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 Councillor Alan Gowler of Chatteris Town Council.

Councillor Gowler stated that he is one of the Town Councillors for Slade Lode Ward, in which the proposal site is situated with the location site being very rural and on the edge of the parish boundary between Chatteris and Doddington. He added that he sits on the Chatteris Town Council Planning Committee and when it was discussed at the committee all the members unanimously agreed that it was a good proposal and concluded that it would improve the current dwelling with the applicant being a well-known and respected member of the community. Councillor Gowler referred to LP16 of the Fenland Local Plan which he feels this proposal complies with. He added that the Town Council welcomed the application and would like to see it approved.

Members received a presentation in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Ian Benney who advised the committee that he would be addressing them as an individual and not as a Councillor.

Mr Benney stated that he knows the applicant personally and has done so for many years, but he still has an opinion on the proposal and considers the application to be worthy as he feels that the extension to the property will make a positive contribution to the area. He expressed the opinion that from Doddington Road, the current dwelling looks to be out of place by its lack of scale and mass and added that he does not feel it will be detrimental to the street scene when it is a detached property with no near neighbours and will be set back from an unclassified road between Chatteris and Doddington which once built will blend in and enhance Curf Fen. Mr Benney referred to a newly built block of flats in Chatteris which was deemed to be out of character with other buildings in the area, had nothing in common with anything else in the vicinity and when it was being constructed, he thought it would be overpowering, however, now it has been completed, it sits nicely in the street scene. He stated that the only reason to refuse to application would be under LP16d of the Local Plan but in his view this reason is subjective and he would like to see the application supported and given approval.

Members received a presentation in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mr Robert Feast, the Applicant.

Mr Feast thanked the committee for giving him the opportunity to address them today and asked them to support his planning application. He explained that for most of my working life he has worked in the construction industry and worked his way up to site manager for large construction companies including Skanska and Langs but in recent years as a self-employed builder, and  as well as being in the construction industry for the last 10 years, for 8 months of the year he has owned a pest control business. Mr Feast explained that he has Danish hunters who pay to come to England to shoot wood pigeons on farms protecting crops with the dead birds then sold to a game dealer where they end up in the food chain and he needs a barn to store not only his construction equipment, but all the equipment including the walk-in chiller for his hunting business. He stated that he has a JCB digger, a mini digger and numerous other pieces of plant and equipment some of which he currently has stored at a secure rented yard with the 4 acres plot his house stands on needing agricultural machinery to maintain the garden, orchard and grounds and he requires somewhere to store his tractor, grass cutter, trailer, industrial size sprayer and rotovators and he cannot store this equipment in a garden  shed. Mr Feast explained that he has a large close knit family with 4 children and 8 grandchildren, who across the generations work with each other for help and support and along with his wife  has looked after his parents, and when his father in law passed away in 2006 his mother in law who was suffering from dementia moved in with them rather than put her in a home and it was from my mother in laws inheritance that he has been able to buy their dream home at Curf Fen Cottage.

He explained that the proposed design will be like an old manor house style, he is a firm believer in re-cycling and he would not want to pull down the house as he has invested time and money renovating it to bring it up to a liveable standard, with the intention of including a sensory room within the property for his grandson. Mr Feast stated that he has two static caravans on the site which are currently being used by his two sons and the proposal includes two bedrooms for them to be able to move into.

Members received a presentation in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Mr Matthew Hall, the Agent.

Mr Hall explained that all statutory consultees support the application and there are no objections. He made the point that it is a large site where the applicant wishes to have a large property and there is no overlooking or over shadowing and the nearest house is 100 metres away and nearest road is three quarters of a mile away. Mr Hall referred to the officer’s report to 9.10 which shows an ancillary building with Mr Feast providing an explanation to officers as to why this would be required within the residential curtilage. He referred members to the presentation screen where slides were displayed to highlight images of the current site and the proposed site and views.

Members asked Mr Feast and Mr Hall the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks asked Mr Feast to clarify who is currently residing in the static caravans? Mr Feast confirmed that his two sons currently reside in the caravans as the existing dwelling is only a one bedroomed property.

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

·         Councillor Mrs Davis expressed the view that she cannot support the officer’s recommendation as she feels that the application proposal is balanced and meets many aspects of the Local Plan Policy LP16. She added that she would prefer to see a larger standalone house rather than a house and caravans and stated that she applauds Mr Feast for wanting to keep his family together. Councillor Mrs Davis expressed the opinion that there are instances where there appears to be a lack of consistency in the determination of applications and referred to a recent application where there was a large dwelling built under reference F/YR20/0338, which was a 6 bedroomed dwelling with a triple garage and swimming pool block, which at first was refused and the applicant continued to build the dwelling to second floor level and then submitted a retrospective application which was granted, but has had a large impact on neighbours in the vicinity, whereas the proposal before members will not impinge on anybody due to its rural location.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he agrees with some of the points raised by Councillor Mrs Davis, but he does have concerns over Flood Zone 3, an whilst officers with delegated authority have passed applications within Flood Zone 3 previously, but there have always been mitigation measures in place. He stated that he has noted that the proposal has a basement added to it and questioned as to how there can be any mitigation with a basement included and if the basement had not been included, he may have supported the application. Councillor Sutton expressed the opinion, that he has no issue with the applicant wanting a bigger home for his family or with the inclusion of the shed, but the design is not a quality proposal and could be a better designed property in terms of look and usability for the applicant.

