Agenda item

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from James Burton, the agent and Luke Boekestyn, the applicant. Mr Boekestyn explained that his company specialises in delivering affordable homes with a positive track record of delivering homes in Fenland. He added that his company is currently building 148 homes, and read out a statement from Azar Ahmed, Assistant Development Director at Accent Housing, who is the preferred partner for the site, which stated ‘At Accent, we care, and we manage over 20,000 homes housing over 35,000 people. We aim to deliver a large programme of newbuild homes to provide quality homes in sustainable communities and Accent is aware that there is a high need for affordable homes of all types in Fenland. With support from Fenland Housing, there is a clear housing need, and this rural exception site will give priority to those with a local connection. Accent is a registered provider and strongly support the delivery of this 100% affordable housing scheme and provide sustainable homes which are genuinely affordable to the local people’.

Mr Burton stated that the rural exception scheme is for up to 24 100% affordable dwellings ensuring homes for local people in perpetuity, with the Council’s Assistant Director and Housing Enabling Officer both supporting the scheme and recognising that the scheme meets identified need to provide ring fenced affordable homes for the parish and they consider that the scheme meets the requirements of the rural exception site under the National Planning Policy Framework. He added that he has consulted with the Parish Council throughout the application process and amended that scheme and as a result the Parish Council have given their support.

Mr Burton added that he has worked closely with the Council’s Housing Team, and they have informed the housing mix so that it includes one-bedroom units and have confirmed the need for 176 dwellings in the area with 31 having a direct link with Guyhirn. He stated that a formal housing survey has not been conducted but the housing register data provides the most reliable baseline for assessing demand and it demonstrates a significant local need, making the point that if a survey was carried out then the Housing Officer has stated that in their opinion the figures would rise.

Mr Burton expressed the view that LP3 of the Local Plan typically restricts development in Guyhirn below the affordable threshold which effectively prevents any affordable homes being delivered but made the point normally LP3 development will be considered on its merits but be limited in nature and to residential infilling. He added that the glossary within the Local Plan defines residential infilling as development of a site between existing buildings and this application site is located between number 6 and Cobble House on Gull Road, making the point that there have been 86 dwellings approved in Guyhirn since 2011 with around 350 in the parish and to the best of his knowledge there has not been a single affordable home which has been provided.

Mr Burton expressed the opinion that the merits of the scheme are compliant with LP3 and it is an opportunity to provide much needed affordable homes which is evidenced by housing need with developers and registered providers who are able to deliver. He stated that this is the reason why rural exception sites exist in order to allow housing where it normally would not be permitted to meet local need.

Mr Burton explained that Guyhirn is linear, and the site is central and would not extend the village boundary as the site has natural boundaries and infills between existing dwellings, which is consistent with the piecemeal development which is located opposite as well as the development nearby located to the north. He explained that the site is located five minutes’ walk from the shop, two minutes’ walk away from the Public House and ten minutes’ walk to the local school, with the nearest bus stop being two minutes’ walk from the site and providing links to Wisbech, March, Peterborough, Kings Lynn and Norwich and with buses running every 30 minutes, in his view, means that Guyhirn is one of the best-connected villages in the district. 

Mr Burton made the point that he considers that the proposal is in keeping with the form and character of the area, with the proposal including a footpath with crossing points as well as a maintenance strip for the ditch and there is adequate parking including visitor parking. He explained that the method and approach concerning the sequential test changed during the application and as a result an expanded sequential test was submitted which justified the search area as being the parish boundary.

Mr Burton explained that the scheme will have a local lettings policy secured by Section 106 and there is a clear local need, with it being his belief that it complies with the new approach and the NPPF. He explained that the sequential test concludes that there are no reasonably available alternative sites within the parish and that the site is also technically safe from flooding, and the indicative street scene shows that the proposed heights are comparable with neighbouring dwellings, and the land levels will not be raised above road level, which mirrors the approach of the approved dwellings which are located opposite the application site, and they have no issues.

