Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
115 18/0454/FUL - 53 Kings Hedges Road PDF 205 KB
Minutes:
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).