Agenda item

To determine the application.

Alan Davies presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Duncan and Sarah Worsley, the applicants. Mrs Worsley stated that the applications are similar to previous applications which have been made in 2024 which were due to come before the committee, however, due to some confusion the 2024 applications were declined in March 2025. She explained that in July 2024 she met with Sam Falco, the Conservation Officer, with the principles of the extension being discussed as well as reviewing the historic fabric of the house and various options were discussed with an extension on the left-hand side being discarded due to the requirements to leave a one metre gap between the neighbour’s extension and a lack of natural light in that area.

Mrs Worsley explained that at that time everyone’s preferred option is what has formed the application and is on the right-hand side of the house, with the current applications including more historic fabric being retained such as keeping the existing door in its current location and a smaller opening created into the new kitchen area. She explained that there are no local objections to the scheme from people who live close to the proposed extension and alterations and Chatteris Town Council have not objected to the proposal.

Mrs Worsley referred to the presentation screen which shows the scullery, and she added that the Conservation Officer report of 25 April 2025 states that the room has not had a 20^th century makeover yet. She explained that the ground floor shower room was approved by the Council and two thirds of the space was converted into a ground floor shower room back into 2016 and the work was completed, with the remains of the scullery no longer being fit for purpose, it is a damp dark space accessed via the shower room and it is not currently being used to the full benefit of the house due to its distance from the current kitchen.

Mrs Worsley explained that it has a modern portioned wall which splits the existing sash window and the window into the scullery bathroom cannot open. She explained that the next slide outlines the front elevation and that the extension will not be seen from the street and the rear elevation which demonstrates a mismatch of materials containing a mixture of brickwork, plastic casement windows and a poorly constructed conservatory and all of these aspects will be significantly improved by the proposed extension with the brickwork being repaired, windows replaced with in keeping sash timber windows and the conservatory will be removed.

Mrs Worsley explained that the next slide shows the proximity of the neighbours extension at 9 West Park Street which was approved in May 2022. She made the point that with the position of existing services and making better use of the existing floor plan, the proposed extension works appear to work better on the right-hand side of the rear elevation.

Mrs Worsley explained that the next slide depicts a street sketch view which shows how the proposed extension will be viewed when walking south along West Park Street and, in her opinion, with existing fencing and vegetation to the front of 5 West Park Street the impact will be minimal, and views of the rear garage block and the old dove cote will still be maintained. She made the point that the proposed extension will be flat roofed and the existing stained-glass window at the stair landing will be retained.

Mrs Worsley explained that a simple coping stone to the parapet will run around the extension and will offer a sympathetic detail and with brickwork chosen to match the existing brickwork on the main dwelling. She explained that a sympathetic roof lantern will provide additional light into the new space, and the proposed extension and alterations will be sympathetic to the house and will improve the existing dwelling which will provide accommodation fit for a modern family and offer a positive addition to the Listed Building which will be of public benefit when viewed from West Park Stret.

Mrs Worsley made reference to section 10 of the officer’s report where it states that the single storey extension would result in lesser substantial harm to the significance of the Listed Building and its setting, adding that there is a small section of the existing fabric which is being removed, however, in her view, that must be viewed against the wider benefit of adapting the house to modern living standards. She stated that she does not believe that this has a significant detrimental impact on the Listed Building and asking members to consider the benefits of the scheme along with the largely supporting nature of the Planning Officer’s comments and go against the Conservation Officer’s recommendations, with the scheme beings a sustainable development and according with the development plan as a whole.

Members asked Mr and Mrs Worsley the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks stated that Mrs Worsley had referred to ‘everyone’ being in agreement and  asked whether that included the Conservation Officer? Mr Worsley stated that it did. Councillor Marks asked why they think that the Conservation Officer has now changed their mind? Mr Worsley stated that he believes that the next-door neighbours’ extension is somewhat out of keeping and he believes that the Conservation Officer wants them to hide it and that is the only reason that they can think of which would make the officer change his mind.