Mr Burton stated that he has also agreed to accept a condition for an A Rated Energy Performance Certificate to enhance the sustainability of the scheme and to minimize the impact of fuel poverty. He referred to Section 106 contributions and explained that officers have confirmed that the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document requires no contributions if the scheme is 100% affordable and feels it is unfair to say that the applicant will not provide any contributions as they will contribute in line with the viability assessment to be undertaken, with the applicant willing to offer £2,000 per plot as per the previous arrangements for open market housing in the area as well as the £5,000 contribution to the Parish Council.

Mr Burton added that the applicant has also submitted Heads of Terms to demonstrate their commitment to enter into a legal agreement, with the scheme being, in his view, policy compliant, has no technical objections and has the support of the Parish Council. He stated that the proposal will not encroach into the open countryside and is in keeping with the form and character of the area along with delivering 100% affordable homes for local people for current and future generations.

Members asked the following questions:

·       Councillor Benney asked for the associated timescales with regards to commencement of construction and occupation? Mr Boekestyn stated that the application is in outline form but if approved he would like to submit the reserved matters application as soon as possible. He added that Accent Housing are engaged as the housing provider and, therefore, they will work together to expediate the development as soon as is practicable, explaining that Accent Housing are the partner of the 148 homes in the district, and they have demonstrated that they can occupy the homes they manage very quickly.

·       Councillor Benney asked for confirmation of the housing provider who will take on the dwellings when construction is complete? Mr Boekestyn confirmed it is Accent Housing.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked whether North Level Internal Drainage Board have been in discussion concerning the proposal? Mr Burton stated that no further discussion has taken place apart from what is included as part of the application. He explained that further investigation has taken place with the Lead Local Flood Authority and the ditch to the east is a riparian ditch, with there being a maintenance strip all the way along the riparian ditch and the ditch to the north of the site runs east and then northward. Mr Burton explained that it is an adopted ditch, and the surface water will be going into here with the appropriate contributions. Councillor Mrs French started that the water will not be going into the ditch unless further communication takes place.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked why a viability study has not been undertaken? Mr Boekestyn stated that at the current time due to the discussions with Planning Officers as well as the application being recommended for refusal the decision had been taken to wait for a positive outcome and then a viability study would be commissioned and submitted. He added that he has already confirmed the position on contributions ahead of that. Councillor Mrs French expressed the view the application could be considered as an incomplete planning application as a viability study has not been submitted.

·       Councillor Gerstner asked, as there is no viability study, whether the agent and applicant could confirm that they are able to meet the contributions from Cambridgeshire County Council as detailed in the officer’s report. Mr Burton stated that no they cannot commit to the figure of £617,000 which has been requested, and Mr Boekestyn has referred to the fact that it would form part of the viability assessment.

·       Councillor Gerstner expressed the view that it would take a considerable amount of infill of earth or imported material to build up the land, and he questioned whether there is any knowledge of how much material would be required and how long it would take? Mr Boekestyn explained that some initial consultations have taken place with the engineers, and he added that he is quite well experienced in developing within Flood Zones 2 and 3 and are used to importing and dealing with that strategy. Councillor Gerstner reiterated that it would require a significant amount of material which would be required. Mr Boekestyn agreed that it would be significant. Councillor Gerstner asked where the materials would be sourced from? Mr Boekestyn stated that materials can be brought in from alternative sites in the district or elsewhere and he explained that construction of 500 homes is currently underway so materials can be sustainably recycled from other sites. He added that the other option is to work with local landfill sites to have the appropriate materials brought to the site. Councillor Gerstner asked whether that material would be inert? Mr Boekestyn stated that it would be clean inert material which would be compliant with any highway’s guidance in order that appropriate materials were being brought onto the site and would also be in line with the Environment Agency permit requirements.

