Agenda item

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Gowler of Chatteris Town Council. Councillor Gowler stated that Chatteris Town Council support this application as this piece of land just off the Town Centre has been an eyesore for many years, with the proposal providing two good quality houses, a flat and garages in a prime location in town. He stated that the Town Council did not consider this proposal to be overdevelopment, which they feel is a subjective opinion.

Councillor Gowler expressed his surprise that parking is being taken into consideration within a Town Centre location when in many cases, despite concerns raised by the Town Council, little to no consideration is made with other applications including the very recent acceptance of an application on the former Baptist Chapel in West Park Street to convert it into flats with little to no provision being made for the many vehicles that will inevitably result from it. He asked members to take these observations into account when making their decision on the application.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Lee Bevens, the agent, and Darren Smith, the applicant. Mr Bevens stated that he has been working on this site now for 8 years with different proposals for the site from various clients but no application to date has been implemented for good reason. He expressed the view that the main reason is due to the associated costs with getting a scheme that is financially viable to implement as not only are there associated costs with the former barn on site and regular anti-social behaviour until the site was more recently secured, but also additional costs associated with archaeology and contamination both of which have yet to be carried out as well as escalating costs of materials and labour.

Mr Bevens made the point that there is extant consent for a 4-bedroomed detached dwelling with detached garage on the site, but, in his view, this is the wrong site for this type of property in the centre of town where you would expect smaller properties and goes against National Planning Policies including the NPPF in not making the best use of land. He expressed the opinion that this application makes the best use of the site and is not overdevelopment as it makes best use of the land available and will make this eyesore of a site attractive to live at, offer a good variety of housing types, provide passive surveillance to both King Edward Road and the car parks at the Conservative Club and the George Hotel and an overall positive contribution to the town.

Mr Bevens expressed the view that the proposed development will make a positive impact on the character of the area both visually, economically and sustainably being in the centre of town with access to public transport and local shops and amenities. He referred to officers suggesting that there are additional impacts on surrounding heritage assets over and above the extant scheme, but he feels there are no heritage assets affected by the proposal either by overlooking or visual impact, with 12 and 14 High Street being completely out of view and Chatteris House being largely obscured by Bramley Cottage and Spectacular Opticians and made the point that the Conservation Officer has made no objections to the scheme or raised concerns against heritage assets.

Mr Bevens referred to officers stating that there is inadequate parking provision but made the point that there are 5 parking spaces provided on site, which he feels is more than sufficient for this type of development and more than some recently approved schemes such as the Baptist Church and South Park Street which are further away from local amenities and public transport. He stated that his client could have challenged the parking provision but felt it was better for the residents and locals if parking was secured on site and a diagram was provided which showed that there was sufficient manoeuvrability on site for the proposed parking as tracking diagrams offer little flexibility for irregular shaped sites such as this.

Mr Bevens stated that the vast majority of comments online and from locals have been positive about the proposal, including the Town Council, and it will see low-cost housing delivered into the centre of Town which will support the local economy and meet the aspirations of local people looking to get onto the property ladder. He does not agree that the proposed scheme is contrary to any Local Plan, NPPF or National Design Guide policies but in fact embraces them and asked members to reject the officer’s recommendation and approve the scheme.

Mr Smith stated that his grandfather, Percy Smith, and his father, Trevor Smith, ran a building company Percy Smith (Chatteris) Ltd for over 40 years building maintaining houses, schools and Council buildings in Chatteris and the surrounding areas but he did not join the family business when he left school much to their disappointment. He expressed the opinion that, 30 years on after building up his own company, Agrimech Ltd, he now has the opportunity to do them proud by building quality homes in his home town to help local people remain within Chatteris.

Mr Smith stated that he is also moving his company from West Norfolk into Cambridgeshire.

Members asked questions of Mr Bevens as follows:

·       Councillor Sutton referred to their being zinc surround on the bay windows and asked what a zinc surround is? Mr Bevens responded that it is adding a slightly contemporary detail and visual interest to the houses, with it being a form of cladding to those bay windows, with zinc being a sustainable material and long lasting.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs Davis asked for confirmation that the amenity space for the flat and the two houses meets the requirements? Nikki Carter responded that the amenity space for the houses does meet the requirements albeit in an awkward configuration due to the design but there is no set amenity space for the flat, however, without a garage serving that plot it has no internal storage it just has a small external amenity area.

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

·       Councillor Murphy stated that he does know this site and lived 30 yards away from it for over 60 years. He feels the request for an archaeological dig is ridiculous and unnecessary as it puts the costs up and makes the site unviable to develop and is why various sites across Chatteris remain undeveloped. Councillor Murphy stated that personally he would have preferred to see 2 dwellings on this site and made the point that the previous owner when he put in an application had an argument with the officer because he wanted the gardens at the front and the 2 properties at the back but everything along that road is frontage so officers wanted it the other way around and the previous owner would not accept this so it never got developed. He expressed the view that 3 is slightly too many and made the point that ‘buyer beware’ as if you buy a property like this you know exactly what is next to it, which is car parks essentially, but people do buy and live in these places. Councillor Murphy stated that whilst he has reservations he is erring on the side of approval as it is a Town Centre location.

·       Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that it is a bit crammed but her issue is parking as the Council is trying to introduce Civil Parking Enforcement and it is all very well saying you do not need parking in a town centre location but it is going to get to a stage where all town centres are not going to have enough car parking with Fenland having free car parking across the district and will continue to do so unless the Government make local authorities provide paid parking but there is a limit on what the Council can afford to maintain as car parks and it is not the Council’s statutory duty to supply free car parking for people who build in and around the town centre. She stated she is concerned about overdevelopment and is not sure she is able to support the application.

·       Councillor Topgood stated that he is torn between two choices on this proposal as whilst he would like to see lots more new houses built as there is the need he does think this does constitute too many on the plot, with 2 being preferable.

·       Councillor Sutton agrees that the plot would suit 2 much better than 3, which seems to be the general consensus. He does not like the design of the rear gardens and if there were 2 properties the gardens would be better designed with plenty of parking and on balance thinks it is overdevelopment and he does not like the relationship between one of the dwellings close to the car park of the Conservative Club.

·       Nick Harding stated that the concerns with this scheme can be narrowed down to the relationship of the plots on the front to those opposite, so the impact on its neighbour not the other way round so the ‘buyer beware’ issue does not quite apply in this instance and also in relation to the car parking the point made by the Case Officer is the internal sides of the car parking garages is below the standard that is required so what is the point of providing a car parking space if you cannot park a car in it.

·       Nikki Carter added that also in respect of the car parking the agent did provide a plan that indicated allocated spaces for each plot but there is no guarantee that this would be adhered to and with more cars parked within that parking area there is a concern that you are unable to manoeuvre within the area or turn to get out of the narrow pinch point of the access successfully.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Mrs Mayor and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Benney declared that the applicant is known to him and retired from the meeting for the duration of the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillor Marks declared that the applicant is known to him through his role as a company director and retired from the meeting for the duration of the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillors Murphy declared, under Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a member of Chatteris Town Council, but take no part in Planning Matters)