the issues raised.
|
|
|
|
Case
number
|
Appeal
by
|
Description
|
Address
|
Outcome
|
|
24/00041/REF
|
Jim
Pigott
|
Outline
application (with access, layout and scale being considered) for
erection of 6no. dwellings with associated access, car parking and
landscaping after demolition of buildings
|
Pigotts
Autoparts Sheriff Hutton RoadStrensallYorkYO32 5XH
|
Appeal
Dismissed
|
|
Notes
|
|
The
site comprises a scrapyard situated within open countryside to the
north of Strensall village and accessed from Sheriff Hutton Road.
Planning permission was sought for the erection of a small
development of six houses as a straight resubmission of an earlier
proposal previously refused. The site is physically remote from the
village and only safely accessible by car with Sheriff Hutton Road
at National Speed Limit for most of its length and no footpath with
an uneven verge unsuitable for walking on. At the same time no
evidence was forthcoming in respect of the site having been
marketed as employment land to secure compliance with Policy EC2 of
the Local Plan. It was also felt that insufficient information was
forthcoming to enable a Habitats Regulations Assessment to be
undertaken in relation to the potential impacts of the proposal on
the Strensall Common SAC. Planning permission was therefore refused
a second time for those reasons. The appeal Inspector agreed that
the site was not sustainably located and could only be reasonably
accessed by car making it an isolated residential development in
open countryside. At the same time the Inspector agreed that
insufficient information had been forthcoming to secure compliance
with Policy EC2 of the Local Plan in respect of loss of employment
land. Notwithstanding that the Inspector indicated that they felt
on balance that sufficient had been forthcoming to demonstrate
compliance with the needs of the Habitats Regulations in relation
to impacts upon the Strensall SAC. The appeal was
dismissed.
|
|
|
Case
number
|
Appeal
by
|
Description
|
Address
|
Outcome
|
|
24/00037/CON
|
Mrs
Beth Davies
|
Removal
of condition 7 (internal noise levels) of permitted application
21/00908/FUL
|
70
WalmgateYorkYO1 9TL
|
Appeal
Allowed
|
|
Notes
|
|
Property
is a former retail unit converted to dwelling. The appeal
related to a condition which required noise attenuation to achieve
specific noise levels within the bedrooms. The property is Grade 2
star listed and the Inspector understood that on heritage grounds
only secondary glazing could achieve the required
attenuation. However, this approach would (without trickle
vents) require mechanical ventilation, which would also not be
acceptable on heritage grounds. The Inspector
found that on balance the conversion had vastly improved the listed
building and given it a viable use. Any future purchaser
would be aware of the local noise environment and possible
disturbance, and the constraints of occupying a listed
building. The Inspector found there was confusion in relation
to relevant conditions related to large scale details required and
noise attenuation. They were not precise or enforceable and
the appeal was allowed.
|
|
|
|
Case
number
|
Appeal
by
|
Description
|
Address
|
Outcome
|
|
24/00033/REF
|
Mr
Christopher Rymer
|
Change
of use from a dwellinghouse (use class C3) to short term letting
accommodation for up to 10 people (sui generis)
|
17
Penleys Grove StreetYorkYO31 7PW
|
Appeal
Dismissed
|
|
Notes
|
|
The
application sought retrospective planning permission for the
continued use of 17 Penleys Grove Street from a dwellinghouse (use
class C3) to short term letting accommodation for up to 10 people
(sui generis). The LPA refused the application on grounds of the
impact on adjacent neighbours for reasons that the occupation by
large groups of adults in a largely residential location would
result in unacceptable noise levels and disruption from socialising
during the day and evening/early morning and from comings and
goings by the occupants and through the use of the rear garden. The
LPA did not consider the economic benefits to the city to
support tourism would outweigh these concerns and concluded the
proposal failed comply with Local Plan policy ENV2 (managing
environmental quality) and Section 12 (Achieving
well-designed places) of the National Planning Policy Framework
2024. The Inspector balanced their assessment of the proposal on
then draft Local Plan policy ENV2 (managing environmental quality)
and gave significant weight to the draft policy for reasons it
reflected National Panning Policy. The Inspector acknowledged the
applicant had spent considerable amounts of money in the conversion
of the property and appreciated the applicant had gone to some
length to discourage stag and hen parties. However, they agreed
with the LPA on matters of harm to neighbour amenity and concluded
the holiday let use would encourage more outside activity than a
family home, whereby residents would be more respectful to their
neighbours. The Inspector did acknowledge that there had been only
one objection to the proposal, however concluded this would not
necessarily mean other residents would not be affected by the
proposal. The Appeal was dismissed.
