PLANS for more than 500 student flats in two developments in York have cleared a major hurdle.
Schemes to create 11 blocks of flats have been recommended for approval by City of York Council planners, and a final decision is to be made next week.
If the authority’s planning committee gives the go-ahead, accommodation for 282 students will be built on the site of a former dairy in Hull Road, with room for 238 more being created where the Reg Vardy garage in Lawrence Street once stood.
Last month, The Press reported on the widening gap between the number of students coming to the University of York and the accommodation available to them as the council looked to take a tougher stance on applications to turn properties in residential areas into houses of multiple occupation.
The six-block Lawrence Street scheme, resubmitted by Blacklion Ltd after an original application was withdrawn last year, has been criticised by York Civic Trust as an “overdevelopment” and a potential risk to nearby listed buildings A letter of objection from 58 residents in Barbican Mews raised concerns over noise, litter, parking and loss of light to their homes.
But a report by development management officer Diane Cragg said the scheme met demand for student housing.
She said: “The development would not have any direct negative impact on the historic heritage of the area, would significantly enhance the application site and, at worst, have a neutral impact on the surrounding listed buildings.”
Objections to the Hull Road proposals have also been voiced, with local residents saying the site should be earmarked for affordable housing and the students accommodated on the University of York campus. A previous scheme was rejected by the council earlier this year, but the applicants, Uniliving Ltd, said their new blueprint had fewer rooms and “a new design approach”, with the tallest building being three and a half storeys high.
A report by development management officer Erik Matthews, which will go before next week’s meeting, said: “The new scheme has addressed in detail the previous reasons for refusal, which were design, overdevelopment and impact upon the residential amenity of adjoining properties, and is now considered to be acceptable.”
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel