Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Gareth Edwards, the agent. Mr Edwards stated that the process for this site was started in 2018 with a meeting with the then Head of Planning, Nick Harding, and the ward councillor, Will Sutton, as WMS were concerned with what the effect of Brexit would have on the camp and its numbers. He expressed the opinion that it was agreed that the site was residential in form and the principle of residential development on a brownfield site was the most obvious long-term solution.

Mr Edwards expressed the view that the camp has the capacity for over 300 people to reside and prior to Brexit this was being achieved, however, at present it is running with between 100-150 which does increase slightly as the season goes on but to break even they need around 200 people. He stated that the majority of the people housed here at present are via the six month visa agricultural workers scheme, which WMS have a year left on this agreement and the maximum charge for individuals is set at £74 per week, with individuals having shared accommodation of up to 10 to a dorm with communal kitchen and bathroom facilities.

Mr Edwards stated that the company operates a fleet of 20 minibuses from the site along with 4 coaches to take individuals to and from their place of work. He added that WMS are looking at all options for the site and have had contact to provide accommodation for immigrants as well as contact with Platform Housing.

Mr Edwards made the point that the facilities that the camp offer are basic and only residential accommodation is provided in two accommodation blocks that were built in the 90s. He added that the number of former prisoner of war blocks were demolished to make way for these buildings and the remainder have fallen into various stages of disrepair, with the former clubhouse which was the officer’s mess also being closed as it is unsafe and the only buildings that are in use at the moment are the shop and offices at the front.

Mr Edwards stated that they have dealt with a number of different planning and conservation officers throughout the 4-year process of this application which has led to a number of changes and various reports being commissioned to answer any queries raised. He understands the feelings towards the camp but as the report states an application was made to Historic England for listing and their view was not to list it due to its lack of completeness.

Mr Edwards expressed the view that WMS need to look at all options as the camp is now holding the company back and as a labour provider they are having to look elsewhere. He made the point that the application has the support of a number of consultees and it should be noted that the drawings are indicative, with the exact type of accommodation being part of any future reserved matters application and will take into account existing trees, the buildings shown to be retained and potentially lead to BNG being kept on site.

Mr Edwards referred to the reasons for refusal, firstly the camp and buildings already exist and it is not anticipated that the built form would move any further east than it exists and other than the newer accommodation blocks the buildings are not capable of conversion. He stated that all of the existing boundary treatments are to remain so the development will not be seen from the public realm.

Mr Edwards referred to refusal reason two and stated that the site has a public footpath on the opposite side of the road which not only provides access to Friday Bridge it continues to Wisbech and residents from the camp can often be seen using it. He stated there is also a public transport bus service from a bus stop at the front with good visibility for pedestrians to cross the road in each direction.

Mr Edwards referred to refusal reason 3, the site is not seen from the public realm and will not extend beyond what exists at present. He stated in relation to refusal reason 4, the buildings are in a poor state of repair, which, in his view, is understandable as they were not expected to be there for this length of time and English Heritage do not consider they should be listed.

Mr Edwards reiterated that the scheme drawings are indicative and the reserved matters can be designed to accommodate the requirements of each dwelling while retaining trees and buildings. He referred to refusal reason 6 and stated that they have provided the officer with a letter from MTP on behalf of Platform Housing who would be keen on purchasing the site for an 100% affordable scheme and they have also provided the heads and terms in relation to conditions 7 and 8 to secure contributions for BNG.

Mr Edwards hoped that members would be able to support the application with the conditions and Section 106 agreements appropriate, allowing WMS to move forward. 

Members asked questions of Mr Edwards as follows:

·         Councillor Gerstner questioned some late changes being submitted to the application and asked if the effect 102 dwellings may have on a small village in respect of its infrastructure has been considered? Mr Edwards responded that they are happy to enter into a Section 106 for any payments that would be required towards education and the letter from MTP and Platform Housing was not received until last week in relation to 100% affordable housing and was provided as soon as received. Councillor Gerstner stated that he does not think the question about the effect of 102 houses on the infrastructure in a small village like Friday Bridge has been answered? Mr Edwards acknowledged that there will be an effect and that is why the Section 106 will allow for payments to be made to contribute towards improving facilities as necessary.

·         Councillor Mrs French raised concern with the likelihood of flooding, with Anglian Water stating that there is a possibility there could be flooding downstream, which Anglian Water could not cope with as Elm is full.  She asked where does the sewage go presently, is it cesspits or tankered away? Mr Edwards responded that there is a treatment works that is solely for the use of the camp.

·         Councillor Mrs French made the point that with regard to Section 106 when it is 100% affordable there is very little other contributions required so by approving 102 homes it is going to totally saturate the village, schools and doctors cannot take the residents and she finds it unsatisfactory.

