Objections mount up to ‘backland’ development plans
- Credit: Archant
Plans to build a house in the garden of a property in Ely’s protected conservation area have met with a host of objections.
An application has been made to East Cambridgeshire District Council for permission to build a house in the garden of 22 Cambridge Road.
The applicants say that the majority of houses in the vicinity have had second homes built in their gardens and that a precedent has been set as a result.
Architects Freeman Brear told the council: “The house has been designed in such a way as to respect the amenity of the surrounding buildings, and continues the characteristic of backland development in the area.
“Stylistically the houses in the area are very mixed and therefore a contemporary, well-designed property, encompassing high levels of sustainability responds well to local character and will enhance the Conservation area, and thus complies also with the requirements of paragraph 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”
But the plans attracted a host of objections from neighbours of the site, who said it would represent overdevelopment of the site.
In consultation, the City of Ely Council said: “The council has previously stated that it will no longer support any further back land development on Cambridge Road.
- 1 21st century agreement on future of 17th century pub
- 2 ‘It’s sadly coming to a natural end’ - restaurant to close its doors by August
- 3 ‘It’s been very rewarding’ - Letizia amazed by support for La Strega
- 4 New bid for housing thwarted by Great Crested Newts
- 5 Village barn struck by arsonists in 4am blaze
- 6 Change of plan for A142 Mepal bridge works as July closures announced
- 7 Axing BBC TV news from Cambridge 'a backward step' says MP
- 8 Littleport 'hit and run' on Victoria Street
- 9 Explained: What the cost of living support package means for you
- 10 Florist 'busier than ever' hoping to build from lockdown success
“This area has now reached the maximum capacity with regard to the amount of traffic the road can cope with.”
Councillor Jeremy Friend-Smith said the application should be ‘called-in’ and put before a committee of councillors while, in consultation with the council, Councillor Bill Hunt said it represented an “overdevelopment of the site”.
Neighbours of the site also took a dim view of the plans and called for it to be rejected.
In consultation with the council, Geraldine Warren said: “There is no need for a back garden to be grossly overcrowded and overdeveloped in this way.”
And Norton Hatfield said: “Although the applicant has sought to overcome previous concerns, it does not address the fundamental issues of principle identified by the previous inspector and raises amenity issues for the enjoyment of our garden.”