Agenda item

To determine the application.

Alison Hoffman presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mr Matthew Hall, the Agent.

Mr Hall explained that the applicant for the site is 77 years old and has owned the land for a significant number of years, prior to selling the majority of the land, which is now Linden Drive, and then re purchasing the application site land in 1998, with the site having always been under private ownership and has never been owned by the Council. He stated that the application members are considering, had previous approval for two bungalows and garages in 1998 and he has reviewed the application which was refused in 2018, which was for two dwellings set close to boundaries, reworking the proposal and reducing it to a single storey three bedroomed bungalow in similar appearance to others on the estate.

Mr Hall added that there have been a number of letters of support received and no letters of objection. He made the point that the Council have recently granted permission in principle for a dwelling at 10-14 Bedford View in Manea on a piece of land, which was agreed in 2005 as a public play space, but was never used for that purpose and that proposal has two storey dwellings either side and is only approximately 9 to 11 metres wide, where this proposal being determined is in excess of 20 metres.

Mr Hall referred to the officer’s report and stated that the applicant is happy for conditions to be applied with regards to landscaping and materials. He added that members will note that all of the existing properties have a driveway but do not have a turning area and reverse out onto the road.

Mr Hall stated that discussions have taken place with numbers 25 and 26 Linden Drive, with both properties having written a letter of support and have been kept fully informed and following the discussions the garage has been moved. He stated that the proposal is for a single storey dwelling with no overlooking concerns, the site is in Flood Zone 1, there are no highway objections and adequate parking provision.

Mr Hall stated that there are no objections from the Conservation Officer, or any other consultees and Chatteris Town Council are in support of the proposal along with much local support from the residents in Linden Drive.

Members asked Mr Hall the following questions:

·         Councillor Meekins stated that within the officer’s report it makes reference to a map of the area and behind the proposal site there is a square area, which is unmarked and has no access to it, and he questioned whether it is a parcel of land in the ownership of the applicant? Mr Hall stated that the land directly behind the proposal site, which is shown as Chatteris on the plan, is not owned by the applicant and it is his understanding that the land is owned by 16 London Road.

·         Councillor Meekins referred to the amenity land and asked whether those individuals who have using the land have been trespassing on the land belonging to the applicant? Mr Hall stated that some members of the Planning Committee were on the committee in 2014, when the application was previously discussed and he added that at the time the application was delayed, whilst a land search was carried out to ascertain whether the land was in the ownership of the Council or in the ownership of the applicant and, in his view, the land has always been in private ownership and never in the ownership of the Council. Councillor Meekins stated the photograph of the site shows the land to be in an overgrown state and he asked that should the application be refused, is it the intention of the applicant to tidy the site? Mr Hall stated that there is a 6ft high fence at the back of the site which has been erected as a deterrent as people have been using the area as a cut through. He added that the site was a grassed area, however, the applicant found the area too large to maintain and has been paying other people to cut the grass, which has now been scraped off to negate the requirement for ongoing maintenance. Councillor Meekins asked if the grassed area will be reinstated should the proposal fail? Mr Hall stated that he would hope so.

·         Councillor Murphy asked Mr Hall to confirm why the residents at number 24, 25 and 26 are all in agreement with the proposal? Mr Hall stated that he has been present when discussions with the applicant have taken place with the residents at number 25 and 26 and they are not against the application. He added that number 25 did set out distances where he wanted the dwelling to be sited away from his bungalow as he has a conservatory based on the south elevation and they wanted the fence that is in place to be maintained. Mr Hall added that the resident at number 26 has written to the Council to state why she wants the application approved, but he has not met the residents at number 24.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that he recalls the application from 2014 where the application site at that time was in a very good state of repair and he expressed the opinion that he is disgusted that the site has been allowed to fall into such a state of disrepair. He expressed the view that the residents possibly want the site to be developed so the eyesore is removed as it currently looks like a ploughed field. Mr Hall stated that the applicant has been paying for maintenance of the area to be cut and he expressed the opinion that he thinks the applicant has got fed up paying for it to be maintained.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis referred to the fence which had been erected at the back of the land and asked Mr Hall to clarify that it had been erected to act as a deterrent as a cut through? Mr Hall stated that in the letter of support from number 26 it refers to people who have been using it as a cut through on foot. Councillor Mrs Davis asked whether this was access from Linden Drive into the land owned by number 16 London Road? Mr Hall confirmed that was correct and that a relation of the applicant erected the fence.

