# Land south of The Elms, Chatteris (152 homes, A142 access)

- **Decision:** allowed, 25 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Fern
- **Authority:** Fenland (East of England)
- **Appeal reference:** 6008859
- **Application reference:** F/YR23/0697/FDL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** 152 two-storey dwellings with new accesses off the A142, LEAP, open space and landscaping, on part of the East Chatteris Strategic Allocation
- **Homes:** 152
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, listed-building-setting, TPO
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** TR6(4), HE6(4), S4
- **Development plan policies:** Fenland Local Plan 2014 LP2, LP10, LP15, LP17, LP18
- **Main issues:** highway safety and capacity, heritage (listed buildings, NDHA parkland)
- **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-approve, large-scheme, tr6-highway-safety, heritage-harm-outweighed, ndha, costs-application, transitional-no-consultation

## Summary
152 homes on part of the East Chatteris Strategic Allocation were allowed with direct access onto the 60 mph A142. Updated traffic surveys showed ample capacity and the collision record was light, so there was no unacceptable safety or severe capacity impact under TR6. Loss of part of a historic parkland caused moderate harm to the setting of the Grade II Manor House group and to the parkland as a non-designated asset, but the public benefits of delivering an allocated site outweighed it.

## Issues and findings
- **Highways, TR6(4): PASS.** The updated surveys "clearly demonstrate that the A142 would operate at approximately 0.27 ratio of flow to capacity (RFC) post-development, which is substantially within the tolerance level of 0.85 RFC" (DL ¶10). "access would be achieved without severe adverse impacts on the transport network nor unacceptable impact on highway safety" (DL ¶12). Speed cameras point to "a driver speed compliance problem" rather than a safety issue (DL ¶9).
- **Concept plan.** "It is not for the planning system to identify the best or optimal highway access solution but instead to consider the planning merits of the proposal submitted" (DL ¶7).
- **Heritage: moderate harm, outweighed.** The effect on the parkland NDHA and the setting of the Manor House group "would be to a moderate level of harm" (DL ¶18). "Collectively, these public benefits outweigh the moderate harm found to the significance of both the designated and non-designated heritage assets identified above" (DL ¶19). "the public benefits are substantial and outweigh the harm to the heritage assets" (DL ¶24).
- **Alternatives.** Alternative brownfield sites were for the plan examination, "not therefore a matter for this appeal" (DL ¶25).

## Planning balance
Heritage harm against public benefits (HE6 not named; designated and non-designated assets weighed together), then S4 in one sentence: "The benefits of the scheme are not substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶43). Accordance with the development plan (DL ¶44).

## What made the difference
Up-to-date traffic evidence showing the A142 far below capacity, and the site's status as an adopted strategic allocation counted in supply. Collision fears were anecdotal. Retaining most of the parkland, its veteran trees and a buffer to the Manor House kept the heritage harm moderate.

## Transferable points
- Public perception of danger and speed enforcement signs do not show an unacceptable highway safety impact without substantiated collision evidence (DL ¶8–9).
- An allocation's concept plan showing one access route does not preclude another if the alternative is safe (DL ¶7).
- Delivery of an allocated site relied on in the supply is a substantial public benefit against moderate setting harm (DL ¶19, ¶24).

## Policy findings
- **TR6(4): pass.** 60 mph A142 access; updated surveys show 0.27 RFC post-development against 0.85 tolerance; few, mainly slight injury collisions since 2017; ghost island, tapered junction and crossings; no severe or unacceptable impact (DL 6-13)
- **HE6(3): harm.** moderate harm to the setting of Grade II Manor House, barn, stable and cow house, "of considerable importance" (DL 18, 24)
- **HE7(2): harm.** moderate harm to mid-19th-century parkland NDHA; weighed jointly with the listed-building harm (DL 18-19)
- **HE6(4): pass.** HE6 not named; housing on a strategic allocation relied on for supply, public open space and A142 crossings outweigh the moderate harm (DL 19, 24)
- **HE6: neutral.** no effect on Grade II icehouse and wall, Grade I church or Chatteris CA (DL 20-23)
- **BNG (Sch 7A TCPA): benefit (significant weight).** application predates mandatory BNG; 10% gain offered, "of significant benefit"; off-site splay clearance to be made up on site (DL 29)
- **S4: pass.** allocated site "within the settlement of Chatteris"; benefits not substantially outweighed (DL 43)

## Key facts
- Site is part of the East Chatteris Strategic Allocation (LP10); Broad Concept Plan envisaged access from Wenny Road, but does not preclude the A142 (DL 7)
- Site in the Council's five-year supply; supply figure not stated (DL 19)
- UU dated 30 Jul 2026 - affordable housing, open space, education, NHS ICS, library, Wenny Road bus stops, Footpath 14 works; Town Council's GBP2,000/plot and ambulance requests not justified (DL 34-37)
- Over 22% on-site public open space; veteran and TPO trees kept (DL 27)
- Medium-high surface water flood risk managed by SuDS condition (DL 30)
- Costs application made; separate decision (DL 2)
- Framework switch not discussed; 2026 TR6 cited (DL 6)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008859

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008859.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.