Agenda item

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke 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 Professor Wickham, on behalf of the applicant. Professor Wickham stated that there has been correspondence with interested parties and the three main points are that this is a detailed application as the principle of the matter has been decided, with matters of highways and drainage also having been considered and deemed acceptable. He expressed the opinion that the proposal is entirely compliant with Policy LP2 as this is a growth village and is an allocated site so is policy compliant with national policy.

Professor Wickham stated that in terms of detailed matters they have had a satisfactory exchange with officers and amendments have been made to dwellings against existing residents and to allay concerns about Fen View on Fallow Corner Drove and that relationship has been altered during the negotiation period so the site to back distance exceeds normal standards and there are no windows overlooking that particular direction. He stated that there have been one or two other detailed amendments.

Members asked questions of Professor Wickham as follows:

·       Councillor Benney stated that he welcomes the application but is disappointed that there is no Section 106 money as there is a site value of £7 million and no offer of contributions and would that be something they would consider? Professor Wickham responded that there is no requirement in the terms of the grant of planning permission at outline stage.

·       Councillor Benney acknowledged that there is no requirement but as a Planning Committee member he would like to see some kind of Section 106 and would there be any contribution forthcoming as there is a need for this in the local area, Manea School could do with some money and so could the doctors surgery, with this application creating another 29 dwellings which could mean 60 extra people who would put a demand on the local healthcare system. He understands where Professor Wickham is coming from but as a councillor in the adjacent ward that is part of Chatteris it would be nice as a token of goodwill to see an offer of something that would go towards local services and local amenities and is this something that can be found out of the £7 million investment? Professor Wickham responded that there was a viability assessment that indicated that this was not required or appropriate and whilst he understands the point it should have been welded into the process much earlier at the grant of the outline planning permission, this has obviously been raised as a fresh matter to them today and they will consider it and discuss it but he cannot promise it.

·       Councillor Benney stated that this is fine, he does understand the applicant’s position and there is a process, accepting that a viability assessment has been undertaken but there have been other agents sitting in the same position and when members have asked for contributions they have come back with something and a little something towards the local services would be appreciated. He feels there would have been more support from the Parish Council and residents would view this as a gesture of goodwill, which can sometimes go along way to make things run smoothly and would that be something they would consider today? Professor Wickham reiterated that they will consider it but he cannot promise anything. He stated that they were making improvements to the local highway, which is an infrastructure improvement.

The Legal Officer reminded members that the development has outline planning permission and there is a Section 106 Agreement but the time to request that payment would have been at the outline stage not at this stage and the Council cannot legally require the developer under Section 106 to make a contribution at this stage and if the developer declines to do so that is not a matter which should play on the planning merits of whether this should be approved or refused. Councillor Connor made the point that he does not think Councillor Benney was saying the applicant had to do it but was making a suggestion that in the interests of goodwill that maybe they should do it and it is realised that there is no obligation. Councillor Benney stated that he fully understands the comments of the Legal Officer and there is no legal obligation but when the committee has had other agents before them and made a similar suggestion they have said yes and it would be improper of him not to raise this.

Nick Harding stated that as has been outlined the appropriate time was to ask for a contribution at the time of the outline application and this issue cannot be revisited. He feels the cases referred to by Councillor Benney were where committee was faced with a fresh outline or a full application and, therefore, it was quite appropriate to ask. Nick Harding expressed the concern about whether if a contribution was offered can the Council lawfully enter into a Section 106 given that it should have been entered into at the outline stage and the Legal Officer is saying the Council cannot so it would have to dealt with by some other means.

Councillor Mrs French made the point that the outline was approved on 19 May 2020 and asked how the Council missed this, was it a committee decision or an officer decision? She has never known the Council to miss the opportunity for a Section 106, especially on 29 dwellings. Nick Harding responded that a viability assessment was submitted in relation to the outline application. Councillor Connor stated that he believes the issue of viability and Section 106 contributions was raised by officers at the time. Councillor Mrs French acknowledged that legally it cannot be done but morally the applicant might give the community something.

Councillor Benney stated that he fully understands the position with this and appreciates the viability study that was put forward by the applicant. He does remember the previous application coming before committee and members were advised that there was no Section 106 but the committee is not looking for hundreds of thousands of pounds but there have been agents who have offered contributions and he hoped the applicant on this application would be able to offer something, which the Council would look upon in a very favourable way.

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

·       Councillor Benney made the point that, as much as he has mentioned money, the application is policy compliant and will bring 29 bungalows to Manea, which is nice to see as not many people want to build bungalows as they take up a bigger footprint than a house. He stated that Manea is a small village, he is sure the bungalows will be welcomed and that there will be people waiting to move into them. Councillor Benney referred to the Womb Farm development and this development is filling up with people, which proves there is a need for housing in this area, with Chatteris and Manea not being that far apart and he is sure this development will be a success and there is no reason to refuse this application.

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

(Councillor Marks declared that he has had contact with the agent of this application as a Parish and District Councillor for Manea, and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)