A Cambridge City Council website

Cambridge City Council

Council and democracy

Home > Council and Democracy > Issue

Issue - decisions

19/0523/FUL - 10 Lapwing Avenue

24/07/2019 - 19/0523/FUL - 10 Lapwing Avenue

The Chair offered to hand over to the Vice Chair for this item but he declined.

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission for a second floor side extension to three storey dwelling.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a local resident.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

  i.  Referred to comments from the Urban Design Team.

  ii.  Took issue with details in the drawings of the application.

  iii.  Expressed concern that:

a.  The roof extension design.

b.  It would set a harmful precedent if approved.

c.  The design was out of scale with neighbouring properties and out of character with the area.

d.  The application would have a negative impact on car parking and road safety in the area.

 

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

 

In response to the report the Committee commented it would be helpful to see how the application would affect other houses in the terrace (rather than viewing pictures of just 10 Lapwing Avenue) and asked if similar elevations could be included in future committee reports. The Senior Planner displayed pictures of the street scene via Google Maps to show the context of the application.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Assistant Director and Senior Planner said the following:

  i.  The Clay Farm Design Code was a material consideration but there was flexibility to make changes provided that these were considered to be acceptable and were highlighted as changes to the Code. 

  ii.  The Design Code did not go into details regarding extensions to individual properties. It provided high level principles for the wider development in terms of layouts of roads/streets and use of materials etc. The Local Plan set out detailed policies on extensions and other changes to existing buildings.

  iii.  The Urban Design Officer (relative to an earlier application for the site) has advised that previous concerns about the  scale and location of the proposed extension had been addressed through the new application now before Committee. The urban design officer had been involved in the design code as well as the two planning applications so there was consistency of urban design inputs.

  iv.  3m of terrace amenity space would be lost through the application. If a neighbour wished to extend their terrace property too, then any such application would be determined on its merits.

  v.  The application site was not in a Conservation Area, Permitted Development rights existed, resulting in less control on any development than if the site had been in a Conservation Area.

  vi.  Permitted Development rights had not been removed from the garages so spaces could be transferred for other uses. The existence of any restrictive covenants across the Skanska (Seven Acres) development was noted in the Officer’s report, but these are not material planning considerations.

 vii.  An obscure glazed privacy screen is proposed within the application and prevents overlooking of neighbouring properties.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved by 8 votes to 1 (SCDC Councillors did not vote)) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.