York holiday let accommodation plan blocked amid complaints

Plans for the holiday let, in Sutherland Street in the South Bank, have been refused by City of York Council.

A council report stated the mid-terrace home had been operating as a holiday let since May 2024.

An objection lodged by a neighbour in Sutherland Street claimed noise from guests which sometimes went on until the early hours was disrupting residents’ enjoyment of the otherwise quiet street.

Council planning officers ruled the noise and disturbance was having an unacceptable impact on people living close to the holiday let.

RECOMMENDED READING:

The plans would have seen the holiday let retrospectively granted planning permission, allowing it to continue operating.

The house, which is close to York Racecourse, has a lounge, dining room, kitchen and bathroom on the ground floor, along with two bedrooms upstairs.

In an objection to the plans, the resident of the neighbouring home claimed noise including from guests in the home’s yard could sometimes be heard until early in the morning.

They claimed: “The property has been used as a holiday let for some time and causes disruption to the quiet enjoyment of the street.

Plans for the holiday let in Sutherland Street have been blocked (Image: The Key Safe Company)

“The listing for the property highlights its proximity to the racecourse and city centre and as a result often attracts guests who are excited, noisy and more often than not drunk.

“The transient nature means there is no way of resolving problems.”

Council planning officers stated the amount of comings and goings including on an evening was more than could be reasonably expected in a residential area.

Officers stated: “The site is in a residential setting with neighbours in close juxtaposition in what is a traditional terraced street providing fairly intimate housing.

“By virtue of the increased comings and goings associated with holiday accommodation, high frequency of guest turnover, proximity to the racecourse and late-night activity including increased use of the rear yard in combination with close proximity to adjacent and adjoining residential properties, the use would have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity with regard to noise and disturbance.”