Agenda item

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Maria Hobbs, the applicant, and Ian Gowler, the agent. Ms Hobbs expressed the view that this proposal offers a chance for a property to be built in an established residential area providing Chatteris with another home it vitally needs, which would be a modest home and offer the chance for a self-build or someone to look to start out on the housing ladder either as an owner or renter. She feels that not every home needs to be a 4-bedroom house and the property proposed is the sort that is lacking, enabling a good strong start for people coming onto the housing market or those looking to downsize.

Ms Hobbs expressed the view that Chatteris is ever expanding and whilst there are plenty of new build estates not everyone wants to live on a new estate, with the expansion of Chatteris commercially and residentially she believes that smaller and modest builds like the one she proposes are just as important as brand-new estates. She stated that she runs the Green Welly Café and Garden Centre, a local business run by a local businesswoman, and she has lived here all her life, with economic times being hard through Covid, the cost of living, cost of fuels and materials and she had to close the motel and change it into residential flats due to changes in the economy and running an independent business is now harder than ever and she has had to adapt to the challenges.

Ms Hobbs stated that to move forward with the next stage of developing her garden centre she requires money, banks and private funding are synonymous with long-term debt and it is not sustainable for her to build her own business and by obtaining planning she can provide a property into the pool and also take her business to the next level. She feels it is important to note that the neighbours have not raised an objection to the proposal, there has already been development in Queensway estate showing that the principle of development has already been established within the area.

Ms Hobbs made the point that this is an outline application and as such the Council will have control when it comes to the Reserved Matters application to ensure the property is built sympathetically to the current street view.

Mr Gowler referred to the reasons for refusal, the first being the character of Queensway and, in his view, as can be seen from the site plan the front of the proposed bungalow is slightly set forward from No.54 but does follow the characteristic of that part of Queensway and is also set in line with the property to the rear as it goes around the corner. He stated that in terms of the amenity space for No.54, he notices a lot that properties carve their gardens off without permission so this proposal could already have that garden separated off and be below the standard but he also appreciates that people with a small bungalow such as this proposal do not want big gardens and he feels this space is suitable.

Members asked questions of Ms Hobbs and Mr Gowler as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she has visited the site and it is a small site but asked if this application is approved in outline, what would the proposal be, such as one-bedroom or two-bedroom? Mr Gowler responded that ideally it would be as the indicative drawing to create a small one-bedroom bungalow, which he feels suits the plot size and that location as the properties are bungalows along Queensway.

·         Councillor Imafidon asked what the site is currently being used for because when he visited the site it looked like there was a garage or disused structure on site. Ms Hobbs responded that she owns the whole site and believes this structure belongs to the person in the existing bungalow at present and this will be removed. Mr Gowler added that it is parking for the bungalow which it would be proposed as part of the site plan to move the parking in front of No.54 for that existing use.

·         Councillor Gerstner asked would there be a car parking space for this proposal? Mr Gowler responded that the proposal is outline but it is proposed that there are 2 car parking spaces for the existing bungalow and 2 parking space for the new bungalow which fits with the parking standards.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Gerstner asked if anything substantial had changed since the last application? Gavin Taylor responded that in terms of the site and site conditions there have been no changes and the application previously refused in May last year was an outline application with all matters reserved, with this proposal being different apart from a slightly different indicative block plan.

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

·         Councillor Gerstner made the point that Chatteris Town Council recommend refusal, they are the local council and know what is going on in the area and he feels the committee should be consistent as only last year it was refused and the officer has confirmed that there has been no change. He would go along with the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he visited the site and he understands that it is a very tight area but it stands derelict at present and whilst it is an indicative plan that shows a one-bedroom bungalow this is something that Chatteris and the District need now suiting someone who wants to downsize and it may release a family home. He stated that it has off-street parking and he is struggling to find anything wrong with the proposal, with the proposal being in front of committee this time, it is in outline and he feels he can support it.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated she visited the site, it is a mess and could certainly do with something and whilst it is a tight site she is getting complaints from many elderly residents who want one-bedroom bungalows and they do not exist. She referred to an application approved at Rings End for a smaller plot than this.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that when he visited the site his initial reaction was that it was a small plot and how would a one-bedroom bungalow fit on the site but after a proper walk around it is a deceptively large plot and he feels it will be suitable for a bungalow. He added that the fact that it has 2 parking spaces will not impact on the parking issues in the area and the site is an eyesore at present, which is why he was asking the applicant about what the site is used for. Councillor Imafidon stated that he is inclined to support the application as it will tidy the area.

·         The Legal Officer reminded members that the Planning Code of Conduct in the Constitution applies in this scenario and what it says is that if committee is minded to approve an application for a development previously refused the proposer of the motion or the Chairman should state what the significant change in the planning circumstances justifies that approval before the vote is taken. He continued that the fact that it has come before committee is not a legitimate planning change in circumstances.

·         Councillor Marks stated that there is a red line around a piece of land and this is whether members believe it is suitable to be built on rather than what the indicative plan there is today and are member not saying today that this is a suitable piece of land that can be built on. The Legal Officer stated that committee may well be saying this and it is legitimate but that is not a change in planning circumstances. Councillor Marks made the point that the application is before committee now and he feels that the material change is that there are now 7 people on the committee instead of officers looking at the proposal, which is why members are on the committee to be accountable for what their thoughts are and the question is the land is suitable for development. The Legal Officer responded that the Constitution says what is does and was approved by the Council, with the public having a right to expect consistent planning decisions whether taken by the officer or by members and it is a duty of members of this committee to give planning reasons why thing have changed.

