Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for alterations and extensions including the addition of 2no. dormers to the front elevation; 1no. dormer to the rear elevation; an upwards extension to the rear closet wing; a new access from the ground floor level to the rear garden via an external staircase; a double height rear infill extension including lowering of the basement floor; internal alterations to the building layout; and the demolition and erection of a new garage.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a local resident.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Residents had no great concerns about the original scheme; but did about the current one as the proposed structure was larger, deeper and blocked people’s views.

     ii.          Would be happy to keep the void in the proposed plan.

   iii.          Expressed the following specific concerns:

a.    Sash window and the mass of brickwork around it was out of character with the area.

b.    Loss of privacy and amenity.

c.    Overlooking, which would not be mitigated by the privacy screen.

d.    Loss of light.

e.    Designs had been submitted and withdrawn various times, now residents were confused what proposals were going forward.

f.      Suggested the proposed plans contained errors and what had been built did not match approved plans.

 

Mr Wortley (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Robertson (Petersfield Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Expressed concern about the application as work on the house did not conform to the approved submitted plan.

     ii.          Residents had not objected to the previous application as they did not think the (now approved) plans would lead to loss of privacy/amenity.

   iii.          The (setback) basement door and privacy screen would exacerbate the loss of light and sense of enclosure for neighbours. Tabled a document to illustrate this point. The Planning Officer confirmed information shown was already in the public domain.

   iv.          The proposed planting between the staircase and wall would exacerbate the light loss issue unless it was continuously pruned.

    v.          Neighbours had concerns about overlooking. They would have strongly objected if the current application had been submitted in 2015.

   vi.          The Applicant appeared to have been badly advised on building design by his builder, but this should not affect neighbours by Planning Committee’s acceptance of the Officer’s recommendation to approve this application.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.

 

Members voted on reasons for refusal:

·       Resolved (by 6 votes to 0) to accept: Impact on neighbour of loss of light and sense of enclosure due to the privacy screen, basement extension and staircase.

·       Resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to accept: Impact of design of rear projection.

·       Resolved (by 4 votes to 3) not to accept: Block like rear dormer window.

·       Resolved (by 5 votes to 2) not to accept: Front dormer window not built in accordance with approved plan.

 

Unanimously resolved to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reasons:

 

The proposed single storey basement extension, external staircase and its screen would overshadow the basement kitchen door and windows of No. 14 Brookside and its rear patio area. It would also appear overbearing and enclosing when viewed from within this kitchen and from the patio. As such the proposal would result in an unacceptable level of harm to the amenity of the occupiers of No. 14 and is contrary to policies 3/4 and 3/14 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

The proposed extensions by virtue of the heavy design and form of the rear brick ground floor element would appear discordant and incongruous in relation to adjoining properties. It would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and would harm the quality and character of this Building of Local Interest. As such the proposal is contrary to policies 3/4, 3/14, 4/11 and 4/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006 and the National Planning Policy Framework.