Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

The application sought retrospective approval for single storey rear extension.

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Neath Farm Court:

      i.          The application had impacted on the family’s amenity.

     ii.          The design was bulky, overbearing and out of character with the area.

   iii.          Took issue with the dimensions submitted:

a.    Wrong building size.

b.    The application was closer to Objector’s property than suggested in the Officer’s report.

   iv.          Expressed concern about:

a.    Loss of light.

b.    Poor quality materials were used in construction.

    v.          Queried why the application was allowed  when permitted development rights had been removed from the estate.

The Applicants addressed the Committee in support of the application. [The Committee Manager read a statement on their behalf].

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

i.                Referred to points made in the Independent Person’s report.

ii.               A 40-unit residential scheme had been proposed in 2006. This was updated in 2009 when permitted development rights were removed to ensure sufficient sunlight levels were available on-site.

iii.             A number of issues with this application could have been overcome if the Applicants had submitted a planning application instead of undertaking work first then retrospectively applying for permission.

iv.             Construction continued although the Applicants had no permission to undertake work. They would not be able to undertake this level of work under permitted development (if it were in place) as it was over development of site.

v.              Other residents were not permitted to construct extensions without permission. The Applicants did not seek this before undertaking work.

vi.             The Applicants had built up to the boundary wall without seeking contact/permission from their neighbour.

vii.           Expressed concern about scale, massing, proximity to neighbour’s boundary, building materials used, overshadowing and loss of light. This was contrary to Local Plan Policies 56 and 58.

viii.         Re-iterated the Applicants did not engage with neighbours or stop construction work after being contacted by Enforcement Officers.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved to reject the Officer recommendation to approve the application.

Unanimously resolved to refuse the application contrary to the Officer recommendation for the following reasons:

i.                The proposal, by virtue of its depth, height, roof profile and proximity adjacent to no. 19 Neath Farm Court would visually dominate the rear garden of no. 19 and as such was contrary to Cambridge Local Plan 58 (criteria d and e).

ii.               The proposal by virtue of its flat roof design, has failed to demonstrate that it would incorporate a green or a brown roof. As such, the proposal was contrary to Cambridge Local Plan policy 31 (criteria f).