Agenda item

To determine the application.

Nick Harding presented the report to members and drew members attention to the update that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Andy Brand and Azhar Ahmed, the applicants.  Mr Brand stated that he is the Planning Director of Abbey Properties Cambridgeshire Ltd and he is accompanied by Azhar Ahmed who is the Assistant Development Director of their delivery partner Accent Group. He explained that Accent are currently delivering new affordable homes across Fenland, and he has been working with them with regards to the proposed site and this full planning application includes their proposed house types, making the point that the officer’s report identifies a scale of affordable housing deficit within Fenland and there are over 800 households on the Council’s waiting list for housing with a preference to live in March alone and the need across Fenland is for over 1,800 households.

Mr Brand explained that the proposal can provide an affordable home for forty-eight of those households and, should planning permission be granted, Accent would commence work on site within the first half of the year. He expressed the opinion that the officer’s recommendation for refusal had come as surprise as he had been working for some time with officers to successfully address matters in respect of drainage and highway matters.

Mr Brand stated that there are some inconsistencies and inaccuracies within the report, and he  clarified that, with regards to the Section 106 Agreement, there would be 100% affordable housing as part of the agreement. He made the point that at 10.3 of the report it suggests that the site is not within the settlement boundary of the emerging Local Plan, however, that is incorrect as the site is within the settlement boundary and the report also refers to the two trees which do not warrant refusal.

Mr Brand explained that, with regards to the loss of the trees, the report does not confirm that as part of the development there will seventy new trees planted which includes new trees facing Wimblington Road. He advised the committee that the Highway Authority have required the removal of the trees due to highway safety factors and whilst he would have preferred to maintain the trees that is not possible.

Mr Brand stated that the trees will require removal to facilitate further development through the broad location for growth for southwest March and he made the point that the delivery of forty-eight new homes accompanied by the planting of seventy trees should be given considerable weight. He added that he agrees with the conclusion at 10.24 of the report which states that the gap arising from the loss of the two trees is not much different to other existing large gaps along Wimblington Road.

Mr Brand referred to the first reason for refusal which relates to the requirement for a Broad Concept Plan (BCP) which was set out in the 2014 Local Plan and prior to submitting the planning application he did write to 14 other land owners to invite them to consolidate to form a BCP, however, there was insufficient interest to do so which, in his view, reflects the fact that since 2004 no BCP has been forthcoming. He explained that one of the major landowners, the Fisher Parks and Trust, who own the land to the immediate west of the application site benefit from access from Knights End Road, and they are also able to facilitate access to the south west March BCP to the west of their own site.

Mr Brand made the point that there are no objections to the proposal in respect of the BCP matters from other landowners or from March Town Council and, therefore, he is looking to deliver forty-eight new affordable homes to address an urgent need which creates a technical conflict with Policy LP7 of the Fenland Local Plan. He explained that he been unable to progress a BCP due to lack of interest from any other landowner and, therefore, that conflict, in his opinion, needs to be rationalized against several factors, with there remaining the ability if required to take access to the west from the application site where the layout includes a road along that boundary and the layout does not preclude access being taken to the west and it also includes pedestrian access through the site.

Mr Brand explained that the BCP requirement has not been taken up by the landowners in the south west March location for growth despite it being in the policy for 10 years and the emerging Local Plan seeks to remove that requirement which appears to recognize that the policy has been ineffective. He made the point that the Council has approved other schemes in the south west March BCP area without a BCP being in place.

Mr Brand stated that as a compromise he would be willing to accept a planning condition requiring the access to the west to be reviewed as the development progresses as this is a full application. He explained that, at the current point in time, he does not wish to amend the plan formally as it would require the formation of the access road which could lead to nowhere and he explained that Accent are very willing to work with the adjoining landowners to the west to enable access between the land parcels but their clear aim is to deliver 48 new affordable homes in the short term and the likelihood is that development of the application site would actually stimulate the activity within the local area whilst also providing 48 families with a new affordable home.

Mr Brand expressed the opinion that members are entitled to apply determinative weights to delivery of affordable housing which he feels significantly outweighs any suggested harm and he asked the committee to approve the proposal in order to enable the development to progress later in the year.

Mr Ahmed explained that Accent are the second largest stockholder in Fenland and are V1 and G1 rated. He added that he has increased his development programme for 890 new homes and at the current time in Fenland he has 230 new affordable homes under construction and is investing £49.4m into Fenland and £13.6m of grant funding.

Mr Ahmed explained that he has other pipeline schemes in Fenland which will bring a total of £94m and £30m of grant funding towards Fenland which will hopefully deliver 413 new homes.

Members asked Mr Brand and Mr Ahmed the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked Mr Brand and Mr Ahmed whether the proposed homes will be for local people as it is local people who are on the housing register? Mr Ahmed explained that he will be signing a nomination agreement with the Council and the residents who occupy the new homes will be those that are on the Council’s housing waiting list.

