Agenda item

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 18/01914/HOUSE in respect of Cherry Hinton, Newbury Hill, Hampstead Norreys.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, David Barlow, Parish Council representative, Theresa Fleetwood, objector, Lee Clark, applicant and Councillor Virginia von Celsing, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Derek Carnegie introduced the report to Members, which had been called in to the Committee by Councillor von Celsing and it had received more than ten letters of objection.  He explained there had been a detailed discussion on this application at a previous meeting following the site visit, but as there had been confusion with the drawings, it had been deferred to this meeting. 

Officers had been recommending approval of the application.  However, the appeal decision relating to an earlier application had been received after the agenda papers had been circulated and, as detailed in the Update Report, it had been dismissed.  As a result, officers were now recommending refusal of the application, as they did not consider the concerns raised by the Planning Inspector had been overcome. 

The Chairman advised that the application should be considered by the Committee regardless of the change in recommendation.

Councillor Barlow in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     There had been a significant number of objections to the application.

·                     Cherry Hinton had been built in 1962 and it did not enhance the conservation area as the other properties in the vicinity had been built around 1910.

·                     The Parish Council did not consider that the application was appropriate for the area.

·                     The drawings contained misrepresentations and it was difficult to appreciate the reality of the proposed extension without visiting the site.

·                     It would result in substantial overshadowing of 1 Church Street and if approval was granted, their court-yard would become prison-like.

·                     The Parish Council had objected unanimously to the application.

·                     Policy CS14 required new developments to be of a high standard and to be appropriate to the neighbourhood, which this was not.

·                     The impact of the extension would be exacerbated by the difference in ground levels between Cherry Hinton and 1 Church Street.  The Planning Inspector had agreed with this and the appeal decision stated that the living conditions at 1 Church Street would be negatively impacted.

Councillor Anthony Pick noted that certain modifications had been made to the application and asked if these changes altered the Parish Council’s view.  Councillor Barlow replied that it did not and added that the main issue was the close proximity of the extension to 1 Church Street.

Mrs Fleetwood in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     She had lived at 1 Church Street for 12 years and had expected some improvements after the previous occupant had died, but the significant changes proposed by the applicant had been a shock.

·                     The revised plans did very little to address her earlier concerns.

·                     The light levels at the rear of her property would be significantly reduced and the kitchen would never receive any sun-light again.

·                     There was only one foot between the two properties at the end wall.

·                     Cherry Hinton had been built on ground 4 feet higher than 1 Church Street so the extension would be very overbearing, particularly to their court-yard which was only 15 feet x 25 feet in size.

·                     It would also create a very dark alleyway from the driveway.

·                     Suggestions had been made to the applicant about improvements to Cherry Hinton but they had not been considered.

Members did not have any questions of clarification for Mrs Fleetwood.

Mr Clark in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                     He was the owner of Cherry Hinton.

·                     He clarified that the appeal decision related to the earlier application, which the Committee had refused and not the revised one before them.

·                     In the second set of plans submitted, they had removed all the windows from the back of the extension and reduced its overall size.

·                     The gap between the walkway at 1 Church Street and his garage was 1.5 metres.

·                     The difference in height was 2.5 feet and not 4 feet.

·                     He had discussed the revised plans with Mrs Fleetwood and she had acknowledged that they were an improvement but had said she would be objecting regardless of any modifications.

Councillor Anthony Pick asked how high the wall would be and Mr Barlow advised it would be 24 feet.

Councillor Virginia von Celsing, speaking as Ward Member, raised the following points:

·                     The amendments made by the applicant did not change the policy considerations and the extension would still be inappropriate and very overbearing.

·                     1 Church Street would have a high wall overlooking it, as would the walkway.  Consequently they would not receive any afternoon sun.

·                     Many of the points made by the Planning Inspector in relation to the earlier application were still relevant with this one.

Members did not have any questions of clarification for Councillor von Celsing.

In considering the above application Councillor Pick noted that the Planning Inspector had said the 28 feet wall would be overbearing.  As it had only been reduced by 4 feet in this application, he considered it would still be overbearing and he proposed that it was rejected.  This proposal was seconded by Councillor Paul Bryant who added that he had detected unhappiness from Members during the site meeting and was pleased they had had sight of the Appeal Decision prior to this meeting.

The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal of Councillor Pick, as seconded by Councillor Bryant, to accept the officer’s recommendation and refuse planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried unanimously. 

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reason:

·                     The proposal would result in an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, contrary to Core Strategypolicies CS14 and CS19 and the SPG.