PLANS to add a second floor to a residential building for additional flats have been refused – amid claims the scheme was an “overdevelopment”.

Bucks Council has rejected an application by Archgrove Estates Ltd for Treadaway Court, on Treadaway Hill, in Loudwater, over its impact on parking.

Plans had detailed the erection of a new second floor to create five one-bed and two two-bed apartments – seven in total.

The existing building has been converted to 26 flats. Had it been approved this application would have resulted in 33 flats total.

There are 40 existing parking spaces, no additional ones were proposed.

But Bucks Council said the scheme “fails to provide” adequate parking and would be “likely to lead” to additional cars on the street.

“In the opinion of the local planning authority, the proposed development fails to provide adequate provision within the site for parking and manoeuvring of vehicles clear of the highway,” a decision notice reads. “The development if permitted would therefore be likely to lead to additional on-street parking to the detriment of public and highway safety.”

There were many objectors, some called the scheme a “complete overdevelopment” that would see tenants “at eye level with the motorway”.

“To add an additional seven properties is a complete overdevelopment of this site,” said Miss Bethan Hearne.

“Flats an additional storey up will be at eye level with the motorway which is a view that nobody wants out of their window.

“Flats up this high will compromise local neighbours’ right to light and privacy and occupants will be living with little privacy of their own.”

“The proposed plans lead me to believe the developer will be building directly above my head, causing absolute mayhem whilst myself and my partner work from home,” said Mr Daniel Lovegrove.

“Not only this but the contracted builders will be in and out continuously, giving a lack of parking.

“How on earth are we meant to live any form of existence with the noise, the stress and the continuous changes to our life to facilitate a greedy developer.”

“I could not object any more to more apartments being built on this site,” said Mr Daniel Ing. “Every part of this building has been done to the lowest standards and has adversely effected my property through damage and encroachment on to my land.”