·         Councillor Connor expressed the opinion it is not the Council’s experience that housing associations do not wish to have 100% affordable schemes subject to Section 106 Agreements because it causes grants from being accessed and it is normally the case that Section 106 Agreements seek only to require the amount of affordable housing in line with policy no more and he asked whether that has changed. Mr Ahmed explained that Homes England are quite satisfied to provide grants on all homes on 100% affordable sites as long as there are no private sale units on the site to subsidize affordable housing. He added that has already been the case on two sites in Fenland and fifteen sites in Huntingdonshire and South Cambridgeshire where the Section 106 are 100% affordable.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that the NHS are seeking a £39,547 contribution and she notes that there is a contribution going towards education, however, should the application be approved, would they be content that the NHS can be included for a contribution within that amount. She clarified that she is not requesting an additional contribution but asking for some of the education contribution to be offered elsewhere. Mr Brand stated that the expectation was there would not be any financial contribution because the scheme is all affordable. Councillor Mrs French stated that she is not requesting an additional contribution. Mr Brand stated that he does not believe that there is any form of contribution in terms of any financial planning obligation and in the report it does state that the expectation is that for any affordable housing scheme there will not be any financial contribution in lieu of the benefit for delivering affordable housing itself. Councillor Mrs French expressed the opinion that she finds that disappointing as the proposal is for forty-eight homes which could equate to 150 or 200 additional residents and the doctors’ surgeries are already at capacity and she asked Mr Brand how he expects those residents to be able to cope. Mr Brand explained that is a fair comment to make and should planning permission be granted subject to the Section 106 Agreement, if members insist that the contribution had to be included within that Section 106 Agreement then that would not be subject to any objection.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he agrees with the comments made by Councillor Mrs French as trying to get any sort of doctors or dentist appointment is difficult and should the application be approved, he would definitely want to see a contribution made towards the NHS out of the Section 106 monies.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that Nick Harding has made the point that the application could stifle more affordable housing in that area, and she asked him to explain this in more detail. Nick Harding stated that there is a large area which is identified for development within the adopted Local Plan and that area has not been subject to any strategic analysis to identify where there are appropriate access points to serve all of that development area and there has been no analysis of any on site constraints such as archaeology or flooding. He explained that if the proposal is approved that may result in losing a key access point which could go on to serve the rest of the site and, therefore, that land cannot come forward for development and deliver any affordable housing. Councillor Mrs French stated that she is aware of the land in question and there has been a period of 25 years to develop it, but the twenty landowners will not join together. She expressed the view that because the proposal is for affordable housing, and it is something that is very much needed, it is down to the rest of the owners to join together to consider the BCP development.

·         Councillor Hicks stated that there is another potential access point which is located just before you leave Mill Hill garage which can be considered for the future. Nick Harding added that is a correct, however, that is located at the bottom of the site and, therefore, there is a piece of this wider development area who would all access Wimblington Road at the bottom whereas the ideal situation is to facilitate a more convenient route for traffic, pedestrians and cyclists so that they are using a more convenient route through the site and more directly towards the secondary school. He added that the loss of this as a potential access point would prevent that from being delivered. Councillor Hicks stated that he takes on board the explanation from Nick Harding, but he does not necessarily agree with it.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that there are new schools proposed through the County Council in March as there will be a shortage of school places and there is a planned school being considered in the March West Ward on land owned by the County Council and a Special Needs School planned for Burrowmoor Road in the next 18 months.

·         Councillor Benney asked why the access road cannot be down the main road which could be extended into the site? Nick Harding stated that you could do that, however, it is not included within the proposal. Councillor Benney stated that what is proposed is not a BCP it is a standalone site and, therefore, there could potentially be an access through here into the BCP land. Nick Harding stated that is not the case due to the fact that it is not provided for in this planning proposal. Councillor Benney asked physically could it be built if negotiations took place with the landowners and Nick Harding expressed the opinion that the layout does not lend itself very well at all to that happening.

·         Nick Harding stated that with regards to the questions made to the Mr Brand and Mr Ahmed in terms of wider contributions to health and education, the Council’s adopted policy is that when a scheme is 100% affordable then those contributions are not asked for which is contained within the committee report.

·         Councillor Connor expressed the view that the committee could make a strong recommendation which was agreed by the applicant that the committee has requested that aspect, even though we cannot condition it. Nick Harding made the point that the committee has to make a resolution on the application which has to identify the grounds on which they are making that decision. He added that if the committee resolve to grant planning permission it is going to be subject to Section 106 Agreement to secure 100% affordable housing, conditions which will be delegated to officers and the decision must include whether committee wishes to include within the Section 106 requirements the contributions to health and education. He explained that if that was not included in the decision then there is nothing in place to bind the applicant from moving forward and signing the agreement.

·         Councillor Mrs French made the point that it is her understanding that the committee will make their decision on the Section 106 and that decision has to be made today prior to planning permission being given.

·         Councillor Connor asked officers to clarify whether that is achievable, and Nick Harding explained that yes that can be done but an explanation would have to be given as to why the committee think that it is appropriate to move away from the usual approach as established in the planning policies to ask for a contribution. Councillor Connor stated that would be possible.

