Proposals to convert a house in Hawarden into a seven bedroom house of multiple occupation (HMO) have been refused because of concerns about parking.
Plans by XPM Ltd to change the use of a property on Castle Rise in the village were originally turned down in December.
However, the company reapplied to Flintshire Council in January after claiming it had addressed some of the issues raised.
In a letter sent to the local authority with the latest application, a representative for the firm said the proposed HMO would be well looked after.
They said: “In regards to the issues previously raised about parking, I would like to firstly make you aware that the house is limited to one car per room.
“This would make the maximum number of cars at the property at any one time eight, as shown in the parking plan attached.
“However there is also ample public transport.
“One of our main priorities is preserving the special character of the area, we are aware that Hawarden is a very sort after location and as such we would like to maintain this.
“We provide ourselves on being ‘executive’, therefore to keep in with this at Oak House we have installed 24/7 CCTV at the property to make sure that the area is looked after and well maintained.”
Despite the reassurances, an officer from the council’s planning department has rejected the proposals using delegated powers.
In his decision notice, James Beattie said five letters of objection had been received against the plans.
He said: “It is considered that the proposed parking arrangement would be impractical and will result in tandem parking as residents would not want their car to be boxed in by others.
“This in turn could lead to on street parking and the disruption of the free flow of traffic within the cul de sac.
“It is considered that the proposed use of the premises has the potential for a significant adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the designated area.
“Whilst more information has been provided in this submission than in the previous application, I still consider that this premises is an inappropriate location for an HMO chiefly due to the numbers that are proposed to be housed.”
By Liam Randall – Local Democracy Reporter (more here).