·         Councillor Skoulding expressed the opinion that he will be supporting the application as he feels that the proposal is a nice design and whilst he respects the views of Councillor Sutton in his opinion, he can understand why the applicant wants to have his tools and equipment for his business in one place and for his family to live under one roof. 

·         Councillor Marks stated that he will be supporting the application as he thinks the site is of a good size and design and the proposal will tidy up one of the sites along the road and he would hope that the neighbour along the same stretch of road will also do the same thing.

·         Councillor Murphy expressed the opinion that the officers. recommendation is correct as they have taken into consideration the Fenland Local Plan, which should still be adhered to, until the new plan is put in place. He added that the officers have correctly identified the site as being in an elsewhere location, which is out of character with the area and the design, scale prominence and layout are all detrimental with the design being three and a half times of the original dwelling and is against policy LP16(d) and chapters 7,12 and 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Councillor Murphy stated that a planning application on the site was refused in 2017, which was smaller in scale than the proposal before members today and questioned why a larger sized dwelling has been applied for. He made the point that there are several representations of support for the application which have been submitted from individuals who are not local to the proposed site who will not be impacted by the proposal. Councillor Murphy stated that detail in the officer’s report highlights the enormity of the dwelling which could be likened to a small hotel and he feels the application still has many outstanding aspects which need to be considered and the applicant needs to reconsider his application and discuss with officers the detail in the application to reach a satisfactory resolution.

·         Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that although she does not know the area, but by looking at the plans, the site would be enhanced if the application was approved. She added that the design looks good and if approval is given the neighbours in the locality will be pleased to see the area tidied up. Councillor Mrs French referred to a comment made by Councillor Sutton regarding the proposed basement and stated that there is technique in place called Modern Method Construction which includes building homes including basements in Flood Zone 3. She added that in her opinion, if somebody can afford a large property, which is not causing any issues or harm, then the proposal should be approved, and she will be supporting the application.

·         Councillor Lynn referred to a comment made by Councillor Murphy, who stated that the proposal is in an elsewhere location and added that there is already a dwelling in place and, therefore, that cannot be cited as a reason for refusal. He expressed the view that the design of the house is down to the applicant to decide to ensure that it meets the needs and requirements of his family and business and should not be a reason for the proposal to be refused. Councillor Lynn agreed with the comments made by Councillor Sutton regarding his concerns regarding the basement being in Flood Zone 3, if it was going to be a liveable area, however, the area is only going to be used for storage and modern dwellings are now constructed to be able to take this into consideration. He stated that he will be supporting the applicant on this occasion and voting against the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Meekins expressed the opinion, that he does not normally like large houses built in the open countryside, but on this occasion a large dwelling will be a vast improvement to the dwelling already on the site. He added that along with the letters of support for the proposal it has also been fully supported by Chatteris Town Council. Councillor Meekins expressed the view that the design is nice and will improve the area and he will be supporting the application.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that regarding the proposal being in an elsewhere location, if there is already a dwelling on site, there can be an application for an extension and a rebuild. She added that she would rather see the family living in a dwelling in Flood Zone 3 rather than a static caravan.

·         Councillor Marks added that although the proposal on the plans looks stark currently, in a few years it will blend into the countryside and will fit in nicely.

·         Councillor Skoulding questioned as to whether the nearest neighbours are in support of the application.

·         Councillor Connor stated that, it is commendable that the applicant wishes to bring his family together under one roof and added that the applicant has designed the property to meet his own needs. He stated that there are no other dwellings in the near vicinity, and it will not impact on any neighbours and he added that he will be supporting the application.

·         Nick Harding stated that having listened to the applicant, who has mentioned the addition of the shed for the purposes of business use, it may be that the site does not currently have mixed use consent, which officers will need to look into and if required the applicant may need to apply for this separately.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he is not against the application in its entirety and added that although mitigation measures can be put in place to stop flooding the only way to stop it totally is to put a pump in. He added that the site could be so much better and in his view is out of proportion.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Murphy to refuse the application as per the officer’s recommendation. This proposal was not supported on a vote by the majority of members.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Davis, seconded by Councillor Lynn and decided that the application be APPROVED against the officer’s recommendation subject to reasonable conditions being applied to include adequate screening and for the basement to be constructed in such as way as to mitigate the risk of flooding.

Members did not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the application does meet some of the criteria of LP16 of the Fenland Local Plan.

(Councillor Benney declared an interest in this item as the applicant is known to him and he took no part in the discussion on this application and voting thereon).

(Councillor Murphy declared an interest by virtue of the fact that he is a member of Chatteris Town Council but takes no part in planning matters)