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 Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that there are no objections to the application and the applicant for the proposal runs the Willows Day Nursery in Station Road, Chatteris. He explained that currently residing on site along with the applicant are other members of the extended family and the current living conditions are split between the existing dwelling and the caravan that the applicant has been residing in since 2012.

Mr Hall stated that the annexe will allow the family to stay together on site within the same curtilage and made the point that the existing building has suffered from three break ins resulting in loss of goods. He explained that the annexe has been positioned in the location of the existing brick storage building of 144 square metres which is to be demolished and the proposed annexe plan area is smaller measuring 130 square metres.

Mr Hall explained that the reason that the proposal is one and half storeys high is that, following discussions with the Environment Agency, they have requested that the bedrooms should be placed at first floor level. He added that they have also asked that the ground floor level should be raised above the ground to provide sufficient mitigation.

Mr Hall referred to the officer’s site plan and pointed out the dwelling Orchard House comprises two dwellings and explained that the building directly to the north of the site was approved for an annexe in 2019 by the Planning Committee, which is also within Flood Zone 3.  He pointed out the similarities of the annexe and the current proposal and stated that it is his understanding that there was no consultation with the Environment Agency for this application.

Mr Hall referred to the Planning Committee which took place in February when an annexe at Curf Terrace was approved by members against the officer’s recommendation, which is similar to the proposal before members today and he asked members to support the application.

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

·         Councillor Benney stated that he is familiar with the site, and he knows the area well. He added that the photographs shown depict the open countryside, which is picturesque, however, by turning 180 degrees some of the established local businesses can be seen and, therefore, in his opinion, it cannot be classed as open countryside. Councillor Benney expressed the view that the site would have housed two fen cottages years ago and the adjacent dwelling has an annexe which is similar to the proposal, albeit the proposed dwelling has a smaller footprint. He added it will provide a good family home for the extended family to be able to reside together and he stated that there are only two dwellings plus an office at the bottom of the road and the proposal is on the outskirts of the town centre. Councillor Benney stated that he cannot recall any brownfield sites remaining in Chatteris and, therefore, in order to see the town of Chatteris to grow, development will need to take place on the outskirts of the town. He expressed the view that the proposal is a sensible option for the family to live in and he will be supporting the application.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to the agent stating that the family had been living in the caravan for ten years. She expressed the view that the dwelling adjacent to the proposal looks very nice and to raise a family in a caravan, unless you are a traveller, must be very difficult. Councillor Mrs French expressed the opinion that the building already on site is an eyesore and the proposed dwelling being reduced from 144 square metres to 130 square metres will fit nicely on the site and she will support the application.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that the key issue is whether the proposal is an annexe or a standalone dwelling as he has always regarded an annexe as something for someone’s parents. He expressed the view that if it is determined that it is an annexe then he could consider supporting the proposal, however, if it is decided that it is a standalone dwelling then he maybe more reluctant to support the proposal.

·         Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that she agrees with the comments made by Councillor Sutton and expressed the view that she does not see the proposal as an annexe and the application should have been submitted as a separate dwelling.

·         Councillor Benney expressed the view that whether it is an annexe or a separate dwelling it has been submitted as an application for an annexe and currently there are people residing in a caravan in Flood Zone 3. He added that the committee approved an application against the officer’s recommendation previously, as members felt it was unsafe for people to be living in a caravan in Flood Zone 3 and with the flood risk mitigation measures in place it will make it safer for the residents to live in. Councillor Benney expressed the view that he cannot see any evidence from the officer’s report to state that it is a separate dwelling, it has been presented to him as an annexe and that is what he will base his decision on.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that the proposal has the appearance and the definition of a separate dwelling and whilst the application is for an annexe in the future that could change, and it could be sold off as a separate premise. He expressed the view that he agrees with the comments of Councillors Mrs Mayor and Sutton, he is not convinced it is an annexe, it is a separate dwelling that can be used as an annexe.

·         Councillor Marks explained that in Manea, where he resides, there are many properties which were originally workplace homes and now numerous properties have been changed to annexes. He added that homes for young people are needed as many are struggling to get onto the property ladder and the proposal before the committee is a solution for the applicant’s family.

·         Councillor Murphy expressed the view that the proposal is not an annexe, it is a building on its own. He added that it is in Flood Zone 3, does not fit the sequential test and is down an unadopted road. Councillor Murphy stated that the site is remote and there are more appropriate town centre locations for people to reside. He expressed the opinion that officers have made the correct recommendation.

·         Councillor Benney referred to an application on Womb Farm which was approved by the committee previously and that the side of the Womb Farm development that comes out onto the bypass is connected via a footpath from the development to the town centre of Chatteris and he questioned whether that application’s connectivity is any worse than the proposal before the committee now.

·         David Rowen stated that the application has been submitted as an annexe but that does not mean it has to be considered as an annexe and the application should be looked at on what the application proposes as a development and in the officer’s report it states that the proposal has all the elements to make it a separate dwelling. He drew members attention to the reasons for refusal as set out in the officer’s report which state that the proposal would result in the construction of a self-contained residential unit and separate curtilage, the form and character is not in keeping, the proposal is a stand-alone dwelling and it needs to be considered in terms of the sequential test and flood risk. David Rowen made reference to the point Mr Hall had made with regard to the annexe which had received planning permission to the south at Orchard House and drew members attention to the description of that application which was for the erection of a detached garage with garden office and conversion of a detached garage/store to a one bed annexe with store above to include installation of an external staircase. He added that the Orchard House application is a one bed annexe and is of the scale and accommodation which would be expected as an annexe as opposed to a three bedroomed house which is what the current application proposes. David Rowen added that the Orchard House application was almost totally within the existing curtilage of that property whereas the current application has had a separate curtilage created. He stated that the distinct differences are that the Orchard House seems to be an annexe and the application before members is a self-contained three bedroomed dwelling.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked whether the caravan where the family have been living in for many years had planning permission to be on the site. David Rowen stated that he was not aware of a separate planning application for the caravan, but it maybe that it was sited in the existing domestic curtilage and may not need planning permission. He added that as Mr Hall had indicated that it had been occupied as a separate living unit, it maybe something for the enforcement team to look into. Councillor Mrs French stated that after 10 years she did not think that permission would now be required.

·         Councillor Sutton asked the Legal Officer for clarity over what is classed as an annexe and what is not. The Legal Officer stated in reality whether something would be considered as an annexe or a separate dwelling house would depend on the particular application and that has been set out by David Rowen and is within the officer’s report. The Legal Officer expressed the opinion that from the officer’s report and from the plan it does appear to look more like a separate dwelling rather than an annexe.

·         Councillor Connor stated that the applicant has been on site for many years and added that the application is for an annexe and that is what members need to make their determination on.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Mayor, seconded by Councillor Miscandlon that the application be REFUSED as per officer’s recommendation.  This was not supported on a majority vote by members.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be APPROVED against the officer’s recommendation, with it be delegated to officers to apply appropriate conditions including the stipulation that the annexe cannot be sold off separately from the main dwelling.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the health and wellbeing of the residents will be improved, it will enhance the environment, it is not detrimental to the character of the area and does not have any impact on the neighbours.

(Councillors Benney andMurphy registered,in accordancewith Paragraph14 ofthe Codeof Conducton Planning Matters, that they are members of Chatteris Town Council, but take no part in planningmatters)