Decision details

All planning applications for Cambourne considered by the Planning Committee since May 2003. For individual reports, please click on the ‘Meetings’ tab above. For further details on all Cambourne planning applications, please visit our Planning Applications Database and select Cambourne from the drop-down list of parishes.

Members visited the site on 7 May 2019.

Mark Hoorn (objector) addressed the meeting. The case officer read out statements from Guoying Qi (objector) and Councillor Ruth Betson (a local Member). Comments from Councillor Shrobona Bhattacharya (a local Member) were read out.

Members identified and debated the following issues:

·         Overdevelopment of the site.

·         The impact on the character of the area and the street scene.

·         Detrimental effect on amenity of the neighbouring residential properties, including in respect of overbearing impacts and overshadowing of neighbouring property.

·         Adverse impact on the quality of life and amenity of the application site, through the loss of external amenity space.

·         Whether the development sets a precedent for similar development of other properties in the area .

·         The applicant’s fall-back position with regards to permitted development rights.

The case officer confirmed permitted development rights were intact for the property, with an exception in relation to the conversion of the garage, and advised that the assessment had taken into account the potential impacts of a single storey extension erected utilising those rights. The case officer also confirmed the Local Planning Authority was the determining body with regards to parking and loss of parking spaces, and that the Local Highway Authority had not objected, but had noted there may be impacts from the loss of parking to be considered.

However, the Vice-Chairman said it would be difficult to defend refusal based on adverse impact in terms of residential amenity of neighbouring property or visual impacts and the Local Highways Authority had not objected to the proposed development in terms of highway safety of the loss of parking.

However, the Vice-Chairman said it would be difficult to defend refusal based on adverse impact in terms of residential amenity of neighbouring property or visual impacts, and the Local Highways Authority had not objected to the proposed development in terms of highway safety due to the loss of parking.

By six votes to four, the Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, the final wording of which would be agreed by officers in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman prior to the issuing of planning permission.

(Councillors John Batchelor, Cahn, Fane, Handley, Heylings and Wright voted to approve the application. Councillors Milnes, Rippeth, Roberts and Heather Williams voted for refusal. Councillor Ellington was not present and did not vote.)