Agenda item

To determine the application.

Graham Smith presented the report to members and drew their attention to the following updates:

·       the total contributions in Section 10.13 should have included the possible maximum total which is a request for £1,366,040, which will be subject to the total houses as it is an outline application but made the point that Section 10.14 highlights the accepted viability in Fenland.

·       a further letter has been received from the Fire Service confirming their request for fire hydrants and planning condition 10 deals with this issue.

·       a late letter was received from John Maxey who drew attention to the question of whether the applicant should have provided a viability assessment, the applicant has agreed to provide 20% affordable housing and infrastructure contributions as detailed in the report of £2,000 per dwelling. Mr Maxey sought confirmation that this proposal would be consistently applied together with a position of 10% first homes and 0% infrastructure contributions on sites to the north of the A47, officers have since given Mr Maxey that confirmation and he has confirmed that his objection has been satisfied and his request to speak was withdrawn.

 

The committee had regard to its inspection of site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Benney, a District Councillor. Councillor Benney stated that the site lies within his ward so he is looking at it from a ward perspective and this also falls under his Portfolio Holder responsibilities. He expressed the view that all his life he has been critical of politicians local and national who make popular rather than practical and informed decisions just to get re-elected, with this in mind it would have been easier for him to jump on the band wagon and go for the minority option as ward councillor to refuse this application but he believes this application has been well worked, is policy compliant and is the best compromise for all Chatteris residents and it also delivers housing Chatteris desperately needs.

 

Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that there has been no major house building in Chatteris, with the exception of Womb Farm, since the early 1980s, with the Chatteris East Strategic Allocation BCP having been in place for 15 years and has stood as the cornerstone of housing allocations for Chatteris in that time but not one brick has been laid, whilst on paper the policy looks good the lack of willingness to agree by landowners, agents and developers has failed to put a deal together to deliver and this is why the BCPs are being dismantled in the emerging Local Plan and individual applications within a BCP are being accepted. He stated as Portfolio Holder for the Council’s assets he has seen other proposed schemes for this site, another proposal was for the whole BCP area showing 450 homes with the land at the bottom of The Elms having all the social housing element for the whole BCP in the form of flats on this land, whilst this would not use The Elms for vehicular access foot traffic from the flats would and visitors to the flats could park in The Elms causing traffic issues, referring to Treeway to show what could happen in a quiet cul-de-sac.

 

Councillor Benney stated that he also sits on the Investment Board and said he could only support this scheme if it is a high-quality development, he wants nice well-designed, well-built family homes with plenty of off-road parking that would bring as little disruption to the residents of The Elms as any scheme would.  He feels the mix should be 2, 3, 4 and 5-bedroom, high-quality, low-density housing with policy compliant 20% affordable, which delivers enough affordable housing for the local need and no more, consisting of 15 rentals and 5 shared ownership, and retains the good character of The Elms.

 

Councillor Benney referred to the Council’s website where there have been 10 letters of objection but made the point that only 6 of these are from residents, the remaining 4 are from local agents and most of the objections, flooding, access, drainage, wildlife, etc, are addressed within the officer’s report.  He stated that Fenland Future undertook a community engagement exercise pre Summer holidays last year and over 150 homes in close proximity to the site where consulted, 16 replies were received, 6 were objections and the rest were either neutral or showed support, with the requests from those responses asking for a mix of housing, a mix of open space and energy efficiency for the properties and he will work to deliver all of these requests from his place on the Investment Board if elected at the next election.

 

Councillor Benney expressed the view that this is in contrast to the Wenny Road development, which also lies within the BCP area, and is within 300 metres of this site and has over 550 residents’ comments nearly all against that development, which shows the contrast of objections between the two sites.  He stated as ward councillor he was made aware four years ago that there are significant drainage issues within The Elms, since the Farriers Gate development was built there is surface water that runs into The Elms causing severe flooding, a resident sent him a photo of the highway, garden and car park with significant standing water, which he took to David Rowen and asked what could be done to solve this problem, build was David’s answer and the drainage scheme on this proposal would resolve the flooding.

