Plans to convert former hair salon into apartment refused
Planning permission has been refused for the conversion of a former hair salon into an apartment at 16-18 Church Street, Poyntzpass, due to lack-of-privacy issues for would-be residents.
ABC Planning officers remarked in their report the proposed addition of obscure film on the former shop windows fronting the street, was deemed inadequate as a means to protect the privacy of potential occupiers.
They stated in their report: “The building at 16-18 Church Street is a three-storey community-type building. This application relates to the ground-floor business unit previously used as a hairdressing and beauty salon and which is now vacant.
“At first-floor level is a beautician (accessed from ground floor). Second-floor level is an apartment with a playgroup located at the rear of the building. Lands to the rear of the building are utilised by the playgroup for external play. The site is separated from the adjacent Rice’s Hotel by an alleyway.
“The application seeks full planning permission for the conversion and change of use of an unused ground-floor business unit to provide a two-bedroom apartment.
“The double doors on the front elevation will be replaced by a single door, with obscure film to be placed on glass along the front and gable elevation for the living area and bedrooms.
“A plan has been provided, indicating 82m2 of private amenity space for the proposed dwelling to the rear of the larger community building, within lands controlled by the applicant.
“This area is used as a pathway for the playgroup to access their external play space and for an oil tank, and this is not considered to be a private amenity area for residents.
“In regards to privacy, officers are not satisfied that the obscure film indicated on windows on the proposed plans can protect the privacy of residents along the public footpath, and along the alleyway adjacent to Rice’s pub which is used for access to the playgroup.
“The obscure film shown on plans would need to extend higher, so as to ensure there is no adverse impact on privacy.
“The proposal is contrary to the [relevant policy] in that there is no usable private or communal amenity space provision for the development, and there would be unacceptable adverse effect on the amenity of the proposed residents of the property in terms of privacy.”