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 Tim Slater, the agent. Mr Slater expressed the view that the issues involved have been previously addressed and are well rehearsed. He explained that there are no technical or amenity objections to the proposal and the single reason for refusal relates to the officer’s interpretation of the strategic settlement hierarchy Policy LP3.

Mr Slater stated that both the application submission and indeed the officer’s report address this matter, and both also address the issue of the precedent of recent residential development established through the recent grant of permissions in the vicinity where there have been 7 plots approved in the vicinity since 2013 and most importantly for 4 dwellings approved immediately adjacent to the site since 2019. He added that it is the most recent approvals that are most relevant as they have been approved pursuant to the current Local Plan and more recent editions of the NPPF.

Mr Slater expressed the view that it is clear, having looked at the planning history in relation to development on the current application site, that the committee has consistently taken a different view to officers in respect to the interpretation of LP3 and the definition of an ‘elsewhere location’ and following the committee consideration of all of the recent developments on the adjacent sites the resultant decision notice notes that the committee in the consideration of the scheme concluded that the application site was not considered to be in an elsewhere location under the terms of LP3 and he added that with the committee taking this consistent position it is clear that the members consider that the principle of the development is in accordance with LP3. He added that the recent planning decisions by this committee in 2019, 2020 and 2021 have all been made under the currently adopted Local Plan having complete regard to the wording of and meaning of LP3 and he added that he would, therefore, request that in the interests of good planning and consistent decision making that the committee takes the same approach to the current application, and that planning permission is granted for the development.

Members asked Mr Slater the following questions:

·       Councillor Murphy asked whether the development is going to be a dwelling for a family member and Mr Slater confirmed that it is his understanding that it will be. Councillor Murphy stated that the dwelling will be in very close proximity to the adjacent dwelling which is why he asked the question.

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

·       Councillor Benney stated that he recalls other development in the vicinity from previous planning meetings and he explained that when taking into consideration of LP3 of the Local Plan, he has stated before that the Chatteris sign is a mile further out of the town where it says Fenland begins and Chatteris begins. He added that the committee has consistently passed the other bungalow in the vicinity of the proposal site and also the second bungalow which is the other side along with three dwellings which are directly opposite on the other side of the road. Councillor Benney expressed the view that the committee cannot be consistent and refuse the application as they do not think that it is an elsewhere location when on two previous occasions, he has stated in a committee meeting that it is not an elsewhere location. He expressed the opinion that the site is within Chatteris because it is within the boundary and to remain consistent he feels the application should be approved.

·       Councillor Topgood stated that he does not have an issue with the application, and Fenland is a rural area and people will have to use cars as there will never be cycleways and buses on people’s doorsteps so using a car is the only option.

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that he agrees with the comments made and he added that over the years approval has been given for development along London Road and as a committee there needs to be consistency. He expressed the opinion that it is not a large dwelling, and it fits in with the location and the current Local Plan does not seem to acknowledge that type of settlement and this application should be approved.

·       Councillor Murphy stated that he agrees with the comments made and also expressed the view that it is not an elsewhere location as it is in somebody’s front garden. He feels an elsewhere location is in the countryside and the application site is definitely not in the countryside as it is close to amenities, and he will support the proposal.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that officers have been consistent in their assessment with the elsewhere location status and he added that he agrees with them. He made the point that the committee has gone against officer’s recommendation in that area on three occasions and, therefore, the committee have now no choice other than to approve the application.

Proposed by Councillor Murphy, seconded by Councillor Benney and agreed that the application should be APPROVED against the officer’s recommendation with authority given to officers to apply suitable conditions.

Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they feel that the proposal site is not considered to be in an elsewhere location, the development is infill and in the proximity of services and facilities.

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