A planning application was submitted for a two-storey side extension at 35 Third Avenue, York, a property already in use as an HMO. The extension would have intensified the use of the dwelling while failing to provide adequate off-road parking on a narrow street where vehicles were already damaging grass verges. Planning Voice was instructed by the neighbouring resident at No. 37, who was concerned about the overbearing impact, loss of light and a harmful tunnel effect caused by the tapering gap between the two properties. The application was refused.
The client lived at the adjacent property on Third Avenue and had experienced the same proposal being refused twice eighteen years earlier. The driveways between the two properties tapered from front to rear, and the client was deeply concerned that a two-storey side wall built so close to the boundary would create an oppressive tunnel effect, blocking natural light to the side-facing window and casting prolonged afternoon shadow across the neighbouring garden. No other property on Third Avenue had a two-storey side extension adjacent to a driveway unless both properties had matching single or two-storey elements, and the client felt the proposal would break this established pattern and fundamentally alter the street’s character.
Our review revealed multiple material planning concerns. The two-storey side extension was proposed very close to the boundary, with foundations likely encroaching on the boundary line itself. The adjacent property at No. 37 featured a side-facing window that would suffer a significant reduction in natural light, particularly during afternoon hours. The loss of outlook was compounded by the proposed side wall being too close and overbearing, creating a dominating and oppressive relationship with the neighbouring dwelling. The extension would cast additional shadows on the neighbouring garden, producing a tunnel effect exacerbated by the narrowing shape of the side garden towards the rear. As an existing HMO, the expanded dwelling would require parking for up to five vehicles on a street already suffering from limited on-street parking, made worse during peak hours by school drop-off traffic. The proposal provided only a single poorly designed parking space, which was insufficient for the intensified HMO use and would compromise access for disabled persons and cyclists.
The objection was structured around residential amenity, character, design and parking. On residential amenity, Policy D11 of the emerging City of York Local Plan requires extensions to protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, including practical provision of lighting and access. The tunnel effect, loss of afternoon light and overbearing impact on No. 37 were directly contrary to this policy. The increased number of occupants would also generate higher noise levels from communal facilities including bin and cycle storage, given the small size of the property.
On character and design, Paragraph 135 of the NPPF requires development to be sympathetic to local character and to establish a strong sense of place. Policy D1 of the emerging Local Plan requires development to enhance York’s special qualities, and Policy DP3 calls for high-quality design that respects the historic character of the city. None of the other properties on Third Avenue featured a two-storey side extension, and the proposal would introduce a bulky and incongruous element disrupting the established rhythm and uniformity of the street scene. On parking, the site was located in an area already suffering from significant on-street parking stress, and the expanded HMO would generate demand for multiple vehicles with no adequate provision or survey to demonstrate capacity.
The City of York Council refused the application on 8 January 2025. The decision notice confirmed that the proposed intensification of the existing HMO use had failed to demonstrate adequate off-road parking provision on a narrow road already experiencing significant verge damage from parked vehicles. The single parking space proposed was poorly designed and would compromise disabled and cyclist access. The Council concluded that the proposal constituted overdevelopment, resulting in unacceptable additional pressure for on-street parking, harm to visual amenity and the street setting, increased local tension over parking, and potential detriment to pedestrian and occupant safety. The proposal conflicted with the NPPF, Draft Local Plan Policy T1 and the House Extensions SPD.
Two-storey side extensions on narrow residential streets are vulnerable to refusal where they intensify an existing HMO use without providing adequate off-road parking. The tunnel effect created by building close to a tapering boundary, combined with the street’s established uniformity and the practical constraints of on-street parking, made this an overdevelopment that was rightly refused on multiple grounds.
Related guidance: Extension Objections · Traffic & Parking · Loss of Light · Overdevelopment
Start with a free, no-obligation assessment. We’ll advise on the strength of your case before you commit to anything.
Get Free Assessment →