APPEALS AGAINST PLANNING DECISIONS AND ENFORCEMENT ACTION

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

This item is intended to update Members on appeals against planning decisions and enforcement action.  Information is provided on appeals lodged, proposed hearing and inquiry dates, appeal decisions and when appropriate, details of recent cases in interest.

1.           	 Decisions Notified By The Secretary of State
	
Ref. No.             	 Details                                                                           	  	Decision & Date

S/1966/02/F	L Martin		Dismissed
	Plot 1 Scotland Drove/Rose & Crown Road		22/07/2004
	Swavesey
	Siting of mobile home and 4 caravans together 
	with vehicular access.
	(Delegated Refusal)

S/1967/02/F	L Beswick		Dismissed
	Plot 2 Scotland Drove/Rose & Crown Road		22/07/2004
	Swavesey
	Siting of mobile home and 4 caravans together 
	with vehicular access.
	(Delegated Refusal)

S/1968/02/F	S Moss		Dismissed
	Plot 3 Scotland Drove/Rose & Crown Road		22/07/2004
	Swavesey
	Siting of mobile home and 4 caravans together 
	with vehicular access.
	(Delegated Refusal)

S/1969/02/F	M Smith		Dismissed
	Plot 4 Scotland Drove/Rose & Crown Road		22/07/2004
	Swavesey
	Siting of mobile home and 4 caravans together 
	with vehicular access.
	(Delegated Refusal)

S/1970/02/F	L Newland		Dismissed
	Plot 5 Scotland Drove/Rose & Crown Road		22/07/2004
	Swavesey
	Siting of mobile home and 4 caravans together
	with vehicular access.
	(Delegated Refusal)
S/1971/02/F	H Brazil		Dismissed
	Plot 6 Scotland Drove/Rose & Crown Road		22/07/2004
	Swavesey
	Siting of mobile home and 4 caravans together
	with vehicular access.
	(Delegated Refusal)

S/1972/02/F	B Fuller		Dismissed
	Plot 7 Scotland Drove/Rose & Crown Road		22/07/2004
	Swavesey
	Siting of mobile home and 4 caravans together
	with vehicular access.
	(Delegated Refusal)

S/1973/02/F	H Brazil		Dismissed
	Plot 8 Scotland Drove/Rose & Crown Road		22/07/2004
	Swavesey
	Siting of mobile home and 4 caravans together
 	with vehicular access.
	(Delegated Refusal)

S/0993/03/F	Ms D A Peterson		Allowed
	18A Greenside		23/07/2004
	Waterbeach
	Extension and conversion of garage to form 
	separate dwelling and erection of double garage
	(Delegated Refusal)

S/2275/03/F	Mr & Mrs R Potter		Dismissed
	Barns Farm, Sawston Road, Stapleford		29/07/2004
	Sawston
	Conservatory
	(Delegated Refusal)
S/2260/03/F	Mr & Mrs Davey		Dismissed
	125 The Causeway		29/07/2004
	Bassingbourn
	Extension	
	(Delegated Refusal)
S/0599/03/F	Mrs E Mitcham		Dismissed
	Barn Farm		03/08/2004 
	East Hatley		
	Conversion of barn into dwelling and erection
 	of garaging
	(Delegated Refusal)
S/0452/03/F	Co-Operative Group (CWS) Ltd		Dismissed
	R/o & Adj 31 Denmark Road		04/08/2004
	Cottenham
	2 houses
	(Delegated Refusal)
S/0780/03/F	A Duke & Sons		Allowed
	Off New Road		06/08/2004
	Melbourn
	2 houses
		   (Officer Recommendation to Approve)

S/1202/03/LB	Mr & Mrs Bryce-Smith		Dismissed
	Home Farm, 10 High Street                                                        13/08/2004
	Shepreth
	Extension
	(Delegated Refusal)
	S/1203/03/F	Mr & Mrs Bryce-Smith		Dismissed
	Home Farm, 10 High Street		13/08/2004
	Shepreth
	Extension
	(Delegated Refusal)
	S/0177/03/F	Mr J Biddall		Allowed
	Kneesworth Road		13/08/2004
	Meldreth
	Change of use of land to travelling show peoples quarters
		    (Officer Recommendation to Refuse)

2.	                Summaries Of Recent Decisions Of Interest

Ms D.A. Peterson- Extension and Conversion of Garage to Form Dwelling and Erection of Double Garage- 18A Greenside, Waterbeach- Appeal Allowed 

The Inspector considered the principal issues in the determination of this appeal to be the likely impact of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the area and the effect of the proposals upon the living conditions of nearby residents.  