·         Councillor Marks asked what the plans are for the scullery and will it be removed or are there plans to reuse it? Mr Worsley explained that the floor in the shower room is above the scullery floor and the floor will be kept and the scullery will be turned into a kitchen. He added that they had proposed to have a drop down to the kitchen to keep it, but the proposal now is to use the brick that will be removed. Mr Worsley stated that it will be fixed as best as it can be and the modern PVC windows will be taken out and replaced with wooden sash windows and, therefore, that side of the house would be restored whilst perhaps doing a small bit of damage to the other side.

·         Councillor Benney stated that some people purchase Listed Buildings without knowing what type of property they are taking on and there are other people who purchase Listed Buildings because they like that type of property and they are aware of the additional excessive costs which are associated with that type of property. He added that residents who own Listed Buildings appreciate the value of having a Listed Building or a building with historic value to it, with the applicants changing the brickwork and recycling the brickwork which is being removed. Councillor Benney asked Mr and Mrs Worsley whether they have owned a Listed Building before, and did they realise what they were purchasing or was it purchased as a project with a view to reinvigorate the house when it was purchased? Mr Worsley explained that it is the first Listed Building which they have owned and initially it was not the plan to buy it to add an extension onto it. He made the point that they fell in love with the property, and they like the area which is why they moved and then they considered what they wanted to do with the property by involving their agents who instructed an architect. Mr Worsley explained that they then engaged with the Conservation Officer to gain an understanding of what would be deemed acceptable, and they decided that they would only undertake what works they were allowed to do. He stated that the conservatory is ugly, and they want to have it removed and they wish to keep as much character of the dwelling as possible including the fixing of the scarring and replacement of the windows. Mr Worsley explained that he is looking to restore as much as they can and the scullery is a downstairs bathroom at the moment which is not required as they already have two bathrooms upstairs at the moment and it was added before for an elderly lady who could no longer use the stairs. He stated that consideration has been given with regards to what could be done with that room as it is only usable as it is at the current time as a bathroom and, therefore, they have decided that it could be used as a larger dining area and kitchen and build an extension out. Mr Worsley added that there was never the intention to rip a Listed Building down and the plan was to restore it as best as possible and try to make use of it as a modern family, especially when nobody has a useable scullery anymore. Mrs Worsley stated that it is their first Listed Building, but they have owned old properties before and have undertaken painting before but not large extensions. She added that they love their home but just want to make it more usable and the current kitchen will be changed into a utility room, with it currently being a very dark kitchen requiring the lights to be on most of the time. Mrs Worsley stated that to build a bigger darker extension there was discussed with the architect and the Conservation Officer but it was seen to be impractical by extending an already dark room into an even darker room.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough asked for confirmation that as applicants they have undertaken the right course of action and have sought advice as well as having a site visit with the Conservation Officer before receiving an officer recommendation of refusal. Mr Worsley stated that is correct and clarified that the officer recommendation was for refusal and was due to come to planning committee, however, it was his understanding that the Chairman wished to undertake a site visit but was unable to do so and because of that the application went to default refusal which cannot be undone and he added that as a result the application has had to be resubmitted.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to the officer’s report where it refers to Government planning guarantee, and asked officers to explain what that statement means? She added that she would also like an explanation with regards to the application being refused on the 12 March 2025, however, a period has lapsed, and the application is back before the committee. David Rowen explained that the Government planning guarantee now appears on the majority of committee reports as a response to the issues of 12 months ago and the proximity of designation that the Council was facing in terms of performance on planning applications. He added that with regards to applications that come before the committee that are either due to expire or where the Council are due to give the fee back, the statement is provided for information purposes for members. He stated that with regards to the previous applications which were refused back in March, they were determined entirely in accordance with the scheme of delegation at the time, with one being determined as a straightforward delegated decision and the other was referred to the Chairman and then ultimately determined through the correct paths. David Rowen explained that in terms of the applications coming to committee there was never a guarantee of that happening and they were determined entirely in accordance with the scheme of delegation. He added that now the applications have been returned within a number of weeks and one of the changes is that there are now six letters of support which triggers the applications coming to the planning committee under the scheme of delegation.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that if officers refused the applications that should have been the end of the matter, and she questioned why the applications have come back to the committee ten weeks later. David Rowen stated that a further applications have been submitted, and it has been progressed and due to the scheme of delegation and the fact that there are six letters of support it has to be determined in front of the committee.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she finds that explanation quite surprising, making the point that the first application determined this afternoon took 5 years to come before the committee due to the significant amount of information involved and questioned how an application can be submitted for the exact same thing and be brought before the committee within such a brief period, having been refused on 12 March. David Rowen stated that the in theory the application is a house extension which as members are aware officers have 8 weeks to determine and the application which took 5 years was an application for sixteen dwellings with a number of technical issues and there is no comparison.

