No gym, no gym, no gym NO says council planners
- Credit: Google
Planners refused to allow businessman Malvin Rogerson to extend his home to create a gymnasium despite not a single objection.
East Cambridgeshire District Council said Mr and Mrs Rogerson wanted to extend their current garage.
They would then create an extension to the front to form an additional garage with gymnasium above it.
Planning officers said six neighbouring homes were notified, and there had been no comments raised – nor did anyone object when a site notice was displayed.
Highways had no objections and City of Ely Council has “no concerns” but the district council says their main concern is “impact it may have on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers”.
They were concerned, too, about the “impact it may have on the visual appearance and character of the wider area”.
The council says their Local Plan requires proposals to ensure “that there are no significantly detrimental effects on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers”.
- 1 Petition launched to save village pub
- 2 Pub company comes out fighting to keep controversial cuppa sign
- 3 Man suffers injuries after A142 morning crash
- 4 Father accused of baby daughter's murder gave her squash, court told
- 5 'Our dog was our motivation’ - couple behind organic dog treats business
- 6 Disciplinary action against anti-Pride pastor ‘never, ever about his religion’
- 7 Two food businesses closed after cockroach infestations found
- 8 WATCH: Emotional tribute to honour and remember crash victim
- 9 Gary takes Dry January to next level with mental health challenge
- 10 Teenage moped rider seriously injured in crash
And they quoted other policies which require proposals “create safe, inclusive and accessible development which promotes health and wellbeing”.
They need to ensure a “high standard of amenity for existing and future users”.
One particular concern was on the rear elevation, where a Juliette balcony with surrounding glazing panels is proposed.
Planners say this would project down the side of the property.
“It is considered that this would allow for views down the side of the property and towards the neighbouring dwellings private amenity space,” they concluded.
“As a result, it is considered that the levels of overlooking would be detrimental to the conservatory and private amenity space of the neighbouring property.”
Planners also referred to the garage being situated forward of the property and visible within two street scenes, these being Cambridge Road and The Turnpike.
“The principle of a moderate garage extension to the south-east was not of concern, however the first-floor additions are of visual concern,” they ruled.
“The proposal to include first floor accommodation above the existing garage and extension would add a detrimental prominence to the outbuilding.
“The structure would fail to sit subservient to the host dwelling and would have a significant dominance in the street scene of Cambridge Road and The Turnpike.”
Planners concluded the extension would create “a visually intrusive form of development by virtue of its size, design and location”.