 

Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that approving this proposal is the best way to solve the flooding issue affecting the residents of The Elms, it is only a matter of time without this application being approved that someone’s house in The Elms will flood. He referred to talk of an alternative access into the site, Fenland Future looked at bringing the access off the A142 but the conclusion was that the access from the A142 was considered feasible but extensive works would be required at significant cost which is likely to make the development unviable and also the land to deliver this is not in the ownership of the Council and it would also mean that anyone living on the proposed site would have to drive around the bypass back into the town just to buy a pint of milk, so the lack of connectivity to the wider town and service would not be good for the residents living there.

 

Councillor Benney concluded that the proposal is policy compliant, it delivers much needed housing for Chatteris social and market value, has been fully consulted on and a solution with highways has been agreed for the access and it comes with an officer recommendation to approve.

 

Members asked questions of Councillor Benney as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked if it was possible that another access point can be brought through the BCP? Councillor Benney responded that the land that surrounds the Fenland owned land at the bottom of The Elms is privately owned and attempts have been made to liaise with the owners without success.

·       Councillor Skoulding asked if all of the Chatteris Town Councillors agree to this proposal? Councillor Benney responded that Chatteris Town Council is against the development as it is over-development, but in his view it is not it is low density compared to what it could be and feels that the Town Council has been affected by the Wenny Meadows campaign.

·       Councillor Connor stated that he is happy to see 20% affordable and 5 shared ownership but asked for a guarantee that there would be a sweeper on site at all times as mud and debris should not be left deposited on the highway. Councillor Benney responded that as far as he is concerned he could as Fenland Future Ltd wants to be a gold star deliverer of homes and believes if the same question is asked of the applicant after he speaks that the same answer will be given.

·       Councillor Sutton made the point that Chatteris Town Council do not object to the site per se but strongly object to the entrance being on The Elms. He stated that when members visited the site, it is not ideal and asked Councillor Benney for his comments.  Councillor Benney agreed that it is not ideal but Fenland Future Ltd did have a consultancy firm undertake an access survey, there were 3 areas looked at one was the access through The Elms, another was through Green Park but there were ownership issues with access to the land so this was dismissed and the only other access is from the bypass which is on a long sweeping curve and to introduce slip roads would be too costly and make the development prohibitive and also it would make it not part of the town as you would not be able to drive into it. He expressed the view that when The Elms was built that part of the road was left open to accept delivery and this proposal will be the last piece of development that comes in here. Councillor Benney made the point that no development is agreeable to everyone and there are the flooding issues, which at the bottom of The Elms are very serious, which can be solved by a drainage strategy for this site.

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to provision of a Welcome Pack for the first occupants of each dwelling, which will include 4 weeks free bus travel, cycle discount vouchers, etc, and asked who is paying for this? Councillor Benney responded that he has no idea.

·       Councillor Purser referred to the sequential test and asked if there are any other sites that could be used in Chatteris? Councillor Benney made the point that it is this application that is being looked at.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis asked for assurances that the access from the A142 was seriously looked at and costed because it has been said that it would make the development unviable. Councillor Benney responded that he has a copy of the report in front of him that was prepared for Fenland Future Ltd and all options were looked at and it states clearly that “access from the A142 is considered feasible, however, extensive works will be required at significant cost which is likely to make the development unviable”.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Melton, an objector. Mr Melton stated that he is not against the development of this land, he remembers promoting it as a wholesale development right up to the bypass and it was always stated at the time and in successive plans that there would be no access to that land from St Martins Road, The Elms, Green Park or anywhere else, it would be coming off the bypass with a roundabout near the cricket club. He acknowledges that it has been an issue to bring all the developers together but he feels it is their problem and does not see why the Council should pick up the problem and make it worse.

 

Mr Melton expressed the opinion that when members visited the site they probably went at a convenient time when there were not many cars parked up along this road but if The Elms and Birch Avenue had been visited at school time, first thing in the morning and in the afternoon it would be a completely different scenario. He expressed the view that Councillor Benney is right that it is his ward but before it was Councillor Benney’s ward it was his ward several years ago, he lives on this ward and walks the ward every day, crossing the fields looking at the dykes and ditches and the way the water is supposed to go away and it does not and also the cars that are parked and the access, which he feels it is not acceptable.

 

Mr Melton expressed the view that if he had more time to address the committee he would play the scenario that members went through when they were discussing the development at Doddington and this is very similar due to access, the winding roads, the bends, the delivery and he could quote some of things some of the councillors said about that access. It was also said by one councillor that the village does not want it, the community does not want it and those nearby do not want it so, therefore, to be consistent members should consider this proposal in the same way.

