Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought retrospective planning permission for a single storey rear extension and decking.

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

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          No consultation had taken place.

     ii.          Assumed work would be minor and similar to other work which had been completed elsewhere on the street.

   iii.          Had approached planning enforcement who confirmed that a retrospective planning application was required.

   iv.          Had lost the chance to be involved in the development of the application due to delays.

    v.          The scale of the glazing was visually dominant at the rear and side of the house.

   vi.          The decking increased the overlooking.

 vii.          Disagreed with the officer’s statement that the extension did not significantly adversely impact on neighbour’s amenity.

viii.          Suggested as a compromise the glazing was replaced.

The Applicant addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Councillor Cantrill (Newnham Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

The representation covered the following issues:

i.                 The main issue to be considered was privacy between two terraced properties in a Conservation Area.

ii.               Applicant believed they were able to undertake the development under permitted development rights following advice from the planning department, however was subsequently advised by officers that the development was not permitted development and that a retrospective application would need to be submitted.

iii.             Noted that the properties were late 19^th / early 20^th century and may require some updating for modern living.

iv.             Referred to Cambridge Local Plan policy 58 and paragraphs b) and e); which dealt with use of materials and the impact on the surrounding area and neighbouring properties and amenity value. He thought this was a balanced judgement.  He noted that one Ward Councillor took a different view but his view was that the application did not meet requirements contained in policy 58. 

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved (by all present) to grant the application for retrospective planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report.