Up to four dwellings at Land North East Of 134 London Road, Chatteris

What was proposed

Permission in principle was sought for up to four homes, with an indicative layout showing parking, landscaping and a new highway access.

“A location plan, existing site plan and indicative site layout (although not a requirement of a PiP application) accompany this submission. These indicate the partial removal of the existing boundary treatment on the site and the provision of a line of four dwellings with associated parking and landscaping together with the provision of a new access road connecting to the highway in the south-west corner of the site.”

“The current proposal is the first part of the Permission in Principle application; this ‘first stage’ establishes whether a site is suitable in principle only, and assesses the ‘principle’ issues, namely; (1) Location (2) Use, and (3) Amount of development proposed…”

Officer report

The site and its surroundings

The site is a grassed field outside Chatteris, beside London Road, with hedges, arable fields and no identified surface-water flooding risk.

“The application site is located outside of the settlement footprint of Chatteris. The site is situated to the north of London Road and form the front part of a grassed field. The frontage boundary of the site is bordered by a 1.4 metre hedge with an open boundary to the east. A low-level hedge is sited to the northern rear boundary, with a 2-metre-high green mesh fence to the western boundary with Seasons garden centre.”

“The application site is located in Flood Zone 1 and is not shown as being subject to an annual likelihood of surface water flooding on the Environment Agency maps.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered the site an elsewhere location, unsuitable for housing because of policy conflict, countryside urbanisation and inadequate pedestrian facilities.

“There is no footpath on either side of London Road in the vicinity of the site. The nearest footpath is 110 metres away to the front of The Grange on the southern side of London Road to the north of the Stocking Drove junction. Chatteris Town Council has requested the provision of a footpath from the Stocking Road junction to Seasons Garden centre, however there is no provision within a PiP application to secure such infrastructure.”

“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

Residents’ views

Six comments supported the proposal, citing nearby housing, infill, policy compliance, access, streetscene benefits and an appropriate amount of development.

“Six comments of support have been received from properties in Chatteris. The supporters are from Belmont Gardens, Huntingdon Road, Tithe Road, York Road, Burnsfield Estate and New Road.”

“Supporting Comments Officer Response There is other new housing in the area Addressed in the Location section This is frontage development Addressed in the Location section Meets the definition of appropriate infill Addressed in the Location section Accords with Policy LP3 Addressed in the Location section The site is brownfield Addressed in the Location section Access is very good, onto a straight road Addressed in the Location section Would improve the streetscene…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent said nearby approvals, occupied homes, local need and the garden centre supported treating the site as part of Chatteris.

The committee’s decision

Councillors proposed and agreed to grant permission in principle against the officer recommendation.

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

Minutes

Why the committee decided this

Members rejected the officer’s refusal because they did not consider the application site to be in an elsewhere location.

“Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they do not consider the application to be in an elsewhere location.”

Minutes