 

Mr Melton recognises that it is difficult for the committee, given the nature of the application and who the applicant is. He is not against selling Council assets but he always wishes to see that the local community benefits from the sale of those assets and in this case, in his view, this proposal does not as all it is going to do is aggravate a problem which is now on St Martins Road, Birch Avenue and The Elms.

 

Mr Melton refers to the report mentioning East Park Street, which is the main egress and access into St Martins Road and, in his view, is a terrible junction, with most people who leave St Martins Road from The Elms or Birch Avenue utilising Church Lane and that is a narrow road with hardly any footpath. He referred to the consultation mentioned by Councillor Benney and, in his view, the consultation did not go far enough, the consultation was in Green Park and adjoining areas and he feels it should have been with everybody in St Martins Road, Birch Avenue and The Elms to obtain their opinions.

 

Mr Melton believes this application is premature, it should still be considered as a whole item of land along the bypass and if the developers cannot come together and put a whole scheme together with a proper spine road and accesses, proper environmental and drainage contributions then the whole site should be taken out of the emerging Local Plan as if not committee will be considering piecemeal development from now and for the next 20 years and all of it will be coming along St Martins Road.

 

Members asked questions of Mr Melton as follows:

·       Councillor Sutton asked Mr Melton what his take was on the flooding issues in this area, with Councillor Benney alluding to this development helping the current situation? Mr Melton responded that this morning he walked the site and the problem is all the volume of water which comes from development at Green Park, The Elms and Farriers Gate, which all goes into one point and into one drainage ditch. He stated that there is a culvert under the bypass and there is another culvert but none of them have the capacity to take any further volume of water. Mr Melton stated he does have photos of it and the other side of the culvert it just comes to a stop and where the water goes before the culvert it pools and steps over. He expressed the view that when Farriers Gate was built the site was raised by a metre and there is an engineering brick wall on the entrance to The Elms which holds that development back and there is a set of steps and a slope to climb up to it from The Elms into that development so when water falls it always goes downhill and if this site is built upon it will have to be raised because this and the adjoining playing field are always wet. Mr Melton expressed the opinion that when this site is built up along with Farriers Gate the people who live in The Elms are in a bowl and unless there is extensive engineering and pumping work to deal with the issue, referring to an incident he had when he was ward councillor and houses in The Elms were flooded, the same situation will happen again which is what residents are in fear of.

·       Councillor Purser referred to the junction at East Park Street, which Mr Melton said was dangerous and asked if the outline should include a roundabout or traffic lights. Mr Melton responded that there is a number of roads that would be impacted and it would cost a fortune to implement making the development unviable, whilst it is a solution it is impractical.

·       Councillor Purser understands what Mr Melton is saying, but feels it is also a matter of how much a life costs. Mr Melton agreed and this is why he is making a case against it now as this is a major route for access to the Glebelands School and there is a constant stream of children in St Martins Road coming past his house to and from school from these estates. He referred again to the debate on the Doddington development where someone asked how anyone would get building materials to the site, a great big lorry with trusses on the back, portacabins, etc, it will be an absolute nightmare and it will not be a sweeper to keep it clean but a major piece of machinery.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Adam Broadway, on behalf of the applicant. Mr Broadway clarified that Fenland Future Ltd is the wholly owned subsidiary of the Council and has been set up specifically to create revenue for the Council. He made the point that Fenland Future is the applicant for the site and stated that he does want to add anything to what is already in the report, which has a clear recommendation and a clear set of statutory consultees that are not objecting to the scheme.

 

Mr Broadway stated that they have worked very closely with the officer and statutory consultees to ensure that this outline application meets planning policy and can be delivered. He made the point that affordable housing is being provided in line with policy and a Section 106 Agreement will be entered into to meet some of the requirement for facilities in the town.

 

Mr Broadway referred to the question that was asked about the travel plan being offered to the residents of the development and this will be costed in the development by Fenland Future Ltd when the site is developed.

