Agenda item

To determine the application.

Tom Donnelly presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Rory Canham, the agent. Mr Canham stated that this is an infill site and all the dwelling are 100% affordable, ensuring homes for local people and future generations. He expressed the view that the principle of development, on balance, is considered to be acceptable, noting the positive support from various consultees such as Highways, Ecology, Archaeology, Environment Agency and Environmental Health.

Mr Canham referred to the 100% affordable housing provision and made the point that the Council’s Housing Team have previously confirmed that there are 31 names of people currently seeking affordable homes in Guyhirn. He stated that a recent outline application 70 metres to the south east of the application site along Gull Road received approval during September’s committee meeting and involved the erection of 24 affordable homes and in light of that approval this application site is the last remaining gap in development on this side of Gull Road and would represent a completion of the linear pattern of development along Gull Road, therefore, showing compliance with Policy LP3 relating to infill development whilst simultaneously not extending the village boundary.

Mr Canham expressed the opinion that the proposed 6 affordable units within this application look to successfully assist in meeting the remaining provision of the 31 affordable units assigned to Guyhirn, taking the new total to 30. He feels the design proposals put forward with this application are also in keeping with the form, scale, character and materiality of the immediate area, mirroring the similarly sized scheme which has been built to the north of the site.

Mr Canham stated that they naturally approached the parish in August 2024 prior to any formal application being submitted where the parish noted their interest in this site being a rural exception site supporting affordable housing for a registered social housing provider and subsequently they have submitted this application following this positive pre-application consultation with the parish where they had a separate objection based on the highway, traffic and parking concerns. He added that the separate highways consultation concluded and highlighted no objections on these same concerns, with there being ample off-road parking being provided including two new access driveways which achieve suitable turning circles and visibility splays all in accordance with the Fenland Local Plan.

Mr Canham advised that the applicant has been in dialogue with Anglian Water direct where they have a pre-development drainage strategy agreement in place should planning be sought, which involves foul drainage connecting to the existing infrastructure along Gull Road whilst surface water is discharged to the existing drains to the rear of the site subject to separate agreement with the IDB. He continued that in terms of flooding the application is located on the border of Flood Zones 1 and 3 and the sequential test submitted clearly justifies the search area as being the parish boundary and, therefore, not District wide, which was a similar approach taken for the recent approval of the 24 to the south east of the site with that specific application site being located further into Flood Zone 3.

Mr Canham expressed the opinion that the site is technically safe from flooding with the indicative street scene showing that the proposed heights are comparable with the neighbouring dwellings and the land levels will not be raised above road level, which mirrors the approach of the built dwellings directly opposite and to the north of the site where no issues have been identified. He feels that this application is a perfect example and sole reason why rural exception sites exist in order to allow affordable housing to sufficiently meet the obvious local need and the proposal is, therefore, considered acceptable in respect of character, amenity, biodiversity and highway safety impact.

Members asked questions of Mr Canham and Mr Walford as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked if they have been in discussion with North Level Drainage Board? Mr Walford responded that they commented during the application and they undertook the 8 to the north for private market sale so they had a lot of information needed from this development that has been adopted into this proposal, essentially 9 metre easement to the back, no pathways, ramps or anything within that area and they accepted discharge to that on the previous application so have assumed this proposal will be the same. He added that the applicant has made direct contact as well.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked, if approved, what will the plans be with the riparian dyke as the owner is responsible? Mr Walford responded that there will be a housing provider for the site and they will be made aware of the 9 metre easement and it is their duty to pass onto their tenants.

·       Councillor Benney referred to the proposal being affordable and asked what is the split in terms of shared ownership or rental and will preference be given to local people as from the statistics there is a need within Guyhirn? Mr Walford responded that it is a struggle to find a housing provider on smaller sites so no one has been definitely lined up but there are 3 companies in the running so he is unable to guarantee the exact nature of affordable. He added that he is not sure about local provision but there would be a preference for those registered in the Guyhirn area or whether this could be conditioned or put in the legal agreement. Councillor Benney stated that he understands the position but wanted to know the breakdown and preference to local people.

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

·       Councillor Marks referred to the fact that committee discussed a scheme adjacent previously hearing today what the agent said previously, and these are 4 properties along the road which are houses and not bungalows.

·       Councillor Benney stated that he visited the site and there are a lot of houses along that road that have been approved, with all these houses looking nice and all these gaps will be filled in making Guyhirn a destination place. He feels it is a good solid application, with the same arguments for and against as with the adjacent application and he will support it.

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to apply conditions and for the applicant to enter into a Section 106 Agreement regarding affordable homes and the offering to local people.

Members did not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they feel that a precedent has been set, the application is an infill development and there is significant benefit to the people of Fenland by providing much needed affordable homes which outweighs the requirement for a sequential test.

(Councillor Connor declared that his reason for call-in related to the weight to be given to the community benefit, but is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)