PLANS to increase the occupancy of a town centre HMO have been thrown out.

Plans had been submitted to Warrington Borough Council’s planning department to make alterations to 33 Arpley Street.

Applicant Jigshaw Property Group sought permission for the redevelopment of the existing six-bedroom HMO, or house of multiple occupancy.

If approved, this would have increased to nine, however permission has now been refused by planners.

Documents state: “The existing HMO has until recently been occupied by tenants.

“The building is currently in good structural condition, but it has been left for some years without the provision of any basic maintenance, and as a result, deterioration of the internal finishes was evident on inspection.

“In light of this and in consideration of bringing back the property to life and provide multiple residential accommodation, it has been proposed to refurbish and alter the existing building to meet the needs of future tenants and to improve the external appearance of the property.

“The proposal is to excavate to enable the basement to meet current standards and make internal alterations to create nine bedrooms.

“The alterations will include excavation and constructed of a tanked, insulated floor in the basement, with a lightwell to the front and opening the existing opening to the rear to provided sufficient light into the bedrooms.

“To the upper floors, existing partition walls will be removed and reconfiguring to provide amended accommodation.

“Additional fire precaution measures and replastering throughout are included with the proposals.

“New kitchens and bathrooms are to be installed and the property will be decorated throughout with new floor finishes completing the modernisation program.”

In refusing permission, the council said: “The accommodation proposed will result in a poor outlook resulting in a poor level of amenity for the future occupiers of the basement flats, contrary to policy.

“It is considered that the proposal would result in unacceptable conditions for occupiers of the development, hence not in accord with policy.”