Issue - decisions

The Committee received an application for retrospective planning permission.

The application sought approval for a single storey front extension, part single storey, part two storey rear extension, first floor side extension and change of use to 8-person HMO (House in Multiple Occupation).

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

Councillor Ashton (Cherry Hinton Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Referred to #2.2 in the Officer’s report. Residents had concerns about how the City Council handled planning applications concerning this address since 2011.

     ii.          Parking/access.

   iii.          Noise and overlooking concerns.

   iv.          The house would be in multiple occupation.

    v.          Intermittent building works occurred over several years. Residents were unclear what the design would look like when completed.

   vi.          The design was out of context with the area.

 vii.          Builders working on 29 Fernlea Road trespassed on neighbour’s property.

viii.          The 29 Fernlea Road property encroached on neighbour’s land.

   ix.          The Applicant was not building to approved plans (#2.2 in the Officer’s report).

    x.          Officers had been on-site and found unreported building work (referred to enforcement investigation #2.4 in the Officer’s report). Residents were concerned this work was not included in the current application.

   xi.          Referred to #6.1 in the Officer’s report: “The development may therefore impose additional parking demands upon the on-street parking on the surrounding streets and, whilst this is unlikely to result in any significant adverse impact upon highway safety, there is potentially an impact upon residential amenity which the Planning Authority may wish to consider”.

The Committee:

Resolved (by 7 votes to 0) 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 reason:

The scale of the extension has an overbearing and enclosing impact on the occupant of the adjoining property No. 27 and therefore adversely impacts on their amenity.  As such, the proposal is contrary to policies 3/4 and 3/14 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006).