|
|
|
|
Case
number
|
Appeal
by
|
Description
|
Address
|
Outcome
|
|
24/00034/REF
|
Ms S
Poole
|
Erection
of 4no. detached dwellings with associated access, parking and
landscaping
|
40
Fordlands RoadYorkYO19 4QG
|
Appeal
Dismissed
|
|
Notes
|
|
The
appeal relates to the development of 4 dwellings in the large rear
garden of 40 Fordlands Road. The LPA refused the application for 2
reasons: Flood risk and poor design relating to household waste
storage. The site is within Flood Zone 2. National Policy requires
that development in Flood Zone 2 is required to pass the sequential
test. The aim of the sequential test is to steer development to the
lowest area of flood risk by looking at whether there are any
reasonably available sites in a lower area of flood risk. The
Inspector agreed that the area of search for reasonably available
sites should be the administrative area of the City of York. As
such the Inspector concluded that proposed development fails
the sequential test as it was not demonstrated that the development
could not be located in an area at lower risk of flooding. The
Inspector gave significant weight to the proposals conflict with
National Planning Policy on Flood Risk and considered no material
considerations outweighed the conflict, and therefore dismissed the
appeal on that basis. The Inspector concluded that suitable
provision for household waste in a manner that would not harm the
visual appearance of the area would be provided.
|
|
|
|
Case
number
|
Appeal
by
|
Description
|
Address
|
Outcome
|
|
24/00036/REF
|
Mr
Andrew Hare
|
Erection
of shed - retrospective
|
Land
To The Rear Of 34Westpit Lane Strensall York
|
Appeal
Dismissed
|
|
Notes
|
|
The
appeal relates to the retention of a timber shed outside of the
residential curtilage of 34 Westpit Lane Strensall. The LPA refused
the application on its effect on the character and appearance of
the Local Green Space and flood risk. The Inspector found that the
development is harmful to landscape character and erodes community
value through the loss of openness and the domestication of the
land, which is designated as Local Green Space. The Inspector
concluded that there were no public benefits that outweigh the
harms identified. As such the proposal conflicts with the policies
in the Strensall Neighbourhood Plan and the objectives of emerging
Local Plan policies. The site is within Flood Zone 3, high
probability of flooding. The Inspector concluded that any
development in Flood Zone 3 is contrary to National Planning Policy
and the emerging Local Plan Policy ENV4.The Inspector concluded
that no material considerations outweigh the above conflicts and
therefore the appeal was dismissed.
|
|
|
|
Case
number
|
Appeal
by
|
Description
|
Address
|
Outcome
|
|
24/00038/REF
|
Mr
Garry Crabtree
|
Erection
of a covered external seating area to side, comprising of 1800mm
high timber fencing, timber planters, relocation of parasol and
festoon lighting
|
The
Dick Turpin49 Moorcroft RoadYorkYO24 2RQ
|
Appeal
Dismissed
|
|
Notes
|
|
The
appeal relates to a covered outside drinking area within the car
park at the side of the public house. A previous application to
regularise the existing outside seating area was refused and
dismissed at appeal due to impact on residential amenity with
regard to noise and disturbance. The most recent application sought
permission for a reduced size seating area, with timber acoustic
fencing including French doors from the pub to the seating area.
The existing smoking shelter does not form part of the application.
The application was refused due to the impact on residential
amenity - noise and disturbance. The Inspector agreed with officers
that the use of the seating area (although reduced in scale from
the previous scheme) would cause harm to amenity with regard to
noise and disturbance to neighbouring residents. Public
protection raised some objection but noted that they had only
received one complaint in relation to noise. A number of
neighbour objections were received confirming that the outside
seating area continued to cause noise and disturbance and these
objections weighed heavily against the application. The
Inspector agreed with the weight attributed to these objections,
despite a limited objection from Public Protection. The
Inspector concluded that the French windows have the potential to
increase noise disturbance and that the proposed fencing would be
limited in terms of an acoustic barrier. In conclusion the
Inspector agreed that there was little evidence to demonstrate that
conditions could adequately control noise and as such the appeal
was dismissed.
|
|
|
|
Case
number
|
Appeal
by
|
Description
|
Address
|
Outcome
|
|
24/00043/REF
|
Mr
Shaun Yeomans
|
Retrospective
change of use from dwelling house (use Class C3) to House in
Multiple Occupation (use Class C4) (retrospective)
|
3A
Harington AvenueYorkYO10 3SU
|
Appeal
Dismissed
|
|
Notes
|
|
The
Inspector noted that the existing density levels of HMO's had
already been breached and saw no reason not to uphold the Council's
policy with regard to the Article 4 Directive. That
cumulative harm would result from additional multiple occupation in
terms of the character of the neighbourhood. He also
considered that the proposal would also result in unacceptable
additional parking pressure on the street.