The site is located in the centre of Waterbeach in the conservation area. The character of this part of the village is very mixed. It is predominantly a residential land use that comprises older cottages, terraced houses, and more modern single storey dwellings to the rear of the existing frontage development. There is also a triangular shaped green, two public houses and a store in close proximity to the site. 

The Inspector felt that the proposed development was innovative and would make beneficial use of small building in order to provide further variety within the housing market. Although the development would not be as spacious as other backland residential developments within the vicinity, it was accepted that there was enough space to provide an adequate curtilage for both the existing dwelling and new dwelling. 

It was considered that the removal of an unsightly part of the existing dwelling together with the erection of an attractive wall and planting and sensitive materials for the surfacing of the driveway would enhance the appearance of the conservation area.    

The proposed extension and alterations to the garage were judged not to be highly visible from the conservation area. In any case, it was felt that the improvements to the exterior of the building would offset the impact the development would have on the conservation area. The new garage is hidden from public view. 

The Inspector acknowledged that there was local concern regarding on-street parking in the area but deemed that the scheme would provide at a garage and at least one parking space for each house. Although he conceded that the parking space might reduce the ability for vehicles to turn on site, he did not see this as a sufficient reason to withhold planning permission. The restricted width of the access was also not seen to a problem to the extent that it would endanger highway safety. 

It was accepted that there would be a limited increase in the use of the access from the new dwelling. It was however considered that such a rise would not cause material harm to the residential amenities of adjoining properties through noise and disturbance. The positioning of the replacement garages a substantial distance away from both the existing dwellings and new unit together with the erection of a new wall would in any case mitigate the impact of the increase in traffic. 

The Inspector judged that as a result of the adequate separation between the new dwelling and the fenestration on the rear elevation of No. 3 Wellington Close, the positioning of the double garage between the new dwelling and the bungalow and the intervening fence and shrubs, the addition of a single roof light in the roof of the new dwelling would not harm the residential amenities of that property through overlooking or loss of privacy. The intensification in the use of the building was also not seen as concern that would warrant refusal of permission. 

The appeal was therefore allowed subject to conditions to ensure that the development enhances the character and appearance of the conservation area. Specific conditions relate to materials for the external surfaces of the development, hard and soft landscaping, materials for the surfacing of the driveway, boundary treatment, parking arrangements and the removal of permitted development rights.  

A. Duke & Sons- Erection of Two Houses- Land off New Road, Melbourn- Appeal Allowed

The Inspector considered the main issues of this appeal to be whether the proposed houses would have an unacceptably overbearing impact on the neighbouring residential properties in Pryor’s Orchard and at No. 3 Cawdon Row, whether the proposed houses would be out of keeping with the single storey surgery building to the south east, whether Unit 2 would seriously overlook No. 3 Cawdon Row’s rear garden, and whether Unit 1 would be seriously overbearing when seen from the adjacent area of public open space. 

The site is situated within the village framework of Melbourn. It was formerly an orchard but is now an unused piece of land. Residential properties lie to the north, east and west. A single storey doctor’s surgery is situated to the south east. An area of public open space lies to the south. 

The Inspector acknowledged that the proposed houses would be located directly to the rear of Nos. 4 and 6 Pryor’s Orchard and that they would be situated 18-20 metres from the rear elevations of those dwellings. He accepted that the outlook from those dwellings would be less open than present but was not convinced that the new houses would appear unduly overbearing. He agreed that the rear elevation of No. 5 Pryor’s Orchard would be closer to the proposed houses but as the view would be towards the rear of the garages and there would not be a direct line of sight, he considered that the new houses would not be overbearing to this dwelling. He established that the impact of the new houses would be seen at an angle from the rear elevation of No. 3 Cawdon Row and would cause some change to the character of the view from the rear garden of that property, but was satisfied that the affect on these properties was acceptable. 
   
Whilst the new houses would be higher than the nearby single storey doctors surgery, the difference in the appearance of the buildings was not considered to significantly affect the character of the area.

The Inspector acknowledged that the relationship between 3 Cawdon Row and Unit 2 would lead to some overlooking. He did however feel that the angle and 14 metre gap between the nearest first floor window on the new house and the area of the garden that is used most intensively, immediately to the rear of No. 3, would result in an acceptable degree of overlooking that would not justify the refusal of planning permission. 

