Two-storey house extension at 2 Granta Cottages, Great Chesterford

What was proposed

The application sought a two-storey side and rear extension leading to a single-storey rear extension, with changes to windows and materials.

“PROPOSAL: Proposed two storey side/rear extension leading to single storey rear extension…”

“The proposal is for a two-storey side and rear extension, which lead to a single storey rear extension with a flat roof light. The rear extension would be flush with the existing single storey section of the dwelling. The extension would be finished with off-white render, and the roof tiles would be to match the existing. There are also changes proposed to the existing fenestration, including the repositioning and insertion of windows.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The semi-detached dwelling is beside a private road, with a rear garden, front parking, countryside behind and a scheduled monument crossing the site.

“The application site is located on Newmarket Road in Great Chesterford, along a private road which runs parallel to and set down from Newmarket Road. The dwelling is two storey and semi-detached, with a single storey element to the rear. It is externally finished with brickwork and a slate roof. There is a garden to the rear which has an existing outbuilding. Parking is located on the hard standing to the front of the site.”

“The application site is located on the edge of a residential area, with countryside to the rear. The boundary of a scheduled monument (the Roman fort, Roman town, Roman and Anglo-Saxon cemeteries at Great Chesterford) bisects the site. Dwellings in the immediate vicinity are generally of a similar character and appearance to the application site’s dwelling, with some dwellings being rendered rather than brickwork. Some dwellings have been extended.”

Officer report

Planning history

The report records no relevant planning history and no pre-application discussions with the Council.

“There is no recorded planning history which is relevant to this application.”

“No pre-application discussions were undertaken between the Applicant and the Council prior to the submission of the application.”

Officer report

Officers recommended approval

Officers found the proposal acceptable in principle and design, with no harmful effects on heritage, neighbours, parking or ecology, subject to conditions.

“The proposal is appropriate with respect to its principle and design and appearance. There would be no harm to the nearby Conservation Area and listed buildings, and the impact upon the scheduled monument would be mitigated by conditions. The proposal would not result in detrimental harm to the amenities enjoyed by residential dwellings, to parking or to ecology.”

“The proposal has been assessed against the relevant policies contained within the Development Plan, relevant legislation and the National Planning Policy Framework. The Officer concludes that the proposal complies with the policies and guidance. As such, the proposal is recommended for approval subject to conditions.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Historic England sought archaeological assessment and advice, while built heritage officers found no unacceptable effect on the conservation area or listed buildings.

“Historic England commented that they would expect the remains of the scheduled monument to extend into the application site. They state that there is no archaeological assessment with the application and that Historic England does not have further detail on the expected archaeological harm from the scheme.”

“The Built Heritage (Conservation) Officer was verbally consulted and confirmed that the proposal was acceptable and would not affect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, nor the significance of the listed buildings, all of which are on the other side of Newmarket Road. They confirmed that a formal consultation would not be necessary.”

Officer report

Public comments

A site notice and four notification letters were issued, but no representations had been received when the report was written.

“One site notice was displayed near to the site and 4 notifications letters were sent to nearby properties. At the time of writing this report, no representations have been received.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent spoke in support of the application.

Members discussed the conditions

The Planning Officer confirmed that both archaeological condition phases had to be completed before building work, and members generally supported the application.

“In response to questions from Members, the Planning Officer confirmed that two phases of the Archaeological condition had to be completed prior to any building work being undertaken.”

“Members gave their general support to the application.”

Minutes

The committee vote

A councillor proposed approval, another councillor seconded it, and the committee resolved to grant conditional permission.

“Councillor Church proposed approval of the application. This was seconded by Councillor Asker.”

“RESOLVED that the Strategic Director of Planning be authorised to grant conditional permission for the development subject to those items set out in section 18 of the report- A) Conditions…”

Minutes

Archaeological conditions

The conditions require an approved investigation and monitoring scheme before commencement, followed by a final archaeological report within six months of fieldwork completion.

“3 Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) to secure a programme of archaeological investigation, and a programme of archaeological monitoring (as identified in the WSI) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.”

“4 Following completion of the archaeological investigation/fieldwork and within six (6) months from that completion, a final archaeological report or (if appropriate) a Post Excavation Assessment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.”

Officer report