Issue - meetings

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.

 

The Committee Manager read a statement on behalf of the Applicant which addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

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.

 

The Committee Manager read out the following points on behalf of Councillor Dryden (Cherry Hinton Ward Councillor):

        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.