Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for erection of a detached two-bedroomed dwelling and side, rear and loft extensions along with remodelling of internal layouts and raising of ridge to existing dwelling following granting of planning permissions (19/0015/FUL and 20/04608/HFUL).

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Hinton Avenue:

      i.          Spoke on issues the Objector thought were at odds with the current Cambridge Local Plan:

a.    The house at Number 11 and the new-build development approvals were re-sold to the current developer, who submitted a revised application in January 2022, to include garden offices and bicycle sheds for each of the houses.  Construction activity commenced in late 2021, based on the original planning approvals.

                                                   i.     The new planning application ignored condition number 7 of the original approval decision relating to no further changes being permitted, reducing the garden length beyond the patio area for the new-build house from 16 metres to 8.7 metres.

                                                  ii.     This was but one element of a slow-creep incremental approach to seeking planning approval at odds with Policy 52 of the Local Plan

                                                iii.     Number 11’s original garden had been reduced by 43% to accommodate the new-build house, with two dwellings now on the original site.  This revised planning application reduced the garden area by a further 25%, meaning that the overall reduction of garden area was approximately 57%, at odds with Policy 52 (b).

b.    The Council imposed wide-ranging Tree Preservation Orders on the site to act as a deterrent to a proposed development of Lilac Court, with a Planning Inspector describing the area as verdant and an important wildlife habitat.

                                                   i.     The multiple development activities in the area damaged this environment, with multiple mature trees and bushes removed.  The proposed garden offices would reduce further any chance of replacement planting with any equivalently sized trees, contradicting sub-clauses a), b) and c) of Local Plan Policy 71.

c.    The proposed garden office for number 11 was overbearing in size and inappropriate in location, in contravention of Local Plan Policy 58 (e). 

                                                   i.     The Planning Officer recommended approval of this planning application on the basis that the garden offices did not require planning permission, as their heights were only slightly greater than the requirement.

                                                  ii.     To counter this argument, the garden office proposed for number 11 would be in excess of one metre higher than the communal fence, and as proposed, have a similar square footage to the entire ground floor extension of the main property.

     ii.          Was surprised to see the marketing information on the billboard outside number 11 advertising that both houses would have garden studios, when these had yet to be approved by the Council.  It was understood that one of the houses has already been sold, including that unapproved amendment to the planning approval.

   iii.          Requested the Council rejected the revised planning application as it was counter to a number of important policies in the Local Plan.  In addition, the individual planning applications for developments in the immediate area did not appear to be considered as a whole, and the result was a very significant reduction in the wildlife environment, amenity for existing residents and appropriate garden space for the eventual purchasers.

 

Councillor Thornburrow proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation:

      i.          Outbuilding should not be used separately for residential use.

     ii.          Bin and cycle store details to be agreed for both units.

   iii.          The development should comply with Building Regulations Part B.

 

The amendments were carried unanimously.

 

Councillor Gawthrope Wood proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation:

      i.          Electric vehicle charging points should be installed for the new dwelling.

     ii.          The new dwelling should be encouraged to use sustainable energy sources such as solar PV.

 

The amendments were carried unanimously.

 

Councillor Porrer proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation:

      i.          Removal of Part E permitted development rights.

     ii.          The development should comply with M42 standards (ensuring that the building is accessible) – outbuilding should be habitable and accessible.

 

The amendments were carried unanimously

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, subject to:

      i.          the planning conditions set out in the Officer’s report;

     ii.          delegated authority to officers, in consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes, to draft and include the following additional conditions:

a.    that the outbuilding shall not be used separately for residential use

b.    for the removal of Part E permitted development rights]

c.    bin and cycle store details to be agreed for both units

d.    electric vehicle charging points should be installed for the new dwelling.

   iii.          Informatives to be included on the planning permission in respect of:

a.    the new dwelling should be encouraged to use sustainable energy sources such as solar PV

b.    the development should comply with Building Regulations Part B

c.    the development should comply with M4 (2) standard – the outbuilding should be habitable and accessible.