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

·         Councillor Benney stated that has been in the yard of the property previously as he knew somebody who used to own it, with front in the Conservation Area being a lovely building, and worthy of conservation and keeping in good order, however, the back of the property is, in his view, a mess. He made the point that the applicants wish to remove the conservatory and replace it with a modern room and in doing so they will reuse the bricks to change the awful bricks which have been used and he assumes that they will use lime and plaster so that it all fits back in and if it is done nicely that is how conservation should be done. Councillor Benney stated that it is going to change the property from the street scene but it is at the back of the house and although it can be seen it is a very minor part and there is nothing to say that it is not going to enhance the street scene. He added that it is dependent on whether it is seen as a positive change, referring to the presentation screen and expressing the view that he can see nothing wrong with the proposal. Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that the building does have protection and does have historic use to it but people do need to reside here and when considering public benefit there are two members of the public who live there and they should be able to have a modern house within a Listed Building, with this being a case of where conservation and a modern building go hand in hand. He stated that you read architecture, with the old building being at the front and you read the back of that building and in 50 years’ time you should not be able to tell from the style of the architecture when the changes were undertaken. Councillor Benney referred to a building in Doddington where there is an old building with a contemporary part on the back and that is a lovely building as it the house before the committee. He added that you can tie a Listed Building and put it into a modern context for a modern home and that is what the application does. Councillor Benney explained that some of the back wall is being repaired, and the bricks are being recycled into the fabric of the building. He reiterated that people need to live in the dwelling and the public benefit should be that the people who live there actually end up with a genuinely nice house to live in and not have restraints forced on them by planning applications and planning policy which is more concerned with bricks than it is with people. Councillor Benney expressed the view that this application is a good application, and the changes will enhance the building. He referred to the architecture at the front of the building including the soffits and other features and made the point that those are the things that should be conserved, to take some bricks out of a wall and cover them up with a conservatory should not be seen as detrimental to damaging the fabric of the building, in his opinion, and it is enhancing the building so that in 50 years’ time someone will read the architecture of the building. Councillor Benney stated that he sees nothing wrong with the application whatsoever.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to the presentation screen and expressed the view that she finds the conservatory to be appalling. She made the point that she is more concerned with the neighbours and questioned whether the extension at the neighbouring property received planning permission or was it permitted development. Councillor Mrs French asked whether the house next door is Listed, and officer confirmed that it was not Listed. She added that if the house next door obtained planning permission it detracts from a Listed Building and, in her view, it should be looked at as well.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that she concurs with the points made by Councillors Benney and Mrs French, and added that the applicants have abided by the rules, sought advice and did everything that they could, and it was refused. She added that she now sees an opportunity like other members have suggested to put things right.

·         Councillor Benney stated that this makes a mockery of the earlier application with regards to the setting of a Listed Building. He added that, in this case, the extension is located right next door to a Listed Building and questioned where is the consistency because that is the setting of a Listed Building and he questioned whether it enhances the Listed Building which is being looked at because he does not think so. Councillor Benney made the point that the people who purchased the house knew the extension next door was in place and are content with it and the residents who built the extension are happy with it. He questioned how the extension can be passed and agreed that as it is within the setting of a Listed Building it does not work in his view. He added that he knows each application must be considered on its own merits, but it is very subjective.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he agrees with Councillor Benney with the point he made concerning the house in Doddington where the new element and the old really does work together. He added that whatever works are undertaken on this house by taking down the plastic conservatory and adding something nicer it will all match in over a period of time and he cannot see any reason not to support the applications.

·         Councillor Purser referred to the adjacent property and added that it is not known whether the house has received planning permission for their extension.

