Decision details

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for Part two storey, part single storey rear extension. Single storey front extension with alterations to convert existing garage to habitable space and incorporate into main dwelling.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a local resident who made the following comments:

       i.          Loss of sunlight to rear windows and patio area.

     ii.          Would be overbearing.

   iii.          Feared the property would become a HMO and make life unbearable for neighbours.

   iv.          Parking issues would be exasperated.

Parvez Khan (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Councillor Mike Todd-Jones (Arbury Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application and made the following comments:

       i.          A previous application had been refused due to size, scale, massing and the impact on neighbours.

     ii.          Previous reasons still apply.

   iii.          Scale of proposal out of keeping with the area.

Councillor requested that in in future report regarding application that had been to committee before in the past include the reasons for previous refusal.

The Committee discussed the application and suggested that the application was out of keeping with the character of the street. The size, massing and sense of dominance was considered inappropriate.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 9 votes to 0 and 1 abstention) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.

Resolved unanimously to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reasons:

Due to the size and scale of the proposed first floor rear extension and its proximity to the side boundaries, it would negatively impact on the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties 106 and 108 Hazelwood Close. The proposed first floor rear extension would dominate these properties and cause a sense of enclosure, particularly when viewed from the ground floor rear windows, which would be unacceptable. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to policies 3/4, 3/7 and 3/14 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006 and to policies 55, 56 and 58 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2014: Proposed Submission, July 2013 (submitted March 2014), as amended by the Inspectors' Main Modifications).