Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for Change of use of existing dwelling to 9 bedroom large scale HMO. Part two storey, part single storey rear extension and hip to gable roof extension with rear dormer and front rooflights following demolition of existing garage.

 

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

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        HMO would be out of keeping with the area.

    ii.        Kings Hedges Road was an interesting road with sections of family accommodation and sections of non-residential.

   iii.        Nine units in one property would be problematic.

  iv.        Insufficient parking in the area.

   v.        Property lacked communal areas.

 

Don Proctor (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Gawthrope (King’s Hedges Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application and made the following comments.

 

     i.        There were no other HMO’s in the area.

    ii.        Size of proposed extension was out of keeping with the area.

   iii.        Neighbouring properties would be overshadowed.

  iv.        Area was currently predominantly family housing.

   v.        Proposal was overdevelopment.

  vi.        Parking in the area was already problematic.

 

Councillors discussed the proposal and had the following concerns:

     i.        Inadequate internal living space.

    ii.        Out of keeping with the area.

   iii.        Concerns regarding fire safety.

  iv.        Impact on amenity of neighbouring properties.

   v.        Overdevelopment.

  vi.        Insufficient cycle parking.

 vii.        Scale of the extension.

viii.        Poor quality design.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 4 votes to 3 and 1 abstention) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.

 

Resolved (by 4 votes to 3 and 1 abstention) to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reasons:

 

1.   By virtue of the scale of the development and the proposed number of occupiers, together with the poor quality of the internal communal space, the proposal would result in an increased reliance on the rear garden area and level of activity that would harm the amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential properties. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies 4/13 and 5/7 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).

 

2.   Due to the scale and design of the proposed side and rear extensions, the development would unbalance the row of properties and appear dominant and incongruous in the streetscene, particularly when viewed in the context of the adjacent row of bungalows on Campkin Road. The development would therefore be contrary to Policies 3/4, 3/7 and 3/14 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).