 

Members asked questions of Mr Broadway as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French expressed her disappointment with the lack of comments from Highways. She stated that she is intrigued about the Transport Assessment Team regarding the Welcome Travel Pack and asked what this is about as she has never heard of it bearing in mind the District does not have many buses and is this just another directive coming from County Council to get people out of their cars? Mr Broadway recognised that there is a problem with transport, but there is also a climate change issue so consideration needs to be given to how people move about and how it can be addressed, with one of the new ideas being floated is to offer all new residents on developments travel options which are different to the car, an incentive for people to use transport modes in a different way which is used on a number of development across the country and it is new but it will be funded by the developer and hopefully will try and reduce some of the car traffic use and encourage residents to make the switch to other sustainable transport modes. Councillor Mrs French understands what is being said and attended a meeting at County yesterday where they are trying to get people out of cars but people living in this area need a car, the people of Chatteris will not be waiting for a bus to get to where they need to go as there are not any.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis asked what the proposals will be for construction traffic as all the roads around the site are very narrow and there are cars legitimately parked on the road and there could potentially be the situation of construction traffic meeting head on emergency vehicles. Mr Broadway responded that there is a condition and it will be an obligation on the Reserved Matters application to deal with this. He recognises the point and they are not fixed on a particular route, it will be dealt with in the detail if this point is reached. Councillor Mrs Davis acknowledged this but was just wondered if Mr Broadway had any view now that would assist councillors in making their decision. Mr Broadway stated that he has a view but that needs to be technically supported, there is a view that you could come off the bypass but that is extremely difficult due to the access point as it is and the fact that it is a very busy road and along a major curve.

·       Councillor Connor stated that he has asked Councillor Benney and does see in the conditions there is a wheel wash but he would prefer a road sweeper as well if the application is approved to stop the debris on the road and he would like this from the first day of development and asked for a guarantee that this happens. Mr Broadway responded that Fenland Future Ltd will be developing the site with appropriate contractors and will have the ability to put conditions on the contractors in the best health and safety conscious way as this is technically a Council development and it needs to ensure that everything is undertaken correctly.

·       Councillor Purser asked how long the actual development would take? Mr Broadway responded that construction period would be about 2½ to 3 years which is from the first start on site to actual handover and completion of the very last property. He stated it will be a housing for sale scheme predominantly so the market has to be followed and there has to be a sales plan that reflects what the market will take.

·       Councillor Sutton referred to the comments from Councillor Benney and Mr Melton regarding the flooding issues currently and he has always been told that a new development should not bear the costs of something that has gone wrong in the past but given this is a Council run scheme he would expect the Council to go that extra measure to incorporate something within the new site which alleviates those problems that are existing and asked for assurances that this would fit in with Fenland Future Ltd plans? Mr Broadway responded that in the report it can be seen that there has been extensive consultation with the relevant authorities on how the site is drained and at one point the original proposal was not accepted and that has been amended and conforms to what the authorities require in terms of drainage and holding surface water. He stated that surface water seems to be the big issue, there is a drain that goes through the site and it is proposed that very large sustainable urban drainage ponds will be put in, which will be dry most of the time but when there is a flooding issue then they will hold the water, which is a technical detail that needs to be finalised when a detailed application is submitted but the confidence that this can be addressed has been provided.

·       Councillor Sutton referred to Mr Melton mentioning that there is an issue with the culvert going under the A142 and he knows from experience and being on the Hundred of Wisbech IDB there are 3 culverts going under the A47, 2 of which go uphill and as Mr Melton rightly pointed out water only goes one way and asked if there has been any survey undertaken or is coming up as to whether that culvert running under the A142 is fit for purpose. Mr Broadway responded that they consulted with the relevant agencies, they have given their advice and they have amended the plans to accommodate their further input. He stated that as part of a detailed application there will be further conditions that need to be addressed including a lot more technical reports and those reports are fundamental to the next stage of the process and it is not in their interests to create problems but try to resolve some of those problems for the existing neighbourhood but also the residents.

 

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked if any comments have been received from the Drainage Boards as she cannot see any within the report? Graham Smith advised that before committee he checked whether any comments had been submitted but confirmed that nothing has been received. 

·       David Rowen referred to the comments of Councillor Benney and he does recall him showing him a photograph of a site on The Elms, which he believes was a car parking area that was underwater and he did comment on this, however, he does not believe he has commented on the actual application site itself.

