Decision details

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for a part two-storey with part single-storey rear extension and 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.          Requested the decision be postponed to consider the validity of figures in the light report and error shown in Appendix 3 of the second version. There was no change to the skyline visible through internal doors (or increased light) as shown in photos in the Objector’s latest submission.

     ii.          It was not possible to contact the Applicant’s Consultant to obtain information on how report conclusions were made based on the figures included in the report.

   iii.          Asked for an adequate explanation of light figures before planning permission be considered.

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

Councillor Moore (Queen Edith’s Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          The apparent loss of light to the semi-detached neighbour was a concern.

     ii.          Queried the discrepancy in figures between versions 1 and 2 of the light report.

a.    Asked if this was a material consideration.

b.    Requested a rule of thumb estimate from planners as to whether the light loss would have a significant impact on neighbours.

The Principal Planner (NB) responded to points made:

       i.          The Objectors had invited parties to visit their property to gain more accurate information that could help inform a further examination of the daylight/sunlight assessment.

     ii.          Officers did not consider this was necessary as they were confident the assessment conclusions already indicated that the impact on light was acceptable. Officers considered that further refinement of the input data would not materially alter the conclusions of the assessment. They had been undertaken by an accredited person in accordance with BRE guidance.

   iii.          There is no policy requirement for proposals to comply with BRE guidance. Members were advised that it is guidance and just one of the material considerations to take into account in assessing the proposal.

   iv.          45 degree guidance had been met so a full daylight/sunlight assessment would not normally be requested. It was done so at the request of a Member.

    v.          Alongside the assessment, the extant planning permission was also a material planning consideration. The proposal as revised does extend further into the garden at single storey but it is also moved away from the boundary resulting in a net change in impact that was not considered to be significant.

The Objector asked for it to be minuted that the Chair did not allow him to respond before the Committee went onto vote.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved 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.