·         Councillor Imafidon questioned why it is not a relevant reason that it is now before committee when it was not determined by committee previously? The Legal Officer responded that the public are entitled to see consistent planning decisions being taken and it is not right to expect the public to investigate whether that decision was taken by committee or by officers and a change of circumstances would be a change of policy or Government guidance or in the development itself. Councillor Imafidon stated that he appreciates this but members of the committee are elected to represent the constituents so feels this is enough reason for it to be reconsidered. The Legal Officer made the point that members of Planning Committee represent the Council as a whole and decisions are taken in the name of the Council, with the Constitution being in the name of the Council, and it is not for individual committees to say they take a different view than officers or a previous committee without giving good reasons for doing this.

·         Councillor Mrs French made the point that the reason there is a Planning Committee is because there are controversial planning applications and when members want to go against the officer’s recommendation they are not questioning their professionalism but it is a difference of opinion, which members are entitled to have. Troy Healy stated that the recommendation for refusal was under delegated powers taken previously in May 2023 and it would have been reviewed by the Chairman at the time as officers do not move forward with delegated refusals without the Chairman’s approval. Councillor Connor stated that he did look at the site about 3-4 months ago due to it being proposed to be refused under delegated powers and he was told by officers that it had been withdrawn. Troy Healy clarified that the previous delegated decision was in May 2023 so it may have been an intervening additional application that was withdrawn.

·         Ian Gowler was permitted to speak again by the Chairman and stated that he believes the Chairman is talking about this current application and what happened was the application was referred to the Chairman as it was recommended for refusal and at the same time there was an additional letter of support received, which took it to the 6 letters of support, which meant that it was submitted to committee and the Chairman did not need to make this decision. Councillor Connor thanked Mr Gowler for reminding him and confirmed this to be the case.

·         Councillor Marks stated this is a triangle of land with a red line around it and has previously been refused and members are being told there are no material changes but he cannot see how a triangle of land can be changed so this should have been refused beforehand if members are not allowed to go against officer’s recommendation. The Legal Officer responded that he does not know the reasons it has come to committee this time other than what is in the report itself but he is not saying that members cannot approve this application but if it is approved then the committee is in conflict with its own Constitution and there may be consequences if there are complaints afterwards. Gavin Taylor stated that the planning application is before committee as the Scheme of Delegation in the Constitution sets out that if an application receives 6 or more letters contrary to that officer recommendation it automatically triggers it being considered by committee, with there being no caveat to say unless it was previously refused and the previous decision is a significant material consideration as the Legal Officer has pointed out.

·         Councillor Gerstner stated he is sympathetic to having a 1-bedroom bungalow on a plot of land, there is a great need throughout the whole of Fenland for this type of property but he feels that officers have got the recommendation correct and made the point that Chatteris Town Council have recommended refusal and the planning application has not materially changed since it was refused last time.

·         Councillor Hicks expressed the view that there seems to be either a loophole in the Local Plan or a box ticking exercise because committee seem to have their hands tied in voting another way.

·         Councillor Connor pointed out that Councillor Carney has no objections to the application and he assumes he might be the local councillor.

·         Councillor Marks asked to hear the reasons for refusal again. Gavin Taylor advised that there are 2 reasons for refusal and read them out from the report.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to the comments from the Council’s Environmental Health Team who note and accept the submitted information and have no objections and highways is for reserved matters so there are 2 important bodies who have no issues. She feels the corner is in a bad state and this development would enhance it and not be detrimental.

·         Councillor Marks added that if this is an elderly or disabled bungalow some people do not need a great deal of land and if next door has a problem with the loss of land why are they not cultivating or doing something with this site instead of which it is a rough piece of land. He feels the land is better being used and tidied up as opposed to what it is at the present time.

·         Troy Healy stated that he believes the applicant is the neighbour at no.54. He advised that in terms of garden sizes if No.54 was proposed with the proposed garden size on this application it would not have passed the policy test.

·         Councillor Imafidon referred to LP16 and LP2, with LP16 enhancing the character of the area and the current state of that land, in his view, is derelict and there is a problem in Fenland, Wisbech in particular, of getting landowners to maintain their land and the Council has no powers. Councillor Connor stated that this is not a material consideration. Troy Healy advised that there are powers under Section 215 to require the maintenance of land that has got a negative effect on amenity. Councillor Imafidon stated that he has never seen this enforced and questioned who enforces it and rather than see this land derelict he would like to see it developed.

·         Councillor Mrs French reiterated that just because this Planning Committee has a different view and interpretation from officers, it does not take any professionalism away from officers or is a criticism but members believe that site could be developed modestly.

·         Gavin Taylor stated that he would be concerned if substantial weight was given to the condition of the site as it could lead to a number of sites becoming derelict and justifying planning permission. He added that the question about who could accommodate this dwelling in terms of its target market is unknown this is an outline application only indicatively drawn and there is no demonstration that it would meet current M4(3) or M4(2) standards on Building Regulations for accessible and adaptability.

Proposed by Councillor Gerstner to refuse the application but no seconder was forthcoming.

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be GRANTED, subject to authority being delegated to officers to apply reasonable conditions in conjunction with the Chairman, Proposer and Seconder.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel under LP16 that the land could be used for a high-quality modest dwelling, it removes an untidy and unsightly site and not everyone wants large gardens in terms of amenity space.

(Councillor Connor declared that he knows the applicant from many years ago when he rented a scrap yard at Chatteris from her late father but he has not spoken directly to her in the past 20 years and he is not predetermined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Marks declared that his business hired a machine to the nursery that is connected to the applicant’s business but he is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Marks declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is the District Councillor for Chatteris and Manea and does attend Chatteris Town Council meetings but takes no part in planning)