·         David Rowen stated that planning permission was granted for the house next door, and he made the point that each application has to be considered on its own merits and each Listed Building has its own setting, and the setting of this Listed Building is very much a residential environment where you would expect buildings in close proximity to one another. He added that some of the criticism of that decision from members is somewhat unjustified. David Rowen stated that with regards to improving the Listed Building there are improvements proposed which the Conservation Officer does support, and he added that the removal of the conservatory and the replacement of the brickwork could actually be done without necessarily needing the extension of the building. He explained that the loss of the historic fabric of the building in terms of the creation of the extension is what the reason for refusal is based on, it is nothing to do with the street scene or front elevation, it is the loss of his historic fabric through the removal of the scullery and through the internal works to create that area. David Rowen referred to the earlier application in relation to a Listed Building and the issue of giving special regard to preserving a Listed Building or a setting, he explained that consideration is being given to works to the fabric of the Listed Building which would, in the view of officers, detrimentally impact upon the historic significance of that building through the loss of that historic fabric and that is the issue. He stated that in terms of public benefit there is no wider public benefit and whilst he appreciates that applicants may get a slightly better standard of living accommodation that is not a public benefit it is a private benefit to those individuals.

·         The Legal Officer stated that he wished to remind members that the Planning Code of Conduct requires a development which has been previously refused and if a member wishes to propose approval then that members must explain the change in planning circumstances. He added that as there was a refusal in March 2025 then it is incumbent on the member who proposes approval to explain the change in circumstances and the fact that the previous decision was under officer delegation is not a change in circumstances.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked whether the original extension had planning permission? David Rowen stated that as far as he is aware that predates any planning requirements.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she has considered what the Legal Officer has stated and she cannot come up with the justification to go against the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Benney stated the issues need to be addressed with regards to what the difference is and he agrees with Councillor Mrs French to a certain extent, but he has not looked at the previous application to see what the differences are and, therefore, if there is not a significant difference then that is down to the agent not undertaking their role correctly. He added that the agent should know that there has to be significant changes so that members do not go against their own code of conduct. Councillor Benney added that he does not know what the previous application was to be able to say what is different.

·         David Rowen explained that the at paragraph 9.2 of the report it states that the amendments made to the current submission include reducing the opening in the kitchen and the retention of the existing rear door from the hallway which are quite minor changes in the overall scheme.

·         Councillor Benney stated that if it was a like for like application then it would have to be refused but by reducing an opening is a change.

·         The Legal Officer stated that the Code of Conduct requires a member to point out what significant change in planning circumstances justifies approval.

·         Councillor Benney stated that if the committee feel that the change at the opening is significant enough then in their view it is, however, it comes down to how people define significant. He expressed the view he feels it is significant enough of a change to grant approval.

·         The Legal Officer stated that the Code does not define what is significant and it is a matter for members to determine provided that they act rationally and if members decide that something is significant then that is down to them.

·         David Rowen referred to the presentation screen and indicated to members that the doorway which is proposed was originally going to be a double door and it is now going to be a single door and that is the only change.

·         Councillor Marks stated that this is changing the fabric of the building which is the old building. Alan Davies stated that is correct as it is the historic fabric which forms part of the rear elevation.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that the discussion appears to be focussing on what and what is not significant, and, in her view, she does not think that it is a significant change to warrant an approval. She added that it is a shame, but it is a Listed Building, and she does not feel that the changes are significant.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that she feels that the changes that are proposed bring with them the potential for long term sustainability of the building and there is no damage to the structural integrity, and it creates resilience to the building and is reversable. She added that for those reasons she will support the application.

F/YR25/0260/F

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French to agree the officer’s recommendation but no seconder was forthcoming.

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

F/YR25/0261/LB

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Gerstner to agree the officer’s recommendation, which was not supported on a vote by members.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Sennitt Clough and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation of refusal, with authority delegated to officers to apply conditions.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the changes made in making the opening smaller are significant enough to be different to a previous refusal making this a different application and the removal of the conservatory, reuse of the bricks and replacement of the windows to be more in keeping will enhance the Listed Building, bring benefit to the building and will not have a detrimental effect.

(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)

(Councillor Marks declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he attends meetings of Chatteris Town Council but takes no part in planning)