Agenda item

To determine the application.

Kimberley Crow presented the report to members and drew members attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from presentation from Alan Faulkener, the agent. Mr Faulkener stated that the Planning Officer and Member Services had suggested to him that he may wish to email the slides which he will be referring to in his presentation to members of the committee which he has done. He added that there is a long history of garden infill in the immediate vicinity of the site with Linden Drive, Eden Crescent, Numbers 20 a, b c and d London Road and the former Travis Perkins site now known as Fortrey Court, which have all been built in the grounds of existing properties within the Chatteris Conservation Area, with Fortrey Court being developed within the curtilage of a Grade 2 Listed Building.

Mr Faulkener stated that since the application was validated in March 2024, he has worked with officers on house design and site layout to address all their concerns and has responded to relevant comments raised by neighbouring properties, with the only outstanding matter being the reason the application is before the committee in respect to the Conservation Officer’s comments. He explained that at the request of officers in May 2025 following comments from the Conservation Officer, he commissioned an independent heritage statement which was delivered in June 2025 from Artifacts Conservation, which concluded that the proposal has been carefully designed to minimise any perceived harm on the rural aspect of the setting on number 16 and this section of the Chatteris Conservation area.

Mr Faulkener explained that the existing landscaping has been retained, and the necessary widening of the access track and the required visibility splays have been kept towards the southern boundary and softened with planting. He made the point that the tree views to the wider land holding have been retained, and the new development will be kept out of the sight line.

Mr Faulkener added that the proposal will result in less than substantial harm to the Listed Building and will preserve the character and appearance of the Chatteris Conservation Area and will achieve public benefit in provision of residential accommodation. He referred to page 2 of the Conservation Officer’s report from 2025 where they have provided a response, stating that the host building was Listed with a wide frontage, but made the point that there was no mention of this in the Historic England official listing for the property which simply states that a Mid-19^th Century house of gault brick, hipped slate roof and dentile eaves and cornice.

Mr Faulkener stated that it is a 2-storey building and the road frontage has four window ranges of hung sashes with glazing bars in flat moulded arches and on the ground floor there are four full length casements with fixed headed lights and louvered shutters and a side entry which has a gothic arch to the porch. He referred to the presentation screen and explained that the slide shows a few images which make up the visual amenity of the historic environment and contribute to the verdant character and appearance of the Chatteris Conservation Area which was referred to by officers in the report.

Mr Faulkener stated that the modern houses opposite the entrance to the subject property and the access to the two new build properties in Fortrey Court at 22 London Road where planning consents were granted between 2019 and 2024 are the features that he wanted to highlight. He made the point that whilst there is some concern with regards to the loss of trees and front boundary hedging he has already advised officers that he would be happy to see a condition on boundary treatments attached to the planning consent.

Mr Faulkener added that he would be content to incorporate the low-level wall that the planning officer was looking to be included as well as agreeing with the conditions suggested by the Conservation Officer. He asked the committee to recognise the merits of the scheme and grant planning permission.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows:

·       Councillor Benney stated that the host dwelling is 16 London Road, and he recalls 18 London Road being demolished a number of years ago and number 20 was redeveloped as well with houses being sited in the back garden which is similar to the application. He added that the houses which were built in Fortrey Court were approved by officer delegation and never came before the committee but the house and the conversion of the chicken shed did come before the committee and were approved and look very nice. Councillor Benney added that the Cock Public House is not shown on the slide but that is also located in the Conservation Area and has back land development in the rear of it, making the point that the houses were built there a few years ago and, in his view, the principle of development in this area has been fairly well established recently. He expressed the view that he is certain that the bungalows and houses will look equally as nice as the others do when they are built out. Councillor Benney stated the reason for refusal relates to the conservation and the detriment to the Grade 2 host building but, in his opinion, the site is large enough to absorb the dwellings without causing any detriment and the application should be approved.

·       Councillor Murphy expressed the view that it is an ideal place to build in the rear as there have been other back land developments which have been built out in Linden Drive and Westbourne Close. He expressed the opinion they are not detrimental to the host building due to the distance that they will be from it and if it is not approved then it will be sacrilege.

·       Councillor Marks stated that he agrees with the views of Councillor Murphy and Benney, making the point that it is a Grade 2 Listed Building where somebody wishes to invest and spend money on it and, in his opinion, it is a good application and should be approved.

·       David Rowen stated that there is no actual works which are proposed to take place to the Listed Building, and the application is to develop in the back garden of that dwelling.

·       Councillor Imafidon expressed the view it is a good application, and the actual dwellings will stand way back from the host dwelling. He added that with the vegetation and the trees which are in place then it is unlikely that the development would be visible from the main road anyway. Councillor Imafidon added that he does not believe that it is detrimental to the Grade 2 Listed Building and he will be happy to support the application.

·       The Legal Officer stated that as she understands it, the view of the committee is that they are not stating that there is no harm to the Listed Building, but they are concluding that there may be some less than substantial harm, but they feel it is outweighed by the benefits of the scheme. Councillor Benney stated that his conclusion is that there is no harm whatsoever.

·       Councillor Connor stated that he feels that the five houses will bring a benefit.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Murphy and agreed that the application be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation, with conditions delegated to officers to add appropriate conditions.

Members did not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they feel that development within the Conservation Area has been demonstrated already, the application site is a large garden which will be able to accommodate the dwellings, it will not be detrimental to the host building and the community benefit outweighs any harm to the Listed Building.

(Councillors Benney and Murphy declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they are members of Chatteris Town Council but take no part in planning)

(Councillor Marks declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he attends meetings of Chatteris Town Council but takes no part in planning)

(Councillors Benney, Connor, Mrs French, Imafidon and Marks declared, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they had been lobbied on this application)