Agenda item

To determine the application.

Hayleigh Parker-Haines presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that an application was refused on this site in 2025, but since that time, he has reduced the size of the annexe significantly and reduced the amount of extended residential curtilage. He made the point that he is not applying for a separate dwelling as it is an annexe in conjunction with the existing dwelling, which can be conditioned as such.

Mr Hall added that, at the present time, the applicant lives on site with her husband and children in a static caravan to the side of the existing property, which they have lived in for 14 years and the applicants’ parents live in the host property at the front but the static caravan is leaking and is in a poor condition so something needs to be done. He stated that the applicant’s mother is struggling with mental health so the applicant is living on site to assist and they do eat together as a family in the host property during the week at times and the applicant runs the Willows Day Nursery in Chatteris and the after-school club at Westwood School as well as the day nursery at Knights End Road.

Mr Hall explained that there are no objections to this application from any of the consultees or from members of the public. He stated that as the officer has stated a previous Planning Committee did approve an annexe on this site which was a permanently built one which also extended the curtilage more than this current application, with it being approved by the committee about 3 years ago and was also in Flood Zone 3, which was not constructed due to the actual cost of doing so, but also given the uncertainty with regards to the land use type for the land that is to the north and the northwest next to this site so it was put on hold and it has just expired.

Mr Hall made the point that during a previous planning committee 3 years ago, with regards to a previous annexe, located right next door to this site there is already an annexe located in Flood Zone 3 with no justification on the Public Access system and that was approved under delegated powers. He stated that this application is for a residential annexe, not a separate dwelling and there is a caravan on site now that has been there 14 years that the applicant's family live in.

Mr Hall explained that should approval be given then the existing caravan will be removed and a new caravan will be sited further to the rear of the site which is in Flood Zone 3 just like the existing and it will be built out of the ground. Mr Hall explained that the Environment Agency have not objected to the application which is for the betterment of the family.

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

·       Councillor Benney stated that he recalls when this came before Planning Committee several years ago and at that time permission was given to build an annexe that was going to be a brick-built building and that was also up for officer's recommendation for refusal, adding that the house next door had an officer's recommendation of approval for exactly the same thing which does confuse matters. He explained that he does not know the applicant, but he does know of them, and he is aware that the lady runs a daycare centre and, in his opinion, this application appears to be a very genuine case, making the point that the unhabitable caravan will be removed and will be replaced with something better but it will not alter the family unit. Councillor Benney expressed the view that the proposal is for people, and, in his view, it is where the committee should be considering the human element, as there is a family here and a family should not be split up. He made the point that he does not consider this building to be in in the open countryside, which was the same scenario when Tesco was developed, it is not extending the curtilage and the development is not being taken out into the open countryside, it is just replacing what is already there with something better to improve the quality of life of the residents. Councillor Benney added that he can see where the policies maybe do not fit and where the site could be considered as being in the open countryside, but he does not share that view. He made the point that he appreciates that it is not ideal to put a caravan in Flood Zone 3, but there is already one on the site and the application will be built out of the ground which will make it safer and better. Councillor Benney made the point that he believes that this application deserves support, and he will be looking to grant this application.

·       Councillor Marks stated that families get bigger and as families get bigger, they need more space and currently the applicant is living in a cramped caravan and this is going to give them a better living environment and more living space. He added that the issue of Flood Zone 3 and caravans has arisen previously and an application came forward over the past few months which was for a traveller family whose application was approved in Flood Zone 3 and that was also for a caravan. Councillor Marks added that the committee look to be consistent, and he cannot see that this is doing anything to the detriment and believes that it will make a difference to their lives and he would be happy to see the application approved.

·       Councillor Purser stated that by removing a dilapidated caravan it will provide a far better living accommodation for the residents and a new caravan is being provided which appears to be a like for like situation and he will fully support it.

·       Councillor Murphy questioned whether Middle Level Commissioners ever provided a response to officers? Hayleigh Parker-Haines confirmed that no response has been forthcoming. Councillor Murphy stated that the Middle Level Commissioners are not concerned about the proposal, and he added that he has lived in Chatteris for his whole life, and he has never known that area to flood.

·       Councillor Mrs French explained that Middle Level Commissioners are not statutory consultees and if there is a drain there then it is probably not theirs which is why no response has been received.

·       The Legal Officer explained that this was subject to refusal in 2025 for a similar development and he drew members attention to the Planning Code of Conduct which forms part of the Constitution and that requires any members who wishes to support a recently refused application to identify the significant change in planning circumstances which justifies the approval.

