EXTENSION plans for a historic building in Windsor town centre are a no go after officers refused them.
Royal Borough planning officer rejected plans to create a one-bedroom flat, a studio flat, and a two-bedroom townhouse above and to the rear of the existing Cancer Research UK shop at 81 Peascod Street.
This would have involve a four storey and part three storey extension and the one-bedroom flat would’ve been located above the shop, while a second and third floor would’ve been added for the studio and townhouse, all accessed via Charles Street.
Cancer Research UK will continue to operate on the ground floor.
READ MORE: Maidenhead councillor denies she quit role over Serco fiasco
Peascod Street dates back to 1308, while the double frontage of the shop dates back to 1842 – which means the building is listed Grade II and sits within a conservation area.
Planning officers concluded development would’ve damaged or harmed Windsor town centre and its heritage assets and ‘no public benefit was identified’.
They also said designs were out of character, would result in overdevelopment, as well as loss of privacy and light for neighbouring 82 Peascod Street due its size, height, and design appearing ‘unduly dominant’.
When submitting the plans, the developers believed this development would ‘enhance’ the streetscape and make a ‘positive contribution’ to the Windsor town centre while providing and addressing the need for housing.
READ MORE: Giving the people of Clewer and Dedworth a bigger 'say'
The Windsor and Eton Society, which was set up after World War Two to represent the interests of the town’s historic buildings, disagreed and objected to the plans, stating: “There is no assessment of the impact the proposal has on the listed building itself or on the town centre conservation area or neighbouring Trinity Place and Clarence Crescent conservation area.
“We strongly believe that the proposed building is totally out of scale with, and insensitive to, its surroundings and would be highly detrimental to the character of the conservation areas by reason of height. It is two-storeys too high for the area.”
They added the flats would be ‘seriously inadequate’ for residential amenity as some have no windows, only a skylight, and none of them have outdoor amenity space.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here