·       Councillor Meekins stated that the Highway Authority have made comment regarding the vehicle splays which have not been shown on the plans for the proposal, and he asked whether the splays are achievable? He added that the Highway Authority also appear to have concerns with regards to the number of access points along with a query over the footpath and bin collection arrangements. Mr Burton explained that all those aspects will be covered as part of the reserved matters application and added that the scheme has been updated as part of the outline application. He explained that there will be a footpath across the extent of the frontage of the site which will include dropped kerb crossing points to allow crossing to the main footpath opposite, with as many of the entrance points as possible grouped together so there are fewer entrance points onto Gull Road. Mr Burton made the point that this is consistent with the development located on the opposite side of the road and has not caused any issue, adding that the highways boundary plan demonstrates clearly that the visibility splays can be achieved along the whole length of the frontage. He explained that he has made a commitment to the Parish Council that he will apply to reduce the speed limit in that area to 30mph which will reduce the visibility splays even further.

·       Councillor Imafidon questioned why no contact has been made with North Level Internal Drainage Board? Mr Burton stated that he would make the appropriate application to the drainage board as part of the reserved matters application. He added that the drainage strategy which is being produced includes a mixture of attenuation crates and above the ground attenuation in the balancing pond, which will restrict the runoff rate from the site to green field rates by the riparian ditch and then further north. Mr Burton made the point that he will approach North Level and secure an agreement with them which will be subject to the appropriate contributions and any negotiations that need to occur at that point.

·       Councillor Marks referred to viability and added that he does have concerns that this has not been undertaken. He added that there are thousands of tonnes of earth which will need to be brought to the site and should the proposal be approved and then prove to be non-viable what would then happen with the site. Mr Boekestyn explained that as part of the ongoing relationship with the registered provider all of the costs of the build are already factored into the development costs to create the residual land value. He stated that he has no concerns with regards to not being able to deliver and to engage in conversation with the housing associations there needs to be an assessment of the technical aspects of the build and there is no prospect that they would not further the site for development as he is already aware that the site needs raising.

·       Councillor Marks asked what will happen if they cannot build? Mr Boekestyn stated that he cannot foresee any reason why he would not be able to build, and they are seeking outline approval with the intention of submitting a reserved matters application to develop for Accent Homes, adding that he should not be in a position where he is applying for planning permission that he cannot then deliver. He explained that his record as a business is that they follow through and deliver across various counties with various housing associations.

·       Councillor Gerstner referred to the presentation screen which showed the land levels and road, and questioned whether the land located behind the strip of land is agricultural and being used at the current time? Mr Burton stated that the land to the east which is to the further part of the ditch is agricultural land which is currently being farmed. Councillor Gerstner asked whether the strip of land is not being used for agricultural purposes? Mr Burton explained that the piece of land is owned by the allotment charity, and they give grants out locally. He added that the piece of land is actually rented and used for grass growing but not for food production or agricultural purposes.

·       Councillor Marks asked for further clarification on the statement that the grass is grown but not for agricultural purposes. Mr Burton confirmed that a local farmer grows the grass for round bales of hay and clarified that it is for agricultural purposes but not food production.

