Up to five dwellings at Stocking Drove, Chatteris

What was proposed

Permission in principle was sought for up to five homes, with detailed matters reserved for a later technical details application.

“This application seeks ‘Permission in Principle’ (PiP) for of up to 5 dwellings, where only in principle issues are assessed, namely the location, use and amount of development. All matters of detail would be subject to a Technical Details application should this submission be successful and accordingly, matters raised by consultees may not be addressed at this time.”

“PROPOSAL 3.1 The ‘Permission in Principle’ (PiP) application is for residential development of up to 5 dwellings. The current proposal is the first part of the permission in principle application, which only assesses the principle issues namely:”

Officer report

The site

The 0.49-hectare paddock site lies beside a narrow 60mph road, with ridge and furrow earthworks and a protected hedge and tree belt.

“SITE DESCRIPTION The application site comprises approximately 0.49ha, located on the eastern side of Stocking Drove, a narrow, 60mph rural road, devoid of footpaths and streetlights; it forms part of a wider grass field which appears to be used as paddock land and there are prominent ridge and furrow earthworks across the site and wider field.”

Officer report

Nearby development history

Several nearby residential schemes had been permitted, including schemes for one to six homes and permission in principle for up to four homes.

“Land South Of The Grange London Road Accessed From Stocking Drove Chatteris F/YR22/1317/F - Erect 1 dwelling (single-storey, 2-bed) including formation of an access F/YR23/0476/F - Erect 1 dwelling (single storey, 2-bed) including the formation of an access…”

“Land North East Of The Grange, London Road, Chatteris F/YR24/0173/PIP - Permission in principle to erect up to 4 x dwellings F/YR26/0093/F - Erect 4 x dwellings and the formation of an access – pending consideration…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the site was beyond Chatteris, would urbanise open countryside, lacked sustainable links, threatened ridge and furrow, and raised mineral safeguarding concerns.

“The site is considered to be located beyond the established settlement of Chatteris, with no justification for the development within an ‘Elsewhere’ location. The proposal would result in a formal, linear extension into the open countryside, which does not respect the rural character. It would result in an unacceptable urbanisation and set a precedent for future development, further eroding the open character of the area.”

“The application is not supported by any assessment of the known heritage asset within the site, its significance or whether any mitigation is possible and as such it has failed to demonstrate that the development could be achieved at this location without the almost total loss of the remarkably well preserved Medieval Ridge and Furrow.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The town council supported the proposal; highways, environmental health and the arboricultural officer raised no reason to prevent consideration, while archaeology identified serious concerns.

“Environmental Health (FDC) The Environmental Health Team note and accept the submitted information and have ‘No Objections’ to the proposal, as it is unlikely to have a detrimental effect on local air quality, be affected by ground contamination or adversely impact the local amenity due to excessive artificial lighting.”

“Arboricultural Officer (FDC) The Council’s Arboricultural Officer considered the hedge and trees along the site frontage to be important to visual amenity and the street scene and as such requested that this be subject to a Tree Preservation Order to provide control over it/protect it from removal. TPO 02/2026 was confirmed on 2/3/26.”

Officer report

Residents’ views

Eight supporting comments cited the location, housing need and design, while one representation asked for the northern plot to remain green space.

“Comments Officer Response Request that the plot to the north remain as green space This application relates to Permission in Principle only; any dwelling/layout details submitted are purely indicative…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent argued that nearby approvals, highways and environmental health responses supported the proposal and challenged the minerals and archaeology concerns.

The committee debate

Members debated consistency with earlier approvals, the site’s relationship to Chatteris, and whether archaeology and minerals could be addressed later.

“He stated that archaeology has been raised as being of primary importance, they are the experts and specialists, and, once historical assets are destroyed, they will be gone forever. • Councillor Benney responded that an archaeological dig would surely come up in a later application, whether full or outline, and, therefore, could be addressed later.”

“David Rowen stated that when a PIP is granted the principle of the site being built on is accepted and the danger is that then when the further application is submitted and it indicates that this is a massively significant heritage asset, effectively the Council has said yes it can be built upon.”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to refuse the application under the officer recommendation was not supported by a majority.

“Proposed by Councillor Murphy, seconded by Councillor Mrs French to refuse the application as per the officer’s recommendation, which was not supported on a majority vote.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee granted permission in principle against the officer recommendation, considering that other approved development meant the site could no longer be treated as elsewhere.

“Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Benney and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer recommendation.”

“Members do not support officer’s recommendation of planning permission as they feel that other development has been approved in the area and it can no longer be considered an elsewhere location.”

Minutes