Members asked officer’s the following questions:

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he recalls the site from 2014 and he agrees that the area has deteriorated. He asked officers to confirm that if it was designated amenity land, why was it not adopted previously? Alison Hoffman stated that having looked back at the planning history on the site, that information is not available and she added that the lack of adoption does not override the availability of the land as a visual amenity and also as a public amenity space. She added that it maybe that the developer retained it, however, the planning use of that area is shown as an open green space. Alison Hoffman referred to the letters of support that had been received and added that she notes that the resident at number 25 has no objection and states that the applicant has kept them fully informed and discussions have taken place and agreements have been reached with regard to the fencing and landscaping. She added that the resident at number 26 has identified issues concerning waste, appearance of the land and anti-social behaviour that has been undertaken on the site and the other letter is a standard proforma letter of support.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that an application was passed in 2014, with a condition that area is going to be public open space and now seven years later this has come forward. She added that going forward any planning application that comes forward where there is public opens space involved needs to be carefully considered and conditions added that are in perpetuity.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that the application was not approved in 2014, it was refused, with the open space being part of original Linden Drive estate approval. Alison Hoffman stated that she has looked back at the planning history for one of the withdrawn applications and has noted that there is an officer communication to the Agent at that time, which states that ‘there is a complicated planning history dating back to 1988 and legal agreements relating to public open space contributions and noted that the original agreement in 1988 did not require the provision of public open space and, therefore, this will not be the case should the development prove to be acceptable on the site’. Alison Hoffman stated that the key aspect to consider regardless of the use of the site is whether the development that is proposed is acceptable and in the officer’s report it states that notwithstanding the loss of the visual open space area it does have an impact on the residential amenity and the visual amenities of the area by virtue of the layout and constraints of the site. She added that it would appear that the Linden Drive Development was 1988 and the land was not secured as public open space at that time.

·         Councillor Murphy expressed the opinion that there is no impact on the local residents as the residents that live in the closest proximity are in agreement with the proposal and there are 17 other people who reside in Linden Drive, who are also happy, and he cannot see any reason why the committee should oppose it.

·         Alison Hoffman stated that the planning considerations need to be factored in and it is the opinion of the officer that the scheme will cause harm to the residential amenity. She added that residents have written in advising of their support to the proposal and in many cases it may appear that a bungalow is preferable, rather than what is currently on site, however, it would be remiss of officers to recommend a scheme for approval merely on the basis that local residents see no objection to the proposal, whereas professionally, officers consider that real harm will occur to the residential amenity and visual amenity.

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

·         Councillor Benney stated that he has known the area and the site all of his life. He added that the residents in Linden Drive all strive to keep and maintain their properties in a very good condition, but the one thing that would cause him concern if he resided in the road, would be if the land behind the application site was ever brough back into use. Councillor Benney expressed the view that if he lived in Linden Drive, he would be more than happy to see a bungalow built at the bottom of the road to ensure that that the road maintained its status of a cul de sac. He added that there are no letters of objection and only letters received in support of the proposal and he will support the application.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that he fully sympathises with the applicant and the wish to put a bungalow on the site. He added that the bungalows in the road are beautifully kept and they are a credit to the owners, with the piece of land at the end being a green amenity space and it was used as such for many years. Councillor Miscandlon added that the amenity space is needed, but there is also the need for the space to be blocked off to stop the possibility of a road going through into the open field.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that there appears to be a big focus by members on the letters of support and objections received and the committee must remember that letters of support and objection are not a material consideration when determining planning applications. He added that the two neighbouring properties may be quite happy with the proposal, however, any future occupiers may have a different opinion.

·         Councillor Benney stated that Huntingdon Road Recreation Ground is in proximity of Linden Drive, which is full of amenity space for residents.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that the piece of land in question has never been a public open space and has been left dormant for many years and will never been an open space again. He expressed the view that a bungalow will complete the road.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis questioned the width of the space between the fence and number 25. Councillor Sutton stated that the width is 7.2 metres and Mr Hall stated that the distance from the side wall of the bungalow to the face of number 25 bungalow will be a fraction shorter than 10 metres.

·         Councillor Meekins stated that the proposal of a bungalow is shoe horning a property into a confined area. He added that if you have a piece of land which is a private amenity, then the owner, also has the responsibility of keeping that private amenity space in a decent condition, which does not appear to have been happening. Councillor Meekins added that if permission is not granted then consideration should be given to the fact that landowners have a responsibility for the upkeep of their land. He added that it is pure speculation to say that by erecting a bungalow it will stop development on the field belonging to 16 London Road and this proposal cannot be determined on something that may or may not happen in the future.

·         Sheila Black stated that it has been acknowledged that it is not a large piece of open space, it is a piece of green space, which is acknowledged in the officer’s report. She added that when determining the application, members need to be satisfied that due to the constraints of the site, the siting of the bungalow is going to be prominent and members need to be certain that they are satisfied that the siting of the bungalow will not impact on the nice character of Linden Drive and will fit into the existing streetscene and that residential amenity will not be affected. Sheila Black added that it has already been mentioned that there will be an impact on number 24, due to vehicular movements, and an impact on the two dwellings at the back, both visually and by being hemmed in.

It was proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Meekins to refuse the application as per the officer’s recommendation. This proposition failed on a majority vote by members.

Following advice from the Legal Officer, it was proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Murphy to approve the application against the officer’s recommendation, which was AGREED with the use of the Chairman’s casting vote.

Members approved the application against officer’s recommendation as they feel the development makes a positive contribution to the street scene and does not adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring users and future occupiers.

(Councillors Benney and Murphy registered that they are members of Chatteris Town Council, but take no part in planning matters)

(Councillor Benney declared that the agent has been previously been used by him, but was open minded on the application)