Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision details
Decision Maker: Planning
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: No
Is subject to call in?: No
The Committee
received an application for full planning permission.
The application sought approval for a two-storey pitched roof extension
to the rear of the house, to provide an additional two bedrooms, one on each
floor. The proposed extension would be 5.4m deep, and
5.2m wide, abutting the common boundary with 37
Tenison Road.
The Committee
received a representation in objection to the application from Ruth Devermond.
The representations
covered the following issues:
i.
Requested that the Committee reject the
application.
ii.
The proposed extension would have a serve adverse
effect on the neighbouring properties.
iii.
Would bring an increase in noise to the area.
iv.
Stated that the area had an over concentration of
HMO’s (Housing in Multiple Occupation) filled with short term student
occupancy.
·
15 HMO on either side of the building, representing
27% of the local area.
v.
Many houses in the area have been reverted back to
families’ homes since the 2006 condition of eight residents per HMO.
vi.
Stated the application goes 5/7 of the 2006 Local
Plan.
vii.
The proposed extension would make a bad situation
in the area worse.
The Committee received a representation in support to the application
from Mervyn Martin (applicant).
Councillor Robertson addressed the Committee as a Ward Councillor.
The representation covered the following issues:
i.
The application did not comply with 3/4, 3/14 &
5/14 of the 2006 Local Plan.
ii.
Reported that none of the properties in the local
area had two stories extensions but only single extensions.
iii.
The proposed extension would spoil the character of
the location, over shadow neighbouring properties and would be visually
dominate.
iv.
The proposed extended would block off the gap
between No 35 & No 37 Tenison Road
reducing the light to the side of both buildings and create a sense of
enclosure.
v.
Approval of the application could encourage similar
applications which would further spoil the appearance and character of the
area.
vi.
The design does not respect the character of the
local area and the local amenity would be impacted.
vii.
Already 24 HMO’s on this road and the number does
need to be increased.
The Committee:
Councillor Smart proposed that the term warden was changed to ‘resident
warden’ in condition 5.
The Officer then proposed additional text be included at the end of the
condition 5 strengthen the condition (additional text underlined).
Condition 5 would read as follows:
‘The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until a Management
Plan for the building has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include details of the role of the resident
warden and contact details for neighbours, which shall be displayed on the
external front facade of the building at all times, and shall ensure that at
least one of the rooms is occupied by a warden at all times when the property
is in use as a House in Multiple Occupation. The use as a House in Multiple
Occupation shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Management
Plan.
Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring residents. (Cambridge
Local Plan 2006, policy 4/13)’
Resolved (7 Votes to 0, with 1
abstention) to accept the amended condition.
Resolved (5 Votes to 3 votes)
to grant the application for full
planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out
in the officer report, and subject to the condition recommended by the officers
and the amended condition.
Publication date: 02/04/2015
Date of decision: 04/02/2015
Decided at meeting: 04/02/2015 - Planning
Accompanying Documents: