Secretary of State will decide appeal lodged by home owner against enforcement action by East Cambs District Council
- Credit: Archant
Three alleged breaches of planning – including building a three storey rear extension- are being dealt through an appeal.
East Cambridgeshire District Council said an appeal against an enforcement notice issued to Richard Lee of Second Breeds Farm, 9 Stretham Road, Wicken, had been made to the Secretary of State.
The council says their enforcement notice specifies three alleged breaches: erection of a three storey rear extension with twin mansard roof, a single storey front porch, and a first floor rear balcony.
In a statement the council details reasons for their enforcement notice including:
• The development has been carried out within the past four years
You may also want to watch:
• What has been built is “significantly and materially different” from what was given planning consent in 2013.
• The 2013 application provided for a “substantial rebuild” but was “relatively modest” compared to what has been built.
- 1 Fire destroys family bungalow in the Fens
- 2 Man found dead in March
- 3 Driver leaves girl 'very shaken' after ploughing into car
- 4 Brother pays tribute to 'strongest character I've ever known'
- 5 Shocks all round as police pull over 'white van man'
- 6 WATCH: Flying Scotsman steams through Cambridgeshire Fens
- 7 Every little helps for surprised shopper thanks to Tesco worker
- 8 Father-of-five murdered due to 'drug deal dispute gone wrong'
- 9 7 of the best pumpkin picking locations in Cambridgeshire
- 10 Over 100 modern slavery victims rescued in Cambridgeshire
• What has been built “without the benefit of express planning permission and therefore built at the risk of the applicants is a substantial, dominant three storey rear twin mansard extension with a large first floor balcony”.
• Rear windows “contribute to the overall poor design and results in a jarring appearance contrary to planning policies”.
• The front porch “is not proportionate to the dwelling” and extended forward appearing “tunnel like and disproportionate to the dwelling”.
• The balcony “is extensive and whilst it does not cause any issues of direct overlooking, it is it an alien feature” in conjunction with the rear extensions.
• The form of the extensions “represents an alien, incongruous and contrived form of development”.
• Rear extensions and the roof design add “significant bulk” and are visually prominent “and completely out of scale and character within the area”.
• Whilst good quality materials have been used “it is the design and form that is completely unacceptable in this location”.
The council says the enforcement notice requires Mr Lee to remove the three storey rear extension with twin mansard roof and vertical ruled roof walls.
It also wants him to remove the front porch extension, remove the first floor rear balcony and remove “the resultant debris”.
Mr Lee has appealed against the notice on the following grounds:
• That permission should be granted for what is alleged in the notice
• The steps required to comply with the requirements of the notice are excessive and lesser steps would overcome the objections
• The time given to comply with the notice is too short.
The appeal is being determined through written representations.