Agenda item

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter presented the report to members and drew members attention to the update that had been circulated.

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 Alan Gowler of Chatteris Town Council. Councillor Gowler stated that he spoke on the application previously when it came before the committee in July and the view of the Town Council is still that the piece of land is derelict and suffering from anti-social behaviour, with the applicant clearing a number of hypodermic needles from the site. He added that the Town Council welcome the development of the piece of land and whilst it appears that the detail of the application has still to receive a recommendation of approval from officers, he expressed the view that he fails to understand particularly the concerns in relation to parking, when the proposal does offer parking and there are other places in the town of Chatteris which do not offer parking and therefore the proposal should be seen as a bonus rather than a detriment.

Councillor Gowler stated that the Town Council want to see the land developed and feel that the proposal is in keeping with the local area. He added that there are some very dilapidated buildings around it which could also be refurbished and, in his view, it is unfair to compare them to a new property which would provide welcome accommodation to the people of the town.

Members asked Councillor Gowler the following questions:

·         Councillor Sutton stated that members spend time reviewing applications and he also looks at the comments and opinions made by the Town and Parish Councils and where possible he always tries to support them within the realms of what it permissible. He made the point that when reviewing the previous applications on the site, application F/YR16/1138/O was for 2 dwellings, which was not supported by the Town Council, however, it appears to be supporting the current proposal which is for three dwellings and he finds it difficult to be able to relate to the comments made by the Town Council in this case. Councillor Gowler stated that he can only make comments on the two applications he has seen since he became a Councillor in 2019 which is the current proposal and the one earlier on in the year which was for two dwellings and was supported by the Town Council.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Darren Smith, the applicant. Mr Smith stated that the proposal site is a complicated piece of land which has three sides but four neighbours. He added that there are two covenants on the land to the east which he owns but has a right of way for vehicular and pedestrian access to 1 King Edward Road shed and 14 High Street land which cannot be built on without ownership of the land, as this in part is now impossible in part as the owner of 1 King Edward Road does not wish to sell and whilst 14 High Street is willing to sell its piece of land it would add to the costs of construction so it is not currently viable.

Mr Smith explained that the land has historical contamination due to the fact that it was previously a blacksmiths yard and now the modern-day contamination of the hypodermic needles and he explained that the top layer of soil will need to be removed at a depth of 1 foot for the safety of construction workers as over 70 needles have been removed so far. He stated that the existing building on the site has been demolished and a fence erected to stop the anti-social behaviour from continuing.

Mr Smith stated that the orange area which was shown on the presentation screen will be retained in order that all four neighbours will have access to maintain and repair fences and walls without the new owners of the properties being affected by the historic confusion. He explained that he has undertaken some investigation research into the planning history on the site dating back to 1998 and after reviewing the applications which have been submitted it shows that the proposals cannot be built because of covenants, the land not being owned or by the time that they come to the planning stage the cost implications make it not viable and he is now the third owner of the site who is also experiencing the same obstacles.

Mr Smith stated that there is the option of building a smaller number of units but that is not financially viable which appears to have been the case for the past 34 years otherwise it would not still remain as a piece of land. He explained that he asked his architect to replicate an application that in 2006 was approved but as it was on land with a covenant which was not owned by the previous applicant and, therefore, inaccessible, the development never took place.

Mr Smith explained that he tried to use the covenanted land as a driveway allowing access to 1 King Edward Road and 14 High Street which would not break the covenant, however, this was refused. He stated that in 2006 an application was passed but was impossible to build and in 2022, the same application was submitted but the opposite way around and was also refused, therefore, it appears that like the previous owners, the situation finds him going round in circles.

Mr Smith stated that he does not wish to keep going up against Planning Officers every time an application is submitted to try and build on this massively complicated site with covenants and restrictions. He questioned whether the site will remain undeveloped with the possibility of it being sold on again or will the committee support the proposal and approve the site to be built on which has for the last 34 years been a blot on the landscape for Chatteris being used for anti-social behaviour.

Mr Smith asked the committee to support the proposal for three good quality affordable homes in the town of Chatteris.

Members asked Mr Smith the following questions:

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that in 2019 permission was granted for one dwelling on the site and he questioned why this was not developed? Mr Smith stated that the cost of the removal of the historic contamination will cost £40,000 to take the top layer of earth at a depth of a foot away from the site and have it placed into landfill. Councillor Miscandlon made the point that contaminated land would need to be removed regardless of the number of dwellings being built. Mr Smith stated that a four bedroomed dwelling is being built in the middle of a town with a public house to the back and another to the side of it, there will not be enough money gained to actually make it financially viable and this is the reoccurring issue that is happening with the site.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked whether archaeological works have been undertaken following the recommendation from the County Council? Mr Smith stated that due to the unsafe nature of the site, until the contaminated earth has been removed, no archaeological works can be considered.

