Agenda item

To determine the Application

The Committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report which had been circulated.

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

Mr Bevens explained that the application may appear straight forward for determination however the current application is a culmination of 2 years work where the applicant has been trying to resolve the issues at the site. He stated that the applicant had previously applied for a certificate of lawfulness on 2 separate occasions with one being refused, which  was to establish a permanent dwelling for a mobile home, which would be used by his daughter and family and despite numerous letters of support to confirm that she has lived there for more than ten years it has proved problematic to obtain specific utility bills to prove it was a separate dwelling.

Mr Bevens stated that it was therefore, felt that given the length of time the applicant’s daughter and her family had lived at the address, an application for a permanent dwelling would be a more acceptable approach. He explained that if approved, the current mobile home behind the bungalow will be removed and this will improve the visual character.

Mr Bevens made the point that whilst it is accepted that the site falls outside of the settlement of Chatteris, it is not practical to offer justification for an elsewhere location as the proposal has nothing to do with agriculture, forestry or horticulture. He added that mitigation has been offered in proposing a bungalow at the address to remove the long standing mobile home and in respect of policy LP12d, an explanation has been provided to explain why the bungalow should be supported and be treated differently to a typical dwelling in the open countryside.

Mr Bevens expressed the view that he proposed dwelling is in a sustainable location and will mean that the family can all live in the vicinity to provide a support network due to the issues of ill health. He commented that the National Planning Policy Framework has sustainability at its core and the proposal before the committee meets the social objective of sustainable growth, by providing a new home with the dwelling not being an isolated home in the countryside by virtue of it being similar to others in the vicinity and the land will be used effectively ensuring safe and healthy living conditions.

Mr Bevens stated that whilst there has been no request to update the visibility splays, the comments of the Highways Officer can be taken on board and the extra distances can be achieved. He concluded by stating that the proposal has overwhelming local support, and there have been no letters of objection to the scheme, there will be no negative impact on the area and it will not cause harm to the appearance of the surrounding countryside being of a scale and location that is in keeping with the immediate form of development. He asked members to use flexibility against the local plan and policies and grant approval.

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

·         Councillor Mrs Laws asked Mr Bevens whether any supporting documentation has been provided to support the medical history problems that he had alluded to? He stated that the medical history concerns have taken place in the last few months and no documentation has been submitted.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws asked whether the issue of utility bills has been resolved yet? Mr Bevens stated that when the Certificate of Lawfulness application was produced, whilst there was the local support to confirm that the daughter had lived there for more than 10 years, because the bills for the utility services were addressed to the bungalow, it had proved difficult to justify splitting the bills.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws asked whether the bungalow is still paying for all the utilities? Mr Bevens said that as far as he was aware that was the case. Mr Bevens and the applicant added that the electric bills are all separate. Councillor Mrs Laws stated that if the electric bills are separate then there would be an audit trail of information.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that on the site visit members saw that there were two static vans on the site. Mr Bevens said that there is a temporary one there at the moment due to the ongoing health issues with another member of the family having moved onto the site temporarily and the mobile home will not remain in situ for the long term.

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

·         Councillor Hay asked for clarity with regard to when the original bungalow was built. Her understanding was that one of the conditions was that the static caravan was there to facilitate the building and it would be removed once the dwelling was built. David Rowen advised that in terms of the original permission for the demolition of the original bungalow, no mobile home was included as part of that application, and whether there was a condition as part of the proposal is unknown. He added that the proposal is for a standalone new property to be erected and the presence and history of the mobile home is irrelevant.

·         Councillor Benney explained that this is the first committee meeting he has sat on where he has some knowledge of the applicant, the majority of the people who have written letters of support, and he knows the area and the site well and feels the siting of a bungalow would enhance the area. He added that if the application was approved, he would like to see a condition added that the mobile homes should be removed from the site altogether. He feels that time has proven that the location is sustainable and the existing bungalow is very well kept and maintained. He commended the family for wanting to stay together and in his view the human element should also be considered when determining the application, making the point that that both Chatteris Town Council and Manea Parish Council support this application.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that the proposal is outside of all planning policies to add a new bungalow on the site. He added that he can recall when the bungalow was built and the mobile home was put in situ, and, in his opinion, he recalls that the caravan should have been removed when the bungalow was finished and this has never happened.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws added that there are policies in place to consult when deciding applications and whilst she appreciates Councillor Benneys comments, an applicant should supply evidence based documentation to officers, and in this case no medical evidence has been supplied. With regard to proof of ownership and utility bills this evidence has also not been submitted.

·         Councillor Benney referred to Councillor Murphy’s comments that the application falls outside of the building line, however, after consulting Google maps the development is closer to the centre of Chatteris than another application which was approved.

·         Councillor Hay made the point that Cambridgeshire County Council have asked for a deferment for amended plans or refusal altogether because there has been a failure to demonstrate a satisfactory access point.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that planning is about the use of land, and whilst he can understand the comments raised by Councillor Benney, and he commends the family for wanting to reside together, planning law is about land use and planning policy, and if this application was approved it would be inconsistent with previous decisions.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Laws, seconded by Councillor Mrs Bligh and decided that the application be REFUSED, as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillors Benney, Hay and Murphy stated that they are members of Chatteris Town Council, but take no part in planning matters)

(Councillor Benney stated that he has known the applicant for many years and stated that the legal officer has advised that there is no reason why he should not sit on the committee.)