Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
66 19/0169/FUL - 18 Eltisley Avenue PDF 135 KB
Minutes:
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 19th
/ early 20th 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.