Conversion of ground / first floors from one apartment to three self contained apartments and replacement uPVC top hung sash windows to replace existing to front and rear elevations

Why Was This Refused?

• ✓Increased demand for on-street parking at a location with no additional parking capacity
• ✓On-site parking not proposed or practical; expected to exacerbate existing congestion affecting road safety and residents’ convenience
• ✓uPVC top hung sash window replacements not considered acceptable for appearance in the Conservation Area
• ✓No details provided for proposed front bin storage area; would need design to preserve or enhance the Conservation Area
• ✓parking
• ✓highways
• ✓heritage
• ✓development will increase the requirement for on-street parking at a location which has no additional capacity
• ✓proposed use would generate a demand for parking spaces; on-site parking is neither proposed nor practical, whilst further on-street parking would exacerbate existing congestion, to the detriment of road safety and the convenience of existing residents
• ✓replacement of the existing timber sliding sash windows with uPVC top hung sash windows to the front and rear elevation would also seem unacceptable
• ✓further inappropriate windows as now proposed would not preserve or enhance the appearance of the Conservation Area
• ✓no details of the proposed bin storage area at the front

The application proposes converting the ground and first floors of a large semi-detached property into three self-contained apartments and replacing the front and rear windows with uPVC top hung sash windows. The decision was considered by the Planning Committee on written evidence, and the application was refused. The refusal cites concerns about increased demand for on-street parking where there is no additional parking capacity, with on-site parking not proposed or practical and further on-street parking expected to exacerbate congestion. It also states that the proposed uPVC windows would not preserve or enhance the appearance of the Conservation Area, and that there are no details of the proposed front bin storage area, which would need to be designed to preserve or enhance the Conservation Area.

The Planning Committee refused the application. The decision cited parking impacts from increased demand for on-street spaces in a location with no additional capacity, and expected effects on congestion, road safety and residents’ convenience. It also refused the window proposals on appearance grounds in the Conservation Area and noted that there were no details provided for front bin storage, which would need to be designed to preserve or enhance the Conservation Area.

Policies Assessed (2)

Planning History (2)

Documents (47)