Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
90 21/01125/HFUL - 8 Kelsey Crescent Cambridge PDF 125 KB
Minutes:
The Committee received an application for
retrospective full planning permission seeking approval for the erection of an
ancillary annex.
The Delivery Manager Development Management
corrected paragraph 8.2 of the officer’s report and commented that if the
application was refused it would not be for the Planning Committee to authorise
enforcement action, that decision (whether or not to pursue enforcement) would
be taken by the relevant authorised officer.
The Committee received a representation
in objection to the application from a local resident:
i.
Expressed concern that the
development had not been built in accordance with the approved plans. The plans
were approved in 2019.
ii.
The roof overhang was not included
in the approved plans.
iii.
The roof and fascia works were
completed in March 2021.
iv.
Expressed concern that the annex
could be let as a separate dwelling.
v.
Had been advised that the tree had
been removed because of the groundworks.
vi.
Expressed concern with the scale
of the development and the glare from the plastic fascia.
vii.
Queried how officers could comment
on the development when they had not visited the site.
viii.
Stated the originally approved
plans should be complied with and the annex used in accordance with the
original permission.
Councillor Ashton (Cherry Hinton Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:
i.
Referred to a letter from the applicant which
stated previously that:
1.
The existing garage would be extended and not
demolished.
2.
They found their property too small, an extension
was what they could afford. Planned to use the extension as a multi-function
room.
3.
A second toilet and bathroom would be included in
the extension.
ii.
Queried why the extension was not attached to the
property but was built as a separate annex.
iii.
Queried why a door with a post box had been put into
the annex.
iv.
Noted that the planning permission decision letter
stated that development must be carried out in accordance with the approved
plans and that failure to do so may invalidate the permission granted.
v.
When the development was being built, they
contacted the Planning Department to query what was being built and were
advised that the matter would be followed up with a retrospective planning
application. Did not agree with this approach.
vi.
The height of the annex was higher than what had
been agreed.
vii.
Expressed concerns regarding the overhang of the
roof.
viii.
Noted that vehicles could no longer park in front
of the property.
ix.
Requested that veranda extension rights should be
removed from the property and that the fascia should be changed.
i.
Had visited the site as a ward councillor.
ii.
Queried the scale of the building and whether the
application should be approved.
iii.
Queried the need for a letterbox in the annex door.
The Delivery Manager Development Management made the following comments
in response to issues raised by the public speakers:
i.
The application concerned an annex and not a
dwelling.
ii.
It was not an offence to build not in accordance
with approved plans. People would take a risk if they did not build their
development in accordance with approved plans as enforcement action may be
taken if it was considered expedient to do so.
iii.
Members should consider what had been built and
whether this was acceptable in planning terms.
A vote was taken on
the officer recommendation to approve the application with an additional
condition regarding remedial treatment of the fascia, with delegated authority
to officers to draft the condition. This
was lost by 1 vote to 4.
The Committee:
Resolved (unanimously) to refuse the application contrary to
the Officer recommendation for the following reasons:
i.
By virtue of the siting and height of the
building, together with its materials and detailing, which includes a deep
white-painted fascia and overhang, the development fails to respond to its
context and adversely affects the character and appearance of the area.
Consequently, the proposal is contrary to policies 55, 56 and 57 of the
Cambridge Local Plan 2018.
ii.
By virtue of the height, siting and design of
the building, the development is an unacceptably overbearing presence on the garden
of the adjacent property at 4 Windemere Close, contrary to Policies 55 and 57
of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018.