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

·       Councillor Benney stated that his initial thoughts with regards to the application are that the site is in Flood Zone 3 and it has failed the sequential test, but he now feels that the site has several positives. He stated that with regards to the absence of a viability study to accompany the application, in his opinion, consideration needs to be given to the fact that it is an outline application and a proper viability study cannot be undertaken until it is known what is going to be developed on the site. Councillor Benney stated that the sequential test has failed because it has been carried out over the whole of the district. He referred to the officer’s report which indicates that there is a local need for housing, and he added that the Council has faced a significant cost to pay for bed and breakfast accommodation for those people in need of a home. Councillor Benney stated that it is a cost that the Council are having to endure, and those monies cannot be claimed back as bed and breakfast accommodation is not classed as a registered housing provider and, therefore, the money cannot be claimed back from Central Government. He expressed the view that the social misery for those people living in those circumstances needs to be considered and made the point that the applicant and agent have confirmed that the houses can be brought forward and there is a registered housing provider already engaging with the process. Councillor Benney added that with regards to building the land up, there will be a cost to get the works underway, and should it be decided that the costs cannot be met then the development will not take place regardless of whether the committee approve the application or not. He expressed the view that from a Council perspective, the houses are needed and there are people waiting the homes rather than residing in temporary accommodation and, in his opinion, the social need should override the lack of the sequential test because it is done over the whole district which really means that it will always fail. Councillor Benney made the point that with regards to building in the countryside, there are houses along the length of Gull Road which have been built over the last 20 years which have been developments of one of two dwellings. He made the point that there is no social housing in Guyhirn and there is a housing need for Fenland residents who want to stay in the area to be near their families. Councillor Benney stated that the scheme will move forward, and it does work although he appreciates that there will be costs to get the works underway and whether those costs prove to be prohibitive is not a concern for the committee as it is in outline form. He stated that the committee are looking at land usage and, in his view, it will bring forward some much-needed housing for the district and it will ease the burden financially on all the rate payers of Fenland who are having to finance the bed and breakfast accommodation costs.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that when she read the officers report initially, she whole heartedly agreed with the officer’s recommendation.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked officers to confirm whether the application site was involved with the Council’s call for sites process for the emerging Local Plan? Danielle Brooke stated that the site did not form part of the call for sites process as far as she is aware.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that it is a rural exception site and, in her view, the issues of viability can be overcome. She made the point that she has never known an 100% affordable housing scheme to offer so much money as a Section 106 and, in her opinion, it is an unusual application. Matthew Leigh stated that viability is carried out at the outline stage of an application because it is a principal matter and whilst there maybe slight variances in relation to the change in the price of building materials through the lifetime of an application, whether or not a scheme is viable is something that is considered at the outline stage rather than at reserved matters. He added that with regards to the site being a rural exception site, the Council does not have a policy in relation to rural exception and officers have not explicitly stated that. Matthew Leigh explained that generally rural exception sites would be seen to be smaller than this application and contained within the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) it states that they should be quite proportionate to the scale of the development. He stated that you would normally expect a proper rural exception test to contain a greater deal of evidence and for it to be based around the need rather than just details of the Council’s housing requirements. Matthew Leigh added that members can state that there are benefits to the scheme and there is weight to it but to use the terms rural exception, in his opinion, is not explicitly correct in this application.

·       Matthew Leigh stated that in relation to the viability and the financial contributions at the present time there is no certainty with regards to those contributions, and the applicant and agent have only stated that in the future they may undertake a viability study but at the current time there is no definitive figure before the committee for consideration.

·       Matthew Leigh stated that with regards to the point made concerning the fact that there are 31 people on the waiting list for accommodation and as the officers report has highlighted then you would normally expect a supporting statement to have been provided to evidence the local need and, in his opinion, there is no breakdown of the need of those people who are on the list for housing compared to what is being offered on the site. He added that whilst there may be several people who are on the housing list, they could be residing in temporary accommodation in one-bedroom properties, and the development may only consist of four bedroomed dwellings which would then not be suitable. Matthew Leigh added that it is all that finer detail of information which you would expect to see that would argue that point and it has not been provided to officers.

·       Matthew Leigh stated that with regards to the sequential test, a need for a type of accommodation does not overcome the need for a sequential test and as stated in the officer’s report it would move onto the exception test where it would state that the benefits of the scheme outweigh the conflict of the fact that they have not carried out the sequential test. He added that it does not mean that they should not do it, but it is the fact that have not chosen to do it and the harm from that is overcome by the benefits of delivering a certain scheme.