 

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

·       Councillor Sutton stated that he is not overly comfortable having to make a decision on something that is in-house but that is what the committee has to do. He mentioned the comments about the BCP and in other places this kind of piecemeal development has been refused, Wisbech East being one of them, so members need to be careful that they do not appear to be favouring the Council’s land because that is contrary to what has been done before. Councillor Sutton stated that he does struggle to compare with other developments and being consistent with those, but he does not feel there is much wrong with the proposal as long as it is going to improve those flood issues and the levels are not going to be raised like Mr Melton fears, there is not any policy reason, other than a change in attitude to the BCPs, to refuse the application, although he has serious concerns about the access but acknowledges that there is not the technical backup from Highways.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor agreed with the comments of Councillor Sutton, the access is dreadful and she is sure that her voice was one of the voices that Mr Melton was referring to on the Doddington application as she thought that was awful but again there is no backup from Highways. She referred to the costs to come of the A142 as being prohibitive but made the point that no numbers have been provided, what one person thinks is prohibitive might be different for another person but reiterated that access from The Elms into this site is dreadful.  

·       Councillor Connor made the point that Highways have raised no objections so practically there are no reasons to refuse as Councillor Sutton rightly says on highway grounds.

·       Councillor Mrs French agrees with the comments of Councillor Sutton and she did ask the question of Councillor Benney about the disappointment about the lack of information from Highways. She referred to Councillor Sutton’s comments about feeling uncomfortable about making a decision on land that belongs to the Council and made the point that the committee has done this many times before, possibly not on this scale and need to take into consideration that there has never been until recently Fenland Future and this is what it is all about Fenland’s future. Councillor Mrs French expressed the opinion that the application has been submitted properly and if the access could be bettered possibly with a roundabout it should be looked at.

·       Councillor Sutton expressed the view that the application cannot be refused on The Elms and the only way that members can refuse it is to say that they do not agree the development should go ahead outside of the BCP, which he feels is legitimate. Councillor Connor expressed the opinion that he could not direct the committee to go down this route. Councillor Sutton disagreed as this has been undertaken before.

·       Nick Harding stated that there have been situations where permission has been refused where an incremental proposal on a BCP site has come forward but in other instances there have been approvals and the key to this is whether or not the proposed incremental development risks significantly stymieing the delivery of the bigger picture and that needs to be determined when dealing with this application. He acknowledges that the means of access is different but what is the harm of that access being different, there has been two and a bit pages of response from the Highway Authority so they have been thorough, a transport assessment has been undertaken and the Development Management Highways Officer has looked at the scheme so he is satisfied that it has been looked at appropriately. Nick Harding expressed the view that the only thing missing from the delivery of the wider BCP and the consideration of individual applications is the sway of the public open space on the south eastern quadrant of the site but the committee has to be pragmatic about it as despite valiant efforts by many it has not been possible to achieve a deal between all the various landowners and so these individual cases are being looked at as to whether they provide the appropriate levels of open space. He stated that the development is accessed via The Elms but that does not prejudice access being provided off Wenny Road for the remainder of the development.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis expressed the opinion that this is a difficult decision, looking at the faces of the committee and the public she feels you can tell that people’s hearts do not want it to go ahead and there is every sympathy with the residents but officers spend hours writing these reports and have gone into every detail and she cannot see any real material reason for refusing this application.

·       David Rowen expressed the view that one of the important things to remember regarding a roundabout of the A142 and issues of is it feasible, would the cost really be prohibitive but ultimately the committee needs to make a decision on the basis of the application in front of them. He asked whether it would give members some or greater comfort to add potentially an additional condition regarding details of land levels to be submitted at Reserved Matters stage, which may pick up some of the issues Mr Melton raised and some members have reflected on in the debate.

 

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Davis, seconded by Councillor Skoulding and agreed that the application be APPROVED as per officer’s recommendation, with an additional condition regarding land levels.

 

(Councillor Benney declared that he sits on Cabinet and the Investment Board so is pre-determined and after speaking on the application took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)

 

(Councillor Mrs French declared that she is a Cabinet member but is not pre-determined and would approach the application with an open mind)

 

(Councillor Murphy declared that he is a member of Cabinet and attended a meeting discussing the site and the agreed way forward so he is pre-determined, and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)

 

(Councillors Benney and Murphy further registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they are members of Chatteris Town Council but take no part in planning matters)