Plans to turn a restaurant's building into homes with “cramped and oppressive living conditions” have been rejected this week.

Spice Lounge, in Market Street, Watford, would have had its use classification changed from restaurant to retail premises with the storage area behind it turned into a studio flat if the proposal, submitted on June 13, was approved.

There would then be stairs to the first floor, made up of another flat and two "HMO" (House in Multiple Occupation) bedrooms which would share a kitchen with a third bedroom in a planned loft conversion.

However, Watford Borough Council said the plan would have provided “poor quality living conditions for future occupiers” and refused permission yesterday (August 7).

Spice Lounge would have had to close for the plan to be put into action but, while the plan was being considered, the landlord said that, even if approved, the work may not have started for some time as the restaurant still has two and a half years on its lease.

Developments are usually given three years from the date planning permission is granted to begin work.

The Bangladeshi restaurant's owner, Ali, said he thought the application being refused might avoid future "complications" for his business. 

The landlord has been contacted for more information since the plan was refused.

Each proposed flat was one-bedroom and the HMO had three bedrooms.

A planning officer for the council said the commercial element on the ground floor, the building’s appearance, and bin storage provision were all acceptable.

However, they took issue with the loss of privacy for neighbours and the living conditions in the flats.

In the plan, the HMO section had a five-square-metre kitchen which is below guidance and lacked “any meaningful communal space”.

The officer added: “Residents would therefore be confined to their modest sized rooms.

“This situation would be made worse by the absence of any communal outdoor space for the HMO.

“For these reasons, the proposed HMO would provide cramped and oppressive living conditions for future occupiers.”

The council added that the "car free" development lacked a document removing parking permit entitlement for future occupiers.