·       Matthew Leigh stated that it is his understanding that there is an existing caravan on site which is within the residential curtilage and has been in place for over 10 years. He explained that irrespective of that if it is being used as an annexe the siting of a caravan within a residential curtilage is not development. Matthew Leigh added that when members are making reference to the removal of an existing caravan, it needs to be understood that the caravan did not require permission and is lawful because if it is an annexe and is within the residential curtilage they could replace that existing caravan with this caravan without the need for planning permission, however, this application is materially different to just replacing the caravan because it is on a new site and it is expanding the site where if they wanted to take the existing caravan away and just put a new one in place it would not be before committee. He stated that the application is not like for like which is why there is a planning application because it does require planning permission due to the change of use of land and it is materially different to just placing a caravan on the site. Matthew Leigh explained that if they were just replacing the existing one then it would not require permission, but it cannot be argued that replacement of the caravan on a residential site that does not require planning permission is a material consideration as it is a development that changes the location and expands the residential character. He added that in policy terms it is an elsewhere location.

·       Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that as a councillor this is the right decision for members to make, and he appreciates that the caravan is changing and is being moved albeit within the curtilage of the property, it is not going outside of the land and is staying within the land that is in the ownership of the applicant. He expressed the opinion it is making peoples lives better with no detriment to anybody else.

·       Hayleigh Parker-Haines referred to the presentation screen which highlighted the application site, and she pointed out the existing caravan and that is within the existing residential curtilage. She pointed out to the committee the land to which this application relates which does not fall within the existing residential curtilage associated with Bromsgrove House and whilst it is the same ownership it is separate piece of land outside of the residential curtilage. Hayleigh Parker-Haines added that, in terms of the neighbouring property and their annexe, when that obtained planning permission it was a garage and it was the conversion of an existing building within the established residential curtilage and the previous approval granted by members pertained to an existing building on site as well as it was reusing that building and it was not a completely new annexe on site as it was utilizing existing buildings.

·       Councillor Benney stated that the main point here is not the building next door, but it did have an approval on it and whilst an annexe is acceptable there in some way it sets the principle. He added that not only is it in the curtilage it is also in the ownership of the land of the applicant and as it is their land they should be able to do what they want but he does appreciate that there is a planning process.

·       Councillor Marks stated that he will be happy to second Councillor Benney’s proposal, there are no objectors to this application, and it is a temporary structure which is tied to the main property and if the family move then the likelihood is this will be taken away. He added that by approving the application it is actually bettering the facility that is on site and whilst it is being moved across the site, it is not at the detriment of anybody. Councillor Marks expressed the opinion that it is not really an elsewhere location.

·       Councillor Connor stated he also supports this application as it is going to improve the lives of the residents who are living in an existing caravan which is leaking, which cannot be right in the 21st century. He added that there are no objections to the application and it is tied to the property and, therefore, if the property gets sold then the caravan will have to be moved as well. Councillor Connor made the point that the committee have stated on many applications that they endorse families living together.

·       The Legal Officer stated that he does not believe from what he has heard that there is any identification of the substantial change in planning circumstances that has arisen since the last application and the Constitution does not make any distinction between decisions made by committee or by officers.

·       Hayleigh Parker-Haines referred to the presentation screen, identifying thepreviously refused scheme on the site plan, which included a larger change of use of land and included the strip running along the rear and then she identified the current application site on the presentation screen.

·       Councillor Marks referred to the presentation screen and stated that he may have misunderstood but it appears that there is a whole building and, therefore, surely that is a material change. He added that on the top right of the boundary they are going to refurbish those out buildings, but a whole building has been gained from somewhere else. Hayleigh Parker-Haines explained that the building shown at the top of the site is an existing building and when this application was previously approved it was to utilize that building as an annexe and the previously refused scheme included the provision of another building to the southwhich is shown on that plan. She added that this application proposes a building in the siting of a caravan in a similar location to the previously refused site construction of an annexe and the building that is on site currently is going to be retained and they are going to put in the caravan.

·       Councillor Connor stated that it is most definitely materially different from the last application.

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

Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they do not consider the application site to be in an elsewhere location as the adjacent land has also been developed, the caravan will just be replacing the existing caravan already sited in Flood Zone 3, it is not believed that it will be harmful to the rural environment and the proposal will benefit a family.

(Councillor Benney declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a member of Chatteris Town Council but takes no part in planning. He further declared that the agent has undertaken work for Chatteris Town Council and himself personally, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

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

(Councillor Murphy declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a member of Chatteris Town Council but takes no part in planning. He further declared that he knows the agent but is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Purser declared that the agent has undertaken work for him, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)