ANGRY residents of a York community are fighting plans for a housing development, which they say will bring chaos to their doorsteps.

Chartered architects Brierley Groom & Associates have submitted plans on behalf of the owners of Middlethorpe Manor to convert a derelict Victorian stable block into six homes. Locals say this will create a traffic nightmare in their already narrow street.

The plans are set to be given the green light at a City of York Council planning and transport sub-committee meeting tomorrow, after council officers recommended them for approval.

Villagers argue that the six new homes would generate large numbers of cars, which will compete for space with farm vehicles and existing traffic.

They are also worried that a new development would aggravate what they say is an already serious flooding problem along the historic street.

Sue Williams, owner of the nearby Manor Cottage B&B, said: "It's terrible. People come here and say what a quiet and lovely place it is to stay here - this will cause chaos."David Bennett, who lives opposite, in Lady Wortley Place, said locals were not against developing the derelict stables, but they felt the scale of the project was excessive and would swamp the area.

Roger Oxley, who also lives nearby, said: "We are totally against this - it represents a very dense increase in a small hamlet like Middlethorpe."

He said that residents were almost unanimously against the development, and some had written letters of objection to planning officers.

Brian Mellors, vice-chairman of Bishopthorpe Parish Council, also wrote to officers objecting to the scheme, saying there was not enough provision for parking, and that the extra cars would be "out of place" in the conservation area.

But Matthew Groom, of Brierley Groom & Associates, said: "We just want to get some use back into the existing buildings.

"All the council's consultants are happy. We have satisfied the highways requirements."

He added that the development would include its own mini-treatment works, which meant it would not present an added flooding risk.

Updated: 10:45 Tuesday, May 18, 2004