|
|
|
|
Case
number
|
Appeal
by
|
Description
|
Address
|
Outcome
|
|
24/00039/REF
|
John
Walshaw
|
Dormer
and bay window to front
|
3
Windsor DriveWiggintonYorkYO32 2QG
|
Appeal
Dismissed
|
|
Notes
|
|
The
appeal was made against the refusal of a planning application for a
dormer and bay window to the front at No. 3 Windsor Drive. The
Inspector found that the proposed front dormer would result in
significant harm to the character and appearance of the dwelling
and the wider locality. Whilst acknowledging the front dormer was
scaled back from a previous application refusal, the dormer was
still considered to result in significant harm accordingly. The
Inspector also found that the proposed front projecting bay window
would unbalance the front elevation in relation to the attached
dwelling. The appellant provided examples of dormers and bay
windows that they considered comparable to the development,
although due to a lack of locational information on some examples,
or the identifiable examples being in a different locational
context, they could not be considered as substantive or comparable
evidence. The Inspector found the proposal contrary to Policy D11
of the emerging Local Plan, which seeks to promote high quality
design and ensure alterations to existing buildings respond
positively to their immediate architectural context.
|
|
|
|
Case
number
|
Appeal
by
|
Description
|
Address
|
Outcome
|
|
24/00045/REF
|
Mr
Jamie Stewart
|
Change
of use from dwelling (Use Class C3) to House in Multiple Occupation
(use Class C4), to include dormer to rear and 2no. rooflights to
front roofslope
|
44
Kyme StreetYorkYO1 6HG
|
Appeal
Dismissed
|
|
Notes
|
|
This
appeal related to the erection of a box dormer to the rear of a
period terraced property on Kyme Street, Bishophill, in conjunction
with change of use to a HMO. The application was refused on the
grounds that the rear dormer would, by virtue of its pronounced
intervention to a currently unaltered roof plane, be visually
dominant and out of keeping with the character of the host, and
also with the largely unaltered roof forms prevalent more widely
within the Bishophill area, an important visual characteristic of
the area, and thus would result in harm to the setting and
appearance of the Conservation Area in conflict with policies D1,
D4 and D11 of the Local Plan. The inspector agreed that the dormer
would form a bulky and obtrusive addition to the roof of the
property, overly prominent when seen alongside the neighbouring
unspoilt rear facing roofslopes. The inspector further acknowledged
that the rear roofslopes are also visible in public views when
looking from the gate at the end of the passageway on Baile Hill
Terrace and from the top of the city walls. The appellant's appeal
statement raised a few local examples of similar dormers. The
Inspector viewed that these examples, rather than setting a
precedent for further rear dormers, demonstrated how harmful they
are to the unspoilt roofscape and the otherwise charming,
regimented, repetitive and homogenous terraced housing of the
Bishophill area as described in the Conservation Area appraisal.
The appeal was therefore dismissed.
|
|
|
|
Case
number
|
Appeal
by
|
Description
|
Address
|
Outcome
|
|
24/00042/REF
|
Mr
Patrick Norville
|
Erection
of detached garage outbuilding
|
Pasture
Farm Main StreetDeightonYorkYO19 6HD
|
Appeal
Allowed
|
|
Notes
|
|
This
appeal related to erection of a single storey detached garage
outbuilding within the curtilage of an existing (extended) detached
farmhouse set within the village of Deighton. The application was
refused on the grounds that it would constitute a disproportionate
addition over and above the size of the original building, and thus
would not fall within the exception of paragraph 154c) of the
NPPF's Green Belt development. The host dwelling was of period
form, appearing to comprise a variety of evolutionary enlargements,
the latest being approved and developed last year, contributing
towards an additional 42 sqm of footprint adjacent to the open
countryside. It was considered that another smaller two-storey side
addition was also added subsequent to 1948, and thus this proposal
would result in an increase in size disproportionate to the
original property, taking into account its previous enlargements
and adaptations. However, the Inspector concluded, subsequent to
information provided by the applicant, that the smaller two-storey
addition was likely added prior to 1948. The Inspector acknowledged
that the map extract provided was not definitive as to what
existed, although showed a large footprint commensurate with the
applicant's claim. It was therefore determined that the development
proposed would not represent disproportionate additions over and
above the size of the building, taking into account what was likely
to have been present in 1948. The appeal was therefore
allowed.
|
|
|
|