Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Grant presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall referred to the various concerns in the report, with one being about ecology but the majority of the hedge would be kept, although he acknowledges that this is a PIP, for a single access which Highways have agreed with, and they would have to provide an ecology report. He stated that the last application was about 2½ years ago but that was for 9 dwellings and it has now been changed to 4 dwellings so that a footpath can be included within the red line.

Mr Hall acknowledged that the plan is indicative but, in his opinion, there is material planning change from when the previous application was refused. He referred to the Google map which shows immediately to the east this site abuts residential development and that is continuous all the way along into Doddington and feels that members will be aware along Primrose Hill and Newgate Street there have been numerous approvals over the years and development is all heading towards the west of Doddington, which is where this site is.

Mr Hall stated that within the officer’s report it does state that this site is close to a bus stop, there is a footpath link which they are proposing to improve, it provides good transport links to Chatteris and Doddington, there is a shop, post office, school and pub. He referred to 10.5 of the officer’s report where it states that the land is classified as Grade 3 agricultural land, not Grade 1, and he would not disagree with this and he does not believe that it has been cropped for 10-15 years, having been grassland or paddock land for many years.

Mr Hall appreciates the plan is indicative, but he produces these drawings to give members an idea if approved what could be built on the site and it shows a full adoptable footpath along the front of this site in the red line. He expressed the view that he believes all the dwellings are in Flood Zone 1 but if not at least 3 are and there are no Highways objections.

Councillor Connor asked members to disregard the footpath as this is not part of the application and it is only land use that is being considered.

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

·       Councillor Benney made the point that it is land usage that is being looked at, with members having just approved the ones further out of Doddington, and he feels this is suitable and good use of land.

·       Councillor Marks expressed the view that this application probably has more benefit than the last application and it is being said that this site lies mostly in Flood Zone 1. He stated that he can never remember the field being cropped apart from hay and it has been heard that the majority of the hedge can be retained and there could be social benefit from this proposal as well, with it being closer to Doddington, almost touching the Doddington sign. Councillor Marks made the point that across the road a bit further up a parade of houses was approved and this proposal will be for 4 dwellings on the side of a roadside, in what he feels is a Fenland village.

·       Councillor Benney agreed with comments of Councillor Marks, making the point that as you come into Doddington on Newgate Street there are new dwellings on the left-hand side, which were all recommended for refusal and every time he drives past them, he thinks they are lovely, with them all being sold and lived in.

·       Councillor Murphy agreed that the site is acceptable to be developed as it looks to be a continuation of Doddington and made the point that not every development can be put in a village. He added that if this proposal was not on this land, up to the edge of Doddington, he would probably not support it, but he feels it works well on this land.

·       Councillor Marks expressed the view that from this site right the way through Doddington the next field is way past the school, approximately 2 miles away, so this is only extending Doddington on one side and it is abutting up to Doddington itself.

·       David Rowen reminded members that this site was the subject of a previous PIP in 2023 when members resolved to refuse the application on the basis that “Turnpike Close along with 8 Primrose Hill on the southern side of the road is considered to be the edge of the built form with development further west along Primrose Hill being sporadic frontage development of a rural nature separated by fields and becoming sparser as the settlement is exited. Development of this site would introduce a formal linear extension into the open countryside which does not respect the rural character or sporadic settlement pattern as the village is exited. It would result in unacceptable urbanisation and set a precedent for further development further eroding the open character of this area contrary to the aforementioned policies”. He added that there was also a second reason for refusal regarding Flood Zones 2 and 3. David Rowen stated that the Council, the Planning Committee, has previously considered that this site is an unacceptable in terms of the location for residential development.

·       Councillor Marks expressed the opinion that what has changed is that there are now properties further round, having just passed two this afternoon, and feels there has been change since 2023 along that roadside, along with properties on the other side of the road going into the village. He feels the flood zone issue has been resolved and as members are told PIP is only land use in principle and he believes it is acceptable to build on. David Rowen responded that to the best of his knowledge all the other properties on the opposite side of the road to this site were granted well before 2023.

·       The Legal Officer reiterated that if members are departing from officer’s recommendation to give clear planning reasons for doing so.

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation.

Members did not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the proposal abuts the developed footprint of Doddington, is not detrimentally eroding the open countryside as only a small portion of land is being used for the development, and the indicative layout plan shows the dwellings can be accommodated in Flood Zone 1.

(Councillor Benney declared that the agent has undertaken work for Chatteris Town Council and himself personally and he knows of the applicant, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Connor declared that he knows of the applicant, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Marks declared that he knows the applicant’s sister and has undertaken personal work for her, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Murphy declared that he knows the agent, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Purser declared that the agent has undertaken work for him, but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)