102-bed student accommodation at Car Care Centre, 5 James Street, York

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the existing motorcycle showroom and building purpose-built student accommodation with 102 bedrooms, landscaping and parking.

“The site, 5 James Street, occupies a plot at the junction of Elvington Terrace and James Street. The site is occupied by a motorcycle and car care centre. To the north of the site is a Bus Depot and to the east are commercial uses within the James Street commercial/industrial area. To the south of the site is a recently erected purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA). This PBSA, Raffles Hall, came into use in autumn 2025.”

Officer report

The site and its surroundings

The site contains a motorcycle and car care centre beside a bus depot, commercial premises, student accommodation and another student scheme under construction.

“The buildings of the motorcycle and car care centre are single storey and industrial/commercial in character with the exception of a large conservatory extension which faces James Street.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

The applicant received pre-application advice and revised the proposal, while earlier site history concerned minor alterations to the existing business premises.

“The applicant sought pre-application advice prior to submission of the application and the proposed development has been revised following receipt of pre- application feedback.”

“Other site history relates to minor alterations to the existing buildings associated with their operation as a motorcycle care centre and is not relevant to the current proposal.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers found insufficient evidence that employment uses were no longer viable and considered the scheme’s footprint, landscaping and outlook would create poor living conditions.

“The requirement of criterion (i) of Local Plan Policy EC2 is that a statement is provided to the satisfaction of the Council to demonstrate that the existing land/building are demonstrably not viable in terms of market attractiveness, business operations, condition and/or compatibility with adjacent uses.”

“Overall, the information submitted is considered to be insufficient to demonstrate that the existing building is not viable in terms of market attractiveness, business operations, condition and/or compatibility with adjacent uses. Furthermore, the evidence submitted in January 2026 indicates that the site was marketed primarily as a redevelopment opportunity rather than for its continued use for Class E or B2 purposes.”

Officer report

Objections received

The planning panel and an objector raised concerns about employment-land loss, student accommodation saturation, overdevelopment and the lack of suitable drop-off arrangements.

“Application Reference Number: 25/01608/FULM Item No: 5a 3.24. Object. Concerns raised regarding loss of employment land, lack of a dropping off area, over development of the site, and questioned what is going to be the benefit to the community of the CIL payment.”

“- Loss of viable light industrial commercial premises (loss of non-hospitality employment opportunities) - Intentional over-saturation of student accommodation - Comment asks that the landlord openly market the proposed site for commercial use for not less than 12 months from the date of the planning committee decision…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant’s agent spoke in support, arguing that the scheme would create jobs, retain employment use and provide good amenity space.

The vote

Councillor Steward moved refusal, Councillor Fisher seconded it, and members voted unanimously to refuse the application.

“Following debate Cllr Steward moved the officer recommendation to refuse the application. This was seconded by Cllr Fisher. Following a unanimous vote it was:”

“Resolved: That the application be refused.”

Minutes

The decision and reasons

The application was refused because it failed employment-land requirements and would provide insufficient landscaping, amenity space and outlook for high-quality accommodation.

“III. The site is well located for the universities and evidence suggests that there remains a general need for PBSA in the city. In general terms, individual room sizes are considered to be satisfactory. However, most rooms are single outlook with the outlook from the north elevation overlooking the bus depot considered to be poor. The poor quality amenity space and limited landscaping does little to create a suitable living environment.”

“V. The proposed development fails to provide an acceptable quality of development by reason of the limited provision of external shared amenity space, limited planting and soft landscaping to provide an appropriate setting for a new residential building, together with a significant number of bedrooms that would provide a poor outlook.”

Minutes