Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Ian Gowler, the agent. Mr Gowler stated that the application is for a pair of 4 bedroomed dwellings with an annexe to the rear, making the point that the size, scale, and design of the existing houses are identical to a previous application which was approved with the exception of a loft conversion. He explained that the garage to the rear already has approval and is constructed, with the garage at the ground floor level and residential accommodation upstairs which is currently used as a playroom and the garage has been used as accommodation in the past whilst the applicant was constructing the next-door property and the ground floor of that is being used as accommodation for their large family.

Mr Gowler stated that the applicant intends to retain that accommodation for his family while he constructs the 2 semi-detached properties and then eventually live in the left-hand side property. He explained that the neighbouring property at Curf Terrace is owned by the applicants’ parents, and they also reside on site.

Mr Gowler explained that the report notes that the proposal would be inconclusive to backland development, however, in his opinion, the property and garage are already exist in their own right and other annexes in Chatteris have already been approved with self-contained annexes, highlighting planning application references F/YR16/0942, F/YR18/0667 and F/YR20/1114. He acknowledged that backland development is out of character for that area, but made the point the garage building has already been constructed and parking and turning for both properties have both been achieved without any objection from the Highway Authority.

Members asked Mr Gowler the following questions:

·         Councillor Sutton referred to Mr Gowler mentioning three applications which are very similar to the one being considered and asked that in future could he either lobby the Planning Committee by email or provide a presentation to give the members of the committee sufficient time to consider the proposal and undertake further research. Mr Gowler agreed to the point made by Councillor Sutton.

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

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that he notes that Chatteris Town Council have not made any comment on the application and questioned whether any members of Chatteris Town Council have any comment to make.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she has visited the site, and, in her opinion, it is in a dreadful state. She added that she does not think it would be detrimental to the area and added that it should be approved as it will enhance the area.

·         Councillor Murphy questioned why there were no comments from the Town Council. David Rowen stated that at the time of writing the report there had been no comments received from them.

·         Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that she has reviewed the application online and it does state that Chatteris Town Council recommend the application is refused due to it being over development, however, when she looked online last week there were no comments from the Town Council.

·         Councillor Skoulding stated that he has noticed that the Highways Authority have no objections. He added that the site is located in Flood Zone 1 and the proposal would complete the site and enhance the area.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she has reviewed one of the applications that Mr Gowler had referred to, F/YR20/1114/F, and explained that, in her opinion, it is a very similar layout with the dwelling being in the middle of the plot with the annexe immediately behind it.

·         Councillor Connor stated that, in his opinion, the proposal will tidy the site up and he added that it is reassuring to hear the comments made by Councillor Mrs Davis with regard to another application with the annexe at the rear. He expressed the view that he will be supporting the application.

·         Councillor Purser stated that he does not think it is over development and the proposal will tidy up the area and for that reason he will support the application.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that, in his view, the space between the house and the garage annexe block is quite significant. He does not see it as over development, will tidy the area up and he has no issue with the application.

·         Nick Harding stated that he would like to apologise to the Committee and to Chatteris Town Council as they have commented on the application, and they have recommended that the application should be refused as in their view it is over development.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Skoulding and agreed that the application be APPROVED against the officer’s recommendation, with delegated authority given to officers to apply conditions.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact to the surrounding area, and does not constitute over development

(Councillors Connor and Mrs Davis declared that Mr Gowler the agent is known to both of them, but this would have no bearing on their determination of the application)

(Councillor Marks declared an interest in the application, by virtue of the fact that the applicant is known to him, and he took no part in the discussion of the item or voting thereon)

(Councillor Murphy registered 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 matters)