Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for a single storey rear extension and rear roof extension.

 

The Planning Officer referred to amendments contained in the Amendment Sheet.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a relative on behalf of a local resident:

      i.         The application would cause a huge loss of light to the resident in terms of where she slept and lived in the property.

    ii.         There was a 2 metre wall on one side of the resident’ property which already obstructed light. The extension would cause further enclosure.

   iii.         When the resident bought their house, they did not think that the neighbouring property would be extended any further than it already was.

  iv.         The length of the garden was 7 metres and the extension to the neighbour’s property would reach half of that and would be overbearing to the resident.

    v.         The application would cause overshadowing. 

  vi.         14 letters of objection had been sent into the Planning Department.

 vii.         The resident’s amenity would be severely affected by the planning application and the application was contrary to Local Plan Policy 58.

 

Dr Stainsby (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Robertson (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:

i.               Drew members attention to the conservation Officer’s comments which stated that the application did not enhance the area.

ii.             The row of cottages was a small set which had already been extended by 2.5 metres, this application sought to extend the property by a further 3 metres.

iii.            The application was contrary to Local Plan Policy 58.

iv.           Referred to the site plan and commented that this would create a sense of enclosure for 2 Saxon Street.

v.             The loss of light was the most important issue. The amount of light available to the ground floor of 2 Saxon Street was limited.

vi.           Commented that the light expert report did not make a lot of sense. The report stated that the vertical sky component test was likely to fail, this was mentioned in the report but then it said that this did not matter.  The rights of the resident next door should not be ignored.

vii.          Questioned the amount of sunlight which would be available in the winter if the application was approved.

viii.        In summary the application would create an enormous sense of enclosure and loss of light to the neighbouring resident.

 

Resolved (by 3 votes to 1 with 1 abstention) to reject the Officer recommendation to approve the application.

 

The following reasons for refusal of the application were put to the Committee and voted on separately:

 

i.      Insufficient information has been submitted by the applicant to demonstrate that the development would not result in an unacceptable loss of light to the rear windows and gardens of the adjacent properties at Nos. 2 and 4 Saxon Street. Consequently, the development would be contrary to policies 55, 56 and 58 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018.

The Committee supported this reason for refusal unanimously.

ii.    By virtue of the bulk and mass of the rear extension, its siting directly adjacent to both side boundaries and the presence of existing high walls and buildings in the vicinity, the development would result in an unacceptable degree of enclosure to the rear garden and windows of the adjacent properties at Nos. 2 and 4 Saxon Street. In doing so, the development would harm the amenities of the occupiers of those adjacent properties contrary to policies 55, 56 and 58 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018.

The Committee supported this reason for refusal by 4 votes to 0 with 1 abstention.

iii.   The proposed extension, together with previous additions to the property, would result in insufficient retained garden space for the property. Consequently, the development would give rise to a poor level of amenity for its occupiers, contrary to policies 55, 56 and 58 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018.

The Committee supported this reason for refusal by 3 votes to 1 with 1 abstention.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 3 votes to 1 with 1 abstention) to refuse the application contrary to the Officer recommendation for the following reasons:

           i.       Insufficient information has been submitted by the applicant to demonstrate that the development would not result in an unacceptable loss of light to the rear windows and gardens of the adjacent properties at Nos. 2 and 4 Saxon Street. Consequently, the development would be contrary to policies 55, 56 and 58 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018.

          ii.       By virtue of the bulk and mass of the rear extension, its siting directly adjacent to both side boundaries and the presence of existing high walls and buildings in the vicinity, the development would result in an unacceptable degree of enclosure to the rear garden and windows of the adjacent properties at Nos. 2 and 4 Saxon Street. In doing so, the development would harm the amenities of the occupiers of those adjacent properties contrary to policies 55, 56 and 58 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018.

        iii.        The proposed extension, together with previous additions to the property, would result in insufficient retained garden space for the property. Consequently, the development would give rise to a poor level of amenity for its occupiers, contrary to policies 55, 56 and 58 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018.