Issue - decisions

Councillor Hipkin withdrew from the meeting and Councillor Blencowe took the Chair.

 

The Committee received an application for Section 73 permission.

 

The application sought approval to vary condition 1 drawings of 15/1109/FUL to increase the height of the new garage to 2.97m at the front parapet, replace window and door facing 28 Maids Causeway with bi-fold glazed door, with integral single door.

 

The Committee received representations in objection to the application from residents of Maids Causeway.

 

The representations covered the following issues:

       i.          The objectors said that neighbours had accepted the garage on the grounds that it would not exceed 2.8m. The objectors queried why the additional height could be applied for in the current application.

     ii.          The objectors expressed the following concerns about the current application:

a.    Was double the current volume of the last.

b.    Loss of light.

c.    Dominated neighbours’ house and garden.

d.    Overbearing.

e.    Overlooking.

f.      Sense of enclosure.

g.    Out of character with the area.

   iii.          The objectors alleged that the owners of 28 Maids Causeway had deliberately and repeatedly ignored conditions imposed on previous planning permission.

 

Mr McKeown (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Gillespie (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Objectors had supported the initial garage application, but the objectors thought the height on the current one was too high.

     ii.          The objectors alleged the situation had been exacerbated as work was undertaken without planning permission.

 

Councillor Bick (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Asked for strong and clear enforcement action.

     ii.          Requested that the case be judged as fresh application even if some work needed to be dismantled.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 7 votes to 1) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.

 

Resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reasons:

 

1.    By reason of the height and massing of the building, it is an overly dominant feature in the street that is harmful to the character of the area and fails to preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area. As a result, the development is contrary to Policies 3/4, 3/7, 3/12 and 4/11 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006.

 

2.    By reason of the height of the building and its proximity to the boundary with No.26 Maid’s Causeway, the development has an unacceptable enclosing and overbearing impact on this neighbouring property, to the detriment of the amenity of its occupiers. As a result, the development is contrary to Policies 3/4, 3/7 and 3/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006.

 

3.    The rear windows serving the garden room result in an unacceptable level of overlooking of the first floor bedroom window in the rear elevation of No.26 Maids Causeway. As a result, the development is contrary to Policies 3/4, 3/7 and 3/12 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006.