Mobile home annexe at Bromsgrove House, Chatteris

What was proposed

The application sought residential use of land, a two-bedroom mobile home annexe, associated curtilage and removal of the existing mobile home.

“Planning permission is sought for the change of use of land, to extend the residential curtilage of the host dwelling, and the siting of a caravan to be used as an annexe. This would include the removal of the existing mobile home situated to the south of the host dwelling.”

“The proposed change of use relates to a rectangular parcel of land north of the existing curtilage associated with Bromsgrove.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is outside Chatteris’s built-up area, within an isolated group of homes and other uses surrounded mainly by open agricultural land.

“The two houses along the Lode are in an isolated position away from other new and established housing development situated on the eastern side of Fenland Way, comprising the main built-up area of the town. To the North, West and mainly to the South of the application site there is currently open agricultural land.”

“Along the northern side of the red-lined application site there is an older, utilitarian single-skinned brick, former agricultural building. The application site includes this outbuilding, plus agricultural land adjacent to its south, of a slightly larger scale to that of the defined rear garden to the dwelling at Bromsgrove House itself.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered the proposal a separate residential unit that would domesticate open countryside and fail the Sequential and Exception Tests in Flood Zone 3.

“The annexe must maintain a strong relationship to the host dwelling by relying on the facilities, garden land and driveway of the host dwelling. This is to restrict the opportunity for it to become a separate planning unit over time. From the plans submitted, the proposed annexe would utilise the same access and driveway.”

“Taking into account the above assessment, it is considered that the proposal goes beyond providing ancillary accommodation and would be tantamount to a new residential unit. The principle of providing an independent residential unit, in this location is not accepted. The proposal would be contrary to policies LP1, LP3 and LP16 of the Fenland Local Development Plan. Other material considerations are discussed below.”

Officer report

Consultation and representations

The town council recommended approval, Environmental Health raised no objections, eleven residents supported the proposal and one resident raised delivery and tree concerns.

“Eleven letter of support have been received from residents in Sycamore Crescent, Heronshaw, Green Park, Station Street, Barley Close, Fairway, St James Close, Birch Avenue – Chatteris and Watermoor Point in Cirencester.”

“Comments Officer Response No objection to the principle – concerns regarding the delivery of parts and associated impact on trees Comments noted. Should the application be approved, this matter could be dealt with via condition.”

Officer report

What the agent said

The agent said the existing caravan was poor and leaking, the proposal was a smaller annexe for family support, and consultees and residents had not objected.

What members discussed

Members debated family circumstances, the existing caravan, flood risk, the separate land, nearby development and whether the proposal differed materially from earlier schemes.

“Matthew Leigh added that when members are making reference to the removal of an existing caravan, it needs to be understood that the caravan did not require permission and is lawful because if it is an annexe and is within the residential curtilage they could replace that existing caravan with this caravan without the need for planning permission, however, this application is materially different to just replacing the caravan because it is on a new site and it is expanding…”

“He added that in policy terms it is an elsewhere location. • Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that as a councillor this is the right decision for members to make, and he appreciates that the caravan is changing and is being moved albeit within the curtilage of the property, it is not going outside of the land and is staying within the land that is in the ownership of the applicant.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Councillor Benney proposed approval, Councillor Marks seconded it, and the committee agreed to grant permission against the officer recommendation.

“Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Marks and agreed that the application be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation with conditions delegated to officers to apply appropriate conditions.”

Minutes

The decision and reasons

Permission was granted because members did not consider the site an elsewhere location, the caravan harmful to the rural environment, or the proposal detrimental to others, and saw family benefit.

“Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they do not consider the application site to be in an elsewhere location as the adjacent land has also been developed, the caravan will just be replacing the existing caravan already sited in Flood Zone 3, it is not believed that it will be harmful to the rural environment and the proposal will benefit a family.”

Minutes