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

·         Councillor Benney stated that he has read the report and who would want to reject 48 homes for people. He added that one of the primary jobs as Councillors is to provide homes for people and there is a waiting list of people who are living in bed and breakfast accommodation, squatting on people’s floors waiting for a home to become available and there is the opportunity before the committee to provide 48 homes for people. Councillor Benney added that he is aware that the proposal is blocking the access off to the BCP, however, BCP’s are being broken up within the emerging Local Plan, and with the exception of Whittlesey the BCPs are failing to deliver homes. He referred to a historic planning application in Stow Lane which formed part of the Wisbech East BCP and at that time the advice provided to the committee was that the proposal was recommended for refusal as it was imminent that a plan was being brought forwards for the East of Wisbech BCP and therefore the application would stifle that further development. Councillor Benney explained that the application was refused and unfortunately the twenty-eight dwellings did not go ahead when they could have been built in the corner of the BCP and the argument before committee is as weak as it was for that proposal in Stow Lane. He stated that there is not an access there, however, if the whole of that area is going to be developed as a BCP there will be somebody along the Wimblington Road who will be willing to sell their house to create an access, adding that he disagrees with the point made to say that this is shut off and it closes the development off and there will be somebody who will sell a house to bring it back in if it needs that access. Councillor Benney stated that the BCPs are to be dismantled and will not be in the emerging Local Plan and the current 2014 Local Plan started its life in 2007 and it is well overdue for being reviewed and it has not brought any of the BCPs forward which were planned for Wisbech. He added that the only place where it has brought them forward is Whittlesey and in Chatteris the BCP has been broken up so that smaller piecemeal development has taken place. Councillor Benney added that he would like to see it come forward as a BCP but if it does not deliver houses there could be a considerable time frame which could elapse, and the landowners may still not have joined together. He added that as Councillors they want to see delivery of homes and to refuse the proposal before them on the promise that they may block it, the land owners have had enough time to join together and they do need to bring it forward because when the new Local Plan is introduced in whatever shape or form that may be, they may find out that missed out on an opportunity for the current value of their land. Councillor Benney stated that the proposal will provide forty-eight homes for 150 people and with regards to contributions if that can be addressed it is something that he would welcome but the first priority is the homes that are being brought forward. He made the point that with regards to the loss of two trees, in his view, it is a small price to pay when considering the delivery of homes for people.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she agrees with the comments of Councillor Benney, and added that somebody could purchase a house for access and knock it down and the same thing has happened in Wisbech Road as there are currently 118 affordable homes being built at the present time. She expressed the view that she is disappointed about the loss of the trees, however, if there are seventy new trees which are to be planted then that more than compensates. Councillor Mrs French expressed the opinion that it is a golden opportunity for local people to obtain a home of their own.

·         Councillor Connor expressed the view that it is a good proposal and is a prime opportunity for forty-eight families to have a home in March reducing the waiting list for a property. He expressed the view that the proposal should not be rejected, and it could be 20 years before landowners join together. Councillor Connor added that, as Councillors, it is their duty to provide houses for as many people as possible, making the point that the Agent has stated that the properties will be allocated to local people in Fenland and not to those people who live outside of the area.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to the March Neighbourhood Plan, she was one of the elected members who welcomed the plan, with it commencing in 2015 and was adopted in 2017 but it is out of date. She explained that the BCPs are included within it and officers are correct to advise that there is not a BCP, however, when Fenland brings in the new Local Plan then the March Neighbourhood Plan will need to be looked at again to bring it up to date. Councillor Mrs French made the point that this is the ideal time for new homes to be provided to those people on the waiting list and she will support the proposal providing there is a contribution to the NHS.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he recently visited the Womb Farm development in Chatteris and was provided with some statistics concerning the houses that have been sold on the site. He explained that 60% of the people who have bought properties or moved into the homes have come from within six miles of Chatteris, 87% from within a Cambridgeshire postcode and 58% have been first time buyers, which demonstrates how much housing is needed and as a percentage of local people, it also demonstrates that there is local need and shows that there a large number of people who are waiting for a home. Councillor Benney stated that the BCPs have failed to deliver the housing that they should have done from 2014 and people need homes. He expressed the opinion that the figures demonstrate the local need for homes in Fenland.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to apply conditions and entering into a Section 106 Agreement to include contributions towards the NHS and Libraries.

Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that there could be another access point found for the BCP, they feel that the BCPs have failed to deliver homes, there is much need for the type of housing which the proposal will bring, the provision of homes for people far outweighs the loss of two trees and the March Neighbourhood Plan is out of date.

Nick Harding clarified that members have two requests with regards to the Section 106 contributions in addition to the 100% affordable. He made the point that firstly almost £500,000 being requested by the County Council towards education and libraries and secondly a health contribution of £39,547.

Councillor Mrs French stated that the applicant does not have to contribute at all as it is an application for 100% affordable homes but they are willing to provide £39,547 for the NHS and they could consider a contribution for the libraries as they do not have to contribute towards schools as it is the responsibility of the County Council to educate people and they can request funding from Central Government. She added that she would like to see an additional £10,000 for the library.

(Councillor Mrs French declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that she is a member of March Town Council, but takes no part in Planning)

(Councillor Marks was not present at the meeting when this item was discussed or voted on)