Appeal 6002556

The appeal is dismissed.

The evidence indicates that the property is already being occupied as a four-bed House in [name] (HMO). My assessment relies principally on the submitted plans and supporting information. However, because the proposal is part retrospective, the scope to address outstanding details through planning conditions is restricted, and I have taken this into account when considering the use of planning conditions.

Although the proposal seeks a flexible permission enabling the property to operate either as a C3 dwellinghouse or as a small HMO (C4), such applications must be assessed as if a full C4 HMO were sought, because the HMO use must be acceptable in its own right at the point of decision. I have determined the appeal on that basis.

A previous appeal relating to a similar proposal at the site was dismissed on 2 April 2025 (APP/C2741/W/24/3356929). I have had regard to that decision where relevant.

During the appeal, I invited further comments from the appellant in relation to cycle storage arrangements and the suitability of conditions. I have taken those responses into account in reaching my decision.

The main issues in this appeal are: • Whether the development makes suitable provision for cycle storage to support sustainable travel; • Whether the development would provide acceptable living conditions for its occupants, having particular regard to its internal layout.

Policy T1 of the City of York Local Plan 2025 (YLP) seeks to maximise the use of sustainable travel modes, including through provision of convenient, secure and covered cycle storage. Policy D1 similarly requires development to maximise sustainability potential. These policy expectations apply irrespective of the site’s proximity to public transport and services.

The site comprises a two-storey, end-of-terrace property with front and rear gardens. The site layout plan indicates schematically that a cycle store would be located in the rear garden. The garden is spacious and access is available via a side path.

However, no detailed drawings of the elevations, height, materials, or internal layout of the cycle store were provided. While the appellant states that the store would be smaller than a standard garden shed, the footprint shown on the site layout plan suggests a sizeable structure positioned close to the shared boundary. Without sufficient information on its massing, design, or internal configuration, I cannot be satisfied that a suitable secure and accessible store capable of accommodating four cycles, including adapted or non-standard cargo models, could be delivered without harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers or the visual qualities of the area.

I have considered whether these matters could reasonably be left to planning conditions. However, conditions requiring the subsequent approval of substantial built structures are only appropriate where there is no reasonable doubt that an acceptable solution exists. In this case, the likely size and location of the store mean that its acceptability depends on its detailed design and siting. These are not minor technical points. The absence of detail at this stage gives rise to genuine uncertainty.

Moreover, applications to discharge conditions are not subject to the same public consultation as planning applications. Given that the acceptability of the cycle store would depend on detailed factors such as height, appearance and boundary relationships, leaving these matters entirely to the condition-discharge process would risk depriving neighbours of the opportunity to comment on a material element of the development.

Even if I were to accept that the condition-discharge process could operate satisfactorily, the retrospective nature of the development presents further difficulty. It is not possible to impose a negatively worded pre-commencement condition when development has already begun. The pre-commencement condition suggested by the Council would therefore fail the test of enforceability, and no alternative condition is before me.

For all these reasons, the proposal fails to demonstrate that suitable cycle storage would be provided to support sustainable travel, contrary to Policies T1 and D1 of the YLP.

The previous appeal raised concerns regarding the accuracy of submitted plans, the cramped and awkward shape of Bedroom 3, and limited natural light to the ground-floor lounge.

In this scheme, scaled plans have been submitted and amendments have been made to the internal layout. Bedroom 3 is now regularly shaped, and the lounge benefits from an existing south-east facing window that provides light and outlook. Although there remains a dispute over precise floor area measurements, even the Council’s lower figures indicate that Bedroom 3 exceeds minimum sizes typically applied under HMO licensing. The Nationally Described Space Standards do not apply to HMOs and are therefore not determinative in this context.

On the evidence before me, all bedrooms appear functional and capable of accommodating basic furniture, and the kitchen and lounge together would provide an adequate range of shared facilities for four occupiers.

I therefore conclude that the internal layout would provide acceptable living conditions for the occupiers. In this regard, the development complies with Policy H8 of the YLP, which amongst other things, requires that accommodation within HMOs provide a high standard of residential amenity.

The proposal would contribute to the supply of HMO accommodation in York, which plays an important role in meeting local housing needs. HMOs can offer more affordable housing options and make efficient use of existing housing stock. The site is also well located in relation to city centre services and public transport, and the proposal would not breach the Council’s HMO concentration thresholds. These are positive factors which weigh moderately in favour of the development.

However, the failure to demonstrate that suitable cycle storage can be provided attracts significant weight, given the importance of sustainable travel within the YLP and the National Planning Policy Framework. In the absence of such provision, or reasonable certainty that it can be achieved acceptably, the proposal conflicts with Policies T1 and D1 of the YLP, and therefore with the development plan when read as a whole. There are no material considerations which indicate that permission should be granted contrary to the development plan. For this reason, the appeal should be dismissed.