Although the gable of end of Unit 1 would be prominent from the footpath that crosses the public open space, it was felt that it would not appear more oppressive than other two storey houses that may surround such amenity areas.  

The Inspector concluded by stating that the proposal would not harm the residential amenities of neighbouring properties or the character of the area. The appeal was therefore allowed subject to conditions regarding details of external materials, finished floor levels, hard and soft landscaping, parking and turning space and the removal of certain permitted development rights.    

3.                         Appeals Received
	
Ref. No.               Details                                                                                           Date
E473A	Optima (Cambridge ) Ltd		23/07/2004
	The Bury, Newmarket Road
	Stow-cum-Quy
	Enforcement against erection of flat roofed extension to 
	existing office building
	(Delegated Refusal)

S/0605/04/LB	Dr H. Fernandes		30/07/2004
	11 Haslingfield Road
	Barrington
	Alterations- Installation of solar lighting panels on south 
	elevation of roof slope
	(Delegated Refusal)

S/0389/04/F	Corrinne Hibbert		30/07/2004
	46 Streetly End
	West Wickham
	Extension
	(Delegated Refusal)
E449	Mrs J. White		09/08/2004
	65 Eland Way
	Teversham
	Enforcement against shed
	(Delegated Refusal)
S/0388/04/LB	Corrinne Hibbert		10/08/2004
	46 Streetly End
	West Wickham
	Internal and external alterations including replacement of front 
	door by window, replacement of window in gable wall by door
	(Delegated Refusal) 

S/0676/04/F	Mr & Mrs D. Godfrey		12/08/2004
	49 Pelham Way
	Cottenham
	Extension
	(Delegated Refusal)

4.                             Local Inquiry and Informal Hearing dates scheduled before the next           
                                meeting on 6th October 2004

Ref. No.               Details                                                                           Date/Time/Venue             

S/1934/03/F         Mr J Crickmore						07/09/2004
	The Barn, Chesterton Fen Road				Council Chamber
	Milton							10.00am
	Change of use to tropical plant nursery comprising 
	erection of 3 glasshouses, general purpose shed, 
	alteration and extensions to
	(Local Inquiry) 

S/6182/03/O	MCA Developments Ltd		14/09/2004
	Cambourne Enhanced					Ground Floor
	Development comprising 1,744 new dwellings, primary 	10.00am
	schools, public open space and associated infrastructure.
	(Local Inquiry)

5.           	   Appeals withdrawn or postponed

Ref. No.                Details                                                                                Reason & Date

E472A	Martin Ragnauth		Withdrawn
	Setbroad Farm, Oakington Road			         	By Appellant	Cottenham							12/08/2004
	Enforcement against unauthorised building works.

E 472B	Martin Ragnauth						Withdrawn
	Setbroad Farm, Oakington Road				By Appellant
                             Cottenham		12/08/2004
	Enforcement against unauthorised building works in the 
	construction of foundations of a dwelling.

6.           	   Advance notification of future Local Inquiry and Informal Hearing dates 
			   (subject to postponement or cancellation)
	
Ref. No.               Details                                                                                              Date

S/1559/03/F	Taylor Woodrow Developments		03/11/2004
	Off Chivers Way (Access off Kay Hitch Way)		Confirmed
	Histon
	57 Dwellings
S/2624/03/F	Country Homes and Gardens		09/11/2004
	Royston Garden Centre, Dunsbridge Turnpike		Confirmed
	Shepreth
	Variation of conditions 1, 2, 10, & 11 of S/1333/02 in respect 
	of revised landscaping details

S/2089/03/F	Heddon Management Ltd		30/11/2004
	12 Pieces Lane		Confirmed
	Waterbeach
	8 Houses
S/2194/03/F	Mr C Taylor		11/01/2005
	45 Spring Lane		Confirmed
	Bassingbourn
	Construction of raised decked area, path and sunken patio/lawn 
	(part retrospective)

S/0682/95/O	Mr P. Stroude		25/01/2005
	Home Farm		Confirmed
	Longstanton	
	Variation of Condition 16 of Outline Planning Consent 
	S/0682/95/O (to allow the construction of more than 500 

S/0019/04/F	Mr P Mansfield		08/03/2005
	29 Worcester Avenue		Offered/Accepted
	Hardwick
	Change of use of land to garden land & extension to dwelling
S/0358/04/F	Dr & Mrs N Coleman		09/03/2005
	Adj 33 Mill Hill		Confirmed
	Weston Colville
	Erection of house and garage and carport for existing dwelling