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 Tim Slater, on behalf of the applicant. Mr Slater stated that members will note from the report that there are no technical or amenity objections to the proposal and the key reason for refusal relates to the officer’s interpretation of the strategic settlement hierarchy, Policy LP3. He expressed the opinion that both the application submission and the officer’s report address this matter and the issue of the precedent of residential development is established through the recent grant of permissions in the vicinity, with there being 8 plots approved in the vicinity since 2013 and 5 dwellings approved immediately adjacent to the site since 2019.

Mr Slater expressed the view 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 and he feels it is clear, looking at the planning history, in relation to development around 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. He referred to the committee’s consideration of all of the recent developments on the adjacent sites and the resultant decision notices notes that “the committee in their consideration of the scheme concluded that the application site was not considered to be an elsewhere location under the terms of policy LP3”.

Mr Slater referred to a decision at the March 2023 committee where “Members feel that the proposal complies with LP3 as the site does lie within Chatteris” and feels that with committee taking this consistent position it is clear that members consider that the principle of development in accordance with LP3 is established in this location. He expressed the view that the recent planning decisions by this committee in 2019, 2020, 2021 2022 and 2023 have all been made under the currently adopted Local Plan having complete regard to the wording of and meaning of LP3.

Mr Slater expressed the opinion that in relation to refusal reason 2 it is reiterated that the application is made in Outline with all matters reserved and it is not accepted that the proposal would cause significant harm to the local countryside as the site will be seen as part of the cluster of developments in and around the junction of London Road and Stocking Drove, with the ability of the Local Planning Authority to consider layout, design and landscaping in the Reserved Matters submission providing them with control in terms of appearance and visual impact. He stated that the application referred to the proposal being possibly for workplace homes as these have been successful forms of economic development within Fenland and it is noted that the emerging Local Plan in Policy LP15 makes reference to “support the growth of small and micro businesses, encourage business start-ups and promote an entrepreneurial culture”.

Mr Slater stated that it is likely that the properties will be self-build properties and this gives the opportunity for bespoke dwellings and workplaces to meet individual needs and of the highest quality to be built. He requested in the interests of good planning and consistent decision making that the committee takes the same approach to the current application as to previous applications and that planning permission is granted.

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

·       Councillor Benney stated that this site falls within his ward, he knows the area well and LP3 and the issue of elsewhere location has been discussed on every other application that committee has approved in very close proximity to this one. He stated the Chatteris and Welcome to Fenland sign are at the bottom of Ferry Hill, which is further out of town and there is development in the area, with the committee passing two adjacent to this site and three on London Road opposite the junction and earlier this year a single bungalow was passed which is more or less opposite this site on the opposite side of the road. Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that members need to be consistent in its approach and it has been covered that the committee does not think this is an elsewhere location and he feels there is a difference of interpretation between officers and members but the committee has to be consistent. He referred to the mention of workplace homes and feels there a need, referring to the workplace homes at George and Albert Way in Chatteris which were snapped up and there are businesses running from these properties and he sees no reason why this would not happen here. Councillor Benney stated that he looks at this as a local councillors, he interprets the policy differently, does not accept the refusal reason of LP12A and there is a need for workplace homes.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she does agree with the comments of Councillor Benney in part but her understanding is there is no policy for workplace homes, it was scrapped in 2009 due to the shambles that occurred at Manea.

·       Nick Harding highlighted the statement made by David Rowen that explained the differences between this site and the locations where committee have previously approved development in this location contrary to officer’s recommendation, which is key to the determination of policy. He referred to the agent mentioning that this would be a self-build proposal, that was not what was identified in the application form so if the applicant is now saying that this is a self-build development then that would have to be taken into consideration, ie a Section 106 Agreement would be required in order to secure the units as being self-build. Nick Harding expressed the view on the issue of work units that he would guard against putting any conditions in relation to controlling this as the chances of enforcement are generally quite slim.

·       David Rowen stated that whilst Councillor Benney is correct in that there has been a precedent set by the committee over whether this is an elsewhere location or not and members may accept that it is part of Chatteris and, therefore, complies with LP3 there is still a character issue here. He feel from looking at the photos on the screen the site is clearly just open Fen countryside and the application site would take up part of a open field, there are no natural boundaries and the sites that have been granted elsewhere on London Road have generally filled in gaps between existing properties or been within the confines of existing properties there has been no encroachment out into the countryside whereas here there are 6 dwellings on a site of 120 metre length extending out into the countryside with a clear character impact as a consequence.

·       Nick Harding asked if clarification could be obtained from the agent as to whether or not this is a self-build planning application or a market housing application as this is important in terms of any resolution the committee may make. Mr Slater responded that they are not specifically self-built plots but would be individual plots sold as bespoke units.

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

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the location is not an elsewhere location under the terms of Policy LP3 and they do not consider under Policy LP12A that it would not be harmful to the existing character and appearance of the countryside.

Councillor Mrs French stated that she would be concerned about a condition regarding workplace homes be placed on the approval. Nick Harding stated that this is noted.

(Councillor Marks registered that the applicant is known to him via business and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon. Councillor Mrs Davis chaired this item)

(Councillor Benney declared, 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)