One dwelling at Land North Of 120 London Road, Chatteris

What was proposed

Permission in principle was sought for up to one dwelling, with indicative parking, landscaping and an upgraded access using the existing site entrance.

“The application site is located outside of the settlement footprint of Chatteris. The site is situated to the west of London Road to the north-east of 120 London Road. The site is grassed and was formerly used as a bowling green with a building in the western rear corner of the site formerly used as a pavilion. The boundaries of the site are bordered by a 1.4 metre high timber fence to the sides and rear and an established 1.8 metre high hedge to the site frontage.”

“A location plan, existing site plan and indicative site layout (although not a requirement of a PiP application) accompany this submission. These indicate the removal of the existing boundary treatment on the site and the provision of a dwelling with associated parking and landscaping together with the provision of an upgraded access road utilising the existing site access.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier proposals for two houses were refused, an appeal was dismissed, and a later application for a bungalow was approved.

“Reference Description Decision F/YR05/0120/O Erection of 2 detached houses Refused - 29 March 2005 F/YR06/0001/O Erection of 2 detached dwellings Refused – 27 February 2006. Dismissed at Appeal – 06 February 2007. F/YR08/0494/F Erection of a 2-bed detached bungalow involving demolition of existing dwelling Approved – 25 July 2008.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered the site an elsewhere location, without a rural enterprise justification, and found residential development would conflict with the settlement strategy and urbanise the countryside.

“The site is considered to be situated within an elsewhere location as it is divorced from the main built form of Chatteris. The Local Plan does not contain settlement boundaries and instead relies upon a case-by-case site specific judgment.”

“The site is considered to be an ‘Elsewhere location’ as defined by Policy LP3. Development in an elsewhere location will be restricted to that which is demonstrably essential to the effective operation of local agriculture, horticulture, forestry, outdoor recreation, transport or utility services or to minerals and waste development. The application does not state that it is essential to the operation of the activities set out by Policy LP3.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The town council supported the proposal, Environmental Health raised no objections, highways found no significant impact, and 15 supporting communications were received.

“No significant impact upon the public highway – The proposal for 1 dwelling utilises an existing highways access to a former bowling green. The dwelling has parking and turning space to enable vehicles to exit the site in a forward gear. I note that drawing H10792/04 shows that the existing access will be widened to 5m and will be sealed and drained away from the public highway. It is not clear if the…”

Officer report

What the agent said

The agent described the site as an infill plot within linear development, highlighting nearby permissions, a footpath, Flood Zone 1 and the former private bowling green.

The committee vote

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

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

Minutes

The decision and reasons

The application was granted because members considered the site inside Chatteris and believed development precedent had already been established, requiring consistency.

“Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the proposal is located inside the Chatteris area, and they feel that the precedent of development has already been set and members need to be consistent…”

Minutes