Decision details

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for a two storey and part single storey rear and side extension along with an additional single storey side extension.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Babraham Road.

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Took issue with details in the approved rear elevation for no. 8, as shown on the presentation, as not being as installed (not full height French windows). Point 1 was made prior to the allotted speaking time beginning.

     ii.          Had no objection in principle to development of the site.

   iii.          Raised the following objections regarding this specific application:

a.    Materials chosen. Referred to conditions imposed on his planning application in 2012 regarding matching materials which appeared more stringent. The same approach should be taken for the proposed extension given the history of the building.

b.    Massing of building on the boundary.

c.    Loss of light.

d.    Neighbour’s amenities.

Dr Rajan (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Councillor Page-Croft (Queen Edith's Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          The building was originally a single house shared by 2 sisters. It was no longer occupied by the original owners.

     ii.          The owners of 8 Babraham Road had to follow Local Plan matching materials conditions to get planning permission (these restricted materials that could be used), so it was reasonable to expect the owners of 8a Babraham Road to do the same.

   iii.          If 8a Babraham Road was moved away from the boundary by a couple of metres it would improve the view, outlook and privacy of 8 Babraham Road.

The Committee noted and debated the difference in approach to materials approved for no. 8 and proposed for no. 8A. The Principal Planning Officer explained why a different approach was being taken, namely because it reflected what was being proposed in the two different instances and that the condition on the permission for no. 8 mirrored the intentions of the applicant to provide matching materials at that time. In such a circumstance, it was explained that it is not uncommon for the Council to impose a matching materials condition. In the current scheme, however, the Principal Planning Officer explained that alternative materials were being proposed, that a contrasting and contemporary materials approach was equally valid in terms of planning policy and that officers supported the visual impact of this. The Committee noted the history of the building, views of it from Babraham Road, the merits of the use of render and the third party objection.

The Principal Planning Officer was asked to explain the discrepancy in the approved plan for no. 8 as pointed out by the objector. It was explained that officers were aware that the approved plan did not match the as-built extension but that it did not alter the officer recommendation; there were still a number of significant windows allowing light into the western side of the property which meant that the scheme was acceptable. The Principal Planning Officer explained the outcome of the BRE Daylight Assessment and its findings in relation to the application and the three associated tests, including the vertical sky component.

Prior to the vote, Cllr Blencowe specifically made reference to the fact that Members were aware that the approved plan as shown in the officer representation were not accurate as to what was built as explained by the objector in his opening remarks. 

The Committee:

Resolved (by 5 votes to 1) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.