Decision details

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought approval for a side and rear roof extension.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from Mrs Brundish (written statement read out by Mrs Atkins):

 The representation covered the following issues:

(i)                 The issue had been ongoing for 5 years.

(ii)               Pleased with the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application. 

(iii)              The extension would be overbearing and dominant and have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties.

(iv)             The balcony was unsuitable.

(v)               Suggested that the extension should be removed and reinstated to its original condition.  

(vi)             Delaying tactics were being used by the applicant.       

 The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from Mrs Atkins

The representation covered the following issues:

(i)                 The extension was too large, too close to neighbouring properties and too high.

(ii)               The extension would be overbearing due to its mass, and have an adverse visual impact.

(iii)              There would be privacy issues for neighbours.

(iv)             The proposed materials did not complement the area.

(v)               Would not respect the conservation area.

(vi)             Would affect residential amenity

(vii)           The applicant should comply with the enforcement notice.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to accept the officer recommendation to refuse the application for the following reasons:

1.       The scale, massing, materials and fenestration of the proposed rear projection do not reflect or successfully contrast with the form or materials of the existing building.  The monopitch roof is juxtaposed awkwardly with both the box form on the main roof and the lean-to on the ground floor, while the proposed windows make no reference to those in the original house or the 'as built' roof extension.  The resulting disjointed design would be prominent in views from adjoining gardens and could be seen obliquely from Aylestone Road.  It follows that the proposal has failed to respond to its context or to draw inspiration from key characteristics of the surroundings and is therefore contrary to Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4 and 3/14 or to government guidance in Section 7 of the Framework.

2.       The additions proposed are intrusive and have a harmful, overbearing and dominating affect upon No.19 which will cause the occupants of that property to suffer a sense of enclosure that will unduly detract from and be harmful to the level of amenity they should reasonably expect to enjoy.  For these reasons the proposal is contrary to Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 3/14.