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 Stewart Newman, an objector. Mr Newman advised that he lives at 25 Linden Drive adjacent to this proposal and he spent his working life in the architectural and design profession, with one-third of that time spent on housing so he has a vast experience and knowledge in this field. He expressed the view that he spent a long time sitting down with the original developer of 27 agreeing the bungalow’s position and the open green spaces to the front and side, which gave him and his wife what they had before and having agreed these conditions he backed the development because the majority of the people living in Linden Drive wanted the bungalow rather than a road going through to serve the land at 16 London Road.

Mr Newman expressed the view that he is more than surprised that the planner has ignored all of his and other residents comments as for him and his wife it will be devastating and devalue his property, it is on record that the same planning department have refused other developments as they did not have enough green space and now the same department is deleting green areas from a development which already exists. He stated from his experience the planners have not worked to the Government’s guidelines for planning relating to neighbours, Fenland Planning and Chatteris Planning Committee have a responsibility for due care to neighbours adjoining any new developments and in this case he feels they have failed.

Mr Newman stated it is clear to him and others that the planners have totally disregarded the impact it will have in Linden Drive and the neighbours surrounding No.27. He stated that when he moved to Linden Drive he had an open green area in front of him which was originally classified as a common space, if the proposal is allowed for car parking it will destroy his enjoyment and retirement of his bungalow and its location.

Mr Newman assumes that members have all looked in detail at the information sent to the planners so they will see how cars will come and park right up to his front door and bay window thus losing his privacy and it could be that when he opens his front door the back of a large 4x4 is just in front of him and he does not think anyone would want that. He stated that a big question that most people in Linden Drive are asking is why does this property want more parking as it has more parking than most people in Chatteris, do they want it for business reasons or do they just not want cars standing in the front of their bungalow and want to bring them round the side in front of his property.

Mr Newman expressed the opinion that he has great concerns about Chatteris Town Planning Committee, he cannot find any minutes or discussion notes about this application yet their support was sent to the planners before any residents of Linden Drive received their notification letter so queried how they managed to get their support without first obtaining the neighbours reactions. He expressed the view that he is sure the committee would not want to face what he and his wife could face and stated that he is not an unreasonable person and in an effort to find a solution he would not object to the front section being extended up to the side of their bungalow which will give them additional parking and retain the open green area.

Members asked questions of Mr Newman as follows:

·       Councillor Benney stated that he was on the Planning Committee when the original application was considered and this was one of the most supported applications that he had ever seen from a residential area, with the majority of Linden Drive in support of this application and asked if he was living there at the time and part of this support as he remembers that both the residents either side being in support? Mr Newman responded that when the original application was submitted for No.27 he worked very hard with the developer agreeing the position of the bungalow, making sure there were green spaces to the side and front, which was critical and if this had not been undertaken he would not have supported the application and in the letter he sent in at that time it said he had good consultation with the developer but if he had said it was going to be car parking there he would have objected. He expressed the view that it was critical to have these green spaces as the cars could drive straight up against the fence and he would be confronted with vehicles outside his front door, with this property already having a massive amount of parking space and he cannot believe they want more parking.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that as the previous speaker said members will remember this bungalow when it was approved in 2021 by the Planning Committee, with the original applicant being an elderly lady at the top of the road and she sold the site to a developer, with the applicant purchasing the bungalow after completion. He advised that the applicant has confirmed to him that he is not running a business from this property, with this proposal it still leaves a third garden area to this dwelling and the officer has not raised any concern in that regard.

Mr Hall stated that he has visited here twice since this has been built and there is quite a steep slope on the block paving from the main road and this proposal, at the applicant’s cost, is to take up that paving which is not believed to be permeable and set permeable block paving, there already being about a third currently approved for block paving. He advised that the applicants want a low maintenance area and they are not keen gardeners but this proposal is similar to other properties down Linden Drive as alluded to by the officer, with Nos 4 and 20 having their entire frontage blocked paved.

Members asked questions of Mr Hall as follows:

·       Councillor Benney asked if this additional block paving going to be used for car parking or is it just to reduce the gardening? Mr Hall responded that the applicant has confirmed to him in an e-mail that he wants a low maintenance garden, he has not said there will be additional parking there and the fence that faces the objector’s property is 3 foot high currently and he is happy to extend that up to 6 foot. He stated that when you turn into Linden Drive the property is at a point at the end of a cul-de-sac and currently accessing the drive can be difficult.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Rackley and agreed that the application be GRANTED as per officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Benney declared, under 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 and also declared, under Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he had been lobbied on this application)

(Councillor Benney declared that he knows the agent for this application and he has undertaken work for him and also worked with him on the Growing Fenland project at Chatteris, but he is not pre-determined and will approach the application with an open mind)