Plans for creation of new holiday let in Whitby halted by Scarborough Council

Plans for the extension at the rear of a building located on 12 Normanby Terrace, Whitby, within the Victorian West Cliff area of the town, were rejected on August 22 due to concerns about overdevelopment.

The application, submitted by Victoria Marriott, sought permission for the addition of a first-floor extension to form another unit of accommodation as a holiday let.

The new first-floor extension would have formed a continuation of an existing two-storey off-shoot at the rear of the property, which also has a small rear yard at ground floor level.

Whitby Town Council’s Planning Committee objected to the plans at its meeting on July 12, stating that the development would have an “effect on the amenity of neighbours” and could create a “conflict with nearby users”.

The committee also objected on the grounds that the plans would have an “effect on the character and appearance of an area” as well as citing the “capacity of services and infrastructure”, including parking provisions.

Although the Highway Authority had no objections “in principle to the application because the surrounding public roads are within a controlled parking zone”, it did note that on-street parking was “anticipated to increase by one vehicle if this application is approved”.

One member of the public objected to the proposal with similar concerns, stating: “We don’t need any more problems with nowhere to park, noise and rubbish.”

Whitby Civic Society also objected to the plans, citing an “over-development of the site”, adding that “building is located in Whitby conservation area, and the authority should discourage the development of ‘party houses’ as incompatible with the character of the area”.

Responding to a survey of the National Association of Local Councils regarding holiday lets, Whitby Town Council recently said that there were “increasing incidents of large properties” being let as “party houses” and occupied on a short-term, holiday basis by large groups.

Permission for the development was refused by Scarborough Council as it would have had “a detrimental impact on levels of amenity and privacy” and represented an “overdevelopment of the site”.