Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
160 17/0753/FUL - 8A Babraham Road PDF 88 KB
Minutes:
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.