·         Councillor Connor asked Mr Smith whether he has worked with the Planning Officers to try and find a proposal which will be suited to the site since the previous application was refused in July. Mr Smith stated that he has worked with officers and the advice that they have provided, but the issue is down to economics and whilst he can adhere to some of the rules when it comes to carrying them out, economically it does not happen. He added that his last application included trying to make use of a covenanted piece of land and if the entry point is from the east, he is unable to build and if he enters from the west where he is not allowed to build, he could use that as a driveway, but the access was not deemed as acceptable. Mr Smith stated he has made efforts to make the most of the piece of land but there are then obstacles as the proposal does not accord with planning regulations or the proposal is not deemed as financially viable. He made the point that it was the planning officer who had advised him to look back at the planning history on the site which he is now aware goes back many years. Mr Smith explained that every time he considers a proposal it is costing in the region of £3,000 to £4,000 and to date it has cost him £12,000 without doing any works. He made the point that those costs do not include the costs that he has also incurred for securing the site, demolition and clearing the site. Mr Smith reiterated that it is down to economics as well as planning and this is why the site has never been developed because the two elements are never going to meet.

·         Councillor Murphy asked Mr Smith whether he was aware of the covenants and other restrictions on the piece of land when he purchased it? Mr Smith stated that he knew that there was a covenant on the front piece of land because it was not included in the sale originally. He added that he was given the extra pieces of land to add to it and the intention was to try to make more of it. Mr Smith explained that 1 King Edward Road was up for sale, but unfortunately, he missed out on the purchase of it and he contacted the owner of 14 High Street and arranged to purchase the piece of land from them. He added that he was aware of the issues in the beginning, but the aim was to try to overcome them and to purchase the extra pieces of land to clear the site in a way to make it possible.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that he acknowledges the land ownership and covenant issues that are present and that the officers are stating that due to the restrictions the whole of the frontage is having to be used for parking and he asked whether any consideration has been given to the current design and to possibly consider a maisonette type approach, so that the parking actually becomes integrated into the actual design of the building and in that way the footprint of the plan would remain and he questioned whether any thought has been given to the problems that the planning officers have identified relating to parking? Mr Smith stated that he has looked at various different types of proposals to overcome the covenant issues and planning hurdles in order to satisfy the various requirements and at the end of the day to make money. He added that if a proposal fits the land then planning permission can be approved but then the costs become prohibitive. Mr Smith explained that there have been two housing booms which have taken place during the planning history and he asked the committee to assist him in finding a solution which is achievable and financially viable.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that the most important question is whether there is anyway the officers can work with the applicant to make the site viable and accommodate two dwellings? She added that she is not happy with three dwellings as the Town Council were not previously in support of two dwellings so she cannot see how they would be agreeable to three. Nick Harding stated that the committee are obliged to consider the application that is in front of them. He added that if there are three dwellings on the front, and taking into consideration the covenant restraints that have been referred to by the applicant, in his view, he cannot see how a scheme can be achieved that delivers three dwellings and resolves the concerns of the officers and the appeal Inspector who had previously considered the scheme for two positioned in the same place broadly speaking on the site. Councillor Mrs French stated that it was dismissed at appeal for two dwellings, and she understands the point that he makes, and she also agrees with the point made by Councillor Sutton as to how the Town Council can recommend approval of three dwellings when two were dismissed.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that in King Edward Road there are double yellow lines all the way down it to prevent parking and at a recent event he attended at the King Edward Centre, the road was full of parked cars and although there are yellow lines, there did not appear to be any restrictions and he questioned whether this has been taken into consideration as the Highway Authority have highlighted this and it is one of the reasons for refusal. David Rowen stated that in terms of parking enforcement and restrictions that is a separate matter. He added that one of the reasons for refusal that is recommended to members provides detail about the lack of parking provision on site and the main concern officers have is that if people cannot park on the site then they are going to be parking on the road and potentially contributing to the sort of problems that Councillor Miscandlon alluded to.

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

·         Councillor Sutton stated that members are not here to be concerned about the cost of building and the committee are brought together to determine whether applications are suitable and are for the right use of the land. He added that this is one of the best planning departments that looks and works with applicants and agents wherever possible to bring acceptable schemes forward. Councillor Sutton expressed the opinion that he cannot support three dwellings on this proposal site and, in his view, two dwellings is not acceptable either. He added that the extant permission for development expired in October 2022 and had the proposal been built out when it received permission, the way that house prices have increased would easily have covered any extra costs and expenses incurred for the groundworks. Councillor Sutton stated that he appreciates the points stated by the applicant, but he cannot support a proposal which, in his view, is wrong and does not fit in and is way out of keeping. He added that the single dwelling in his opinion looked good, and the site is suited to a single dwelling.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that she supports the points made by Councillor Sutton with regards to the single dwelling and had it been built out it would more than likely have earned back the money from the investment. She added that it is a single dwelling site, and the proposal is trying to fit too much onto the site. Councillor Mrs Davis stated that both speakers had made it clear that the site was contaminated with needles and syringes, however, it is not the role of the planning committee to break planning guidelines to solve anti-social behaviour and she cannot support the proposal.

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

(Councillor Murphy declared, under Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a members of Chatteris Town Council but takes no part in planning matters)