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”.
You may also want to watch:
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 Parish council protests after developers switch care home for homes
- 2 Van overturns after striking Ely’s infamous ‘most bashed bridge’
- 3 Parish council fails to win vote of confidence
- 4 Tea rooms may become a bedsit
- 5 Charity shop ‘urgently appealing’ for volunteers after reopening
- 6 OBE for former King's Ely principal
- 7 'Harassment' forces village speedwatch team to close
- 8 Ely’s most famous cat is back for more adventures
- 9 Woman claims police officer ‘forced himself’ upon her
- 10 Fire crews tackle blaze at Ely engineering works
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”.