·       Councillor Benney stated that the Council has many different elements which make up the authority, and they include housing and planning and he would expect them to work in conjunction to try and achieve the same goals and to try and provide housing for residents. He added that the Council should be people based and not property based and asked whether that further information had been requested from the applicant. Councillor Benney stated that everyone should be aware of what the targets and goals are of the Council and what we are trying to achieve, and he asked whether the applicant has been advised to provide that level of information so that it could be processed and form part of the application. Councillor Benney stated that every report that is requested from the agent costs them money and there is a certain element of doubt and uncertainty as to whether a proposal will receive approval when an application is submitted. He expressed the view that if an agent is asked to submit a further report they may choose not to do so unless there is a fair chance of an application being approved. Councillor Benney added that it all comes down to the viability of the site being brought forward and then as Councillors there is a lack of delivery of the much-needed homes and it those homes which elected members want to see. Matthew Leigh expressed the view if you are an agent who believes that there is a specific need of housing in an area then he does not believe that an agent would need to specifically approach the Council to ascertain what information is required in order to allow the committee to come to an informed decision especially when the officer recommendation is one of refusal. He added that the evidence officers have received is information from the Council’s housing officers, however, that is not the only aspect which needs to be assessed and undertaking the assessment is not the responsibility of the Council as information has been passed to the applicant and it is their responsibility to progress that information and develop it and then provide it to the Council as the decision maker to assess.

·       Matthew Leigh stated he appreciate that the reports are expensive but unfortunately the planning system does require a number of reports for an application to be acceptable.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that with regards to housing need, it does state in the officer’s report at 5.8 the response from the Housing Strategy Manager. She added that whilst she appreciates that there is a need for housing and whilst there maybe homes required in Guyhirn there are over 3,000 people on the waiting list for some kind of home, and this application needs to be looked carefully. Councillor Mrs French stated that it does not have a viability study with it, and she is considering whether to ask for a deferment in order for viability information to be provided.

·       Councillor Gerstner stated that he applauds the applicant for an application for affordable housing, but he has serious concerns that there are no contributions for education and health. He added that consideration does need to be given to the figure quoted by the applicant and also being mindful that the proposal is for 24 dwellings which could accommodate families with children who will need schooling and health facilities and there appears to be no ability to contribute to that which causes him great concern.

·       Councillor Gerstner added that he also has reservations on the amount of imported material which will be required to brought in by numerous vehicles to build up the land quite substantially to overcome flooding mitigation. He added that because of having to build the land up, in his view, the houses are going to look out of place.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that the policy for 100% affordable homes means that applicants do not have to supply a contribution even though she has raised the point over many years. She stated that 100% affordable is 100% affordable and she referred to the site in Upwell Road, where there are 110 affordable homes and there are no contributions being provided to education or other services.

·       Councillor Benney stated that there is a live document which states £2,000 per unit south of the A47 and no contributions because of viability north of the A47 and as this site is located north of the A47 there are no contributions to pay. He added that with regards to the movement of materials, it is a one-off situation whilst the application site is being built out, and he does not foresee the number of lorry movements to be that much of an issue or concern. Councillor Benney referred to another site in Manea which was built up and, in his opinion, you would not know that the land has been built up due to the landscaping, and it fits in very well. He made the point that everything that is built changes the character of the area and does not necessarily mean that it is a negative change and that until the reserved matters application is submitted then the number of houses will not be confirmed but even if it is 24 dwellings, in his opinion, the social benefit outweighs any negative points and the application will deliver homes for people which is what councillors should be doing.

·       Councillor Meekins stated that there appear to be various concerns the Highways Authority have and he added that relatively recently there have been three applications on this site for up to four houses which were all refused for various reasons and now the committee are being asked to consider up to 24 homes. He added that if four homes on the same piece of land were refused why would the committee want to consider granting 24 dwellings as to him that makes no sense, and he will not support the application.

·       Councillor Marks stated that it is nice to see that the Parish Council are in favour of the application.

A proposal to refuse planning permission was made by Councillor Gerstner and seconded by Councillor Meekins, however, this was not supported by the majority and the proposal failed.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be GRANTED against the officers’ recommendation with authority delegated to officers to add appropriate conditions and completion of a legal agreement in relation to affordable housing.

Members did not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they feel that there will still be ample areas of open countryside left, they believe that the application is an infill development, they do not consider that the application contravenes LP3 and LP16 and whilst it fails the sequential test, there is significant benefit to the people of Fenland by providing much needed homes to those in need.