Issue - meetings

1.            The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 18/01914/HOUSE in respect of a proposed two storey side extension at Cherry Hinton, Newbury Hill, Hampstead Norreys.

2.            In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr David Barlow, Parish Council representative and Mr Andy Wilcock and Ms Theresa Fleetwood, objectors,  addressed the Committee on this application.

3.            Derek Carnegie introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy and other material considerations. In conclusion the reports detailed that the proposals were acceptable and conditional approval was justifiable. Officers clearly recommended the Committee grant planning permission.

4.            Councillor Barlow in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     The proposed development was inappropriate as it would be in close proximity to adjacent properties.

·                     The drawings presented to the Committee were misleading and did not display the position of the garage to 1 Church Street correctly. The Committee would therefore not be able to understand the shadowing caused by the extension correctly.

·                     A single storey extension was in the process of being constructed under permitted development rights to the rear of Cherry Hinton and therefore the plans misrepresented the total development to be undertaken on the site.

·                     The residents of 1 Church Street were unhappy that their courtyard garden would be overshadowed by a high towering wall.

·                     Policy CS14 stated that developments should make a positive contribution to the area, which the extension would not.

5.            Councillor Anthony Pick asked what the typical separation between houses in Hamstead Norreys was. Councillor Barlow advised that it varied.

6.            Ms Fleetwood in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     She had occupied 1 Church Street, which bordered Cherry Hinton to the rear, for 12 years.

·                     After the previous owner passed away, it was anticipated that improvements to the property would be made however Ms Fleetwood reported she remained in shock regarding the impact and scale of the proposals.

·                     The impact of the development was understated as the plans did not show the extension currently being built to the rear.

·                     The case officer wrote to the applicant in May 2018 to express concerns regarding the dominance of the proposed extension and the loss of gap between properties. The revised plans did not address the case officer’s concerns and overall size reduction had been less than 10%. 

·                     The House Extensions Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) (2004) set out that light and overshadowing was a key consideration regarding the impact on neighbours. There would be a significant impact on light loss and Ms Fleetwood advised her kitchen would never receive sunlight again.

·                     Cherry Hinton was on higher ground that 1 Church Street which exacerbated the impact of the height of the proposed extension.

·                     The extension would deny other properties the view of the church spire.

7.            Councillor Adrian Edwards asked whether the applicant had discussed the revised plans with Ms Fleetwood, who confirmed he had. Councillor Edwards asked how the gap between properties would be reduced. Ms Fleetwood advised that a path to 1  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20