·         Councillor Imafidon referred to the comment about the footpath continuing to Wisbech and the site being used for housing immigrants and requested an explanation. Mr Edwards responded that because the numbers since Brexit have decreased significantly the camp is not being run at capacity so there has been a need to look for alternative measures and they have had conversations with Serco on the potential for providing accommodation but nothing has gone further and it is only options being looked at currently. He added that the footpath is opposite the access and runs all the way along into Friday Bridge and then continues through Elm into Wisbech.

·         Councillor Marks referred to mention of the applicant speaking to Serco and asked if this is to retain the buildings as they are if the site becomes an immigration holding point? Mr Edwards responded that there are 2 blocks that are used at present to house the workers and they were both built in the 1980-90s, indicating on the plan where they are located, so that is where they would stay in that accommodation. Councillor Marks asked if that would house 300? Mr Edwards confirmed that it does now. Councillor Marks questioned that it is quite possible that they could be used going forward and not do anything else on site. Mr Edwards confirmed potentially.

·         Councillor Gerstner questioned that the road being 60mph? Mr Edwards confirmed it was at the front. Councillor Gerstner continued that predominantly the workers that are there at the moment are adult workers but 102 dwellings would normally consist of families and with affordable housing there would be children and those children would have to cross that 60mph speed limit to access a bus stop and asked if any thought had been given to mitigating the effects of this? Mr Edwards responded that speed reduction could be investigated to potentially achieve 40mph in this location, through the village itself it is 30mph, going into 40mph and then 60mph.

·         Councillor Connor referred to the application being in progress for 4-years, asking why has nothing been undertaken about the 60mph road and why it was acceptable to change the application in the last 48 hours, which does not give officers time to peruse the changes and does not give time to committee to look at them and make comments. Mr Edwards responded that the additional information came forward in the heads of terms and the letter from Platform came in late, they have shown an interest but they are not saying it is a 100% scheme but is likely to be the way they would wish to move forward with the site. Councillor Connor expressed the opinion that it is an application that has not been thought out properly and is an incomplete application. Mr Edwards disagreed, they have answered all queries as they have arisen and there has been many different officers involved which has added to the timeframe. He added that the letter came in from Platform at the last minute, it was known they were talking to the applicant but the applicant is talking to several different people as they cannot afford to keep running the camp and are looking at various options.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to the potential for 100% affordable housing and asked how much Section 106 contributions could be achieved? David Rowen responded that the current adopted policy of the Council in the Developer Contributions SPD is that for 100% affordable schemes no other financial contributions are applicable.

Members made comments, asked questions and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Benney made the point that in the presentation it was heard that the company is struggling and it needs to look for other means of money, but, in his view, this proposal is not it, it is 1½ kilometres away from the village, it is not connected and is in the wrong place. He added that committee is not here to prop businesses up and they need to look at their own business model and if it is not working adapt that and not come to the Council for housing in the wrong place. Councillor Benney stated that the development does look nice but it is just in the wrong place, there are safety issues with it and he feels that officers have the recommendation correct.

·         Councillor Mrs French agreed with the comments of Councillor Benney but she is more concerned about the flooding downstream and committee should not be approving something that in the future where someone is going to have to deal with flooding. She referred to the flooding issues previously in Fenland and made the point that Elm did flood.

·         Councillor Marks questioned what detriment this development would bring to the area if the camp is taken away and how it will affect Fenland businesses. He feels it needs to be borne in mind that there is a camp, with buildings built in the 1980-90s so it would have been built to a standard, so why would it be taken away when it is already known there is limited availability for short-term accommodation and planning will then get a lot more mobile homes applications around the area with farmers struggling that they have got nowhere to go. Councillor Marks stated that Friday Bridge was mentioned in an application in Manea and when the Inspector looked at it said that Friday Bridge was there and, therefore, not as many bed and breakfast or similar accommodation is required within the area. He added that he cannot support this application.

·         Councillor Connor expressed the opinion that this is a poor application, there is a 60mph road, 102 houses going on the site without too much thought, flooding issues, and it is a mile and a half out of the village.

·         Councillor Marks referred to an Anglian Water meeting he was at the previous evening about Chatteris Reservoir and one of things they are conscious of is accommodating local workers so maybe instead of taking away properties for bed and breakfast accommodation or similar the company should look at this instead of building residential in the middle of nowhere.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that the speed limit is 60mph and there have been numerous  accidents in this location, which has some nasty bends, but the County Council only record fatalities. She feels for children to be expected to walk to school 1.5 miles away is unrealistic.

Proposed by Councillor Imafidon, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per officer’s recommendation.