Agenda item

To determine the application.

Hayleigh Parker–Haines presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Benney, a District Councillor. Councillor Benney stated that the application site used to be in the ward but is now in his adjacent Council ward. He explained that this was a scheme that he looked at when he sat on the Investment Board and came under his portfolio holder responsibilities which is why he is not taking part in the discussion or voting for the item.

Councillor Benney stated he has always supported the application because when he first became a councillor for Birch Ward, he had several residents contact him with regards to a flooding issue in The Elms, explaining that when the Farriers Gate development was built at a higher level the water runs off from that development and into The Elms causing flooding to gardens which are often underwater as well as being halfway up the wheels of parked cars. He stated that at that time he went to see David Rowen, the Development Manager, and asked him what steps could be taken to overcome the drainage issue, and his professional advice was the best thing to resolve the issue will be to build near it and, in his view, this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to fix the flooding issues in The Elms.

Councillor Benney added that councillors can be unpopular for approving the granting planning permission amongst other things but fixing a situation so that residents houses do not flood is a vital part of a councillors role, which is why he has always supported this application because when he was the Portfolio Holder, he was involved in meetings with Lovells who are the construction company responsible for the build of the development. He added that during the course of one meeting he asked whether the development would fix the problem in The Elms, and he was advised that it would and he asked for a written guarantee that the proposal would fix the problems for the residents of The Elms, and it was confirmed by the Lovells representative that it would, with the response he was provided being as good as you are ever going to get as a councillor to reach a satisfactory resolution.

Councillor Benney explained that there are two attenuation ponds on the site which are located in order to take the water away from the application site as well as to take the water away that is flooding through from Farriers Gate, which is the only chance which will come forwards to fix the issue and it will be a lost opportunity if it does not go ahead. He explained that at the outline stage of the application it was going to be for 80 houses, however, that has now been reduced to just over 50 dwellings due to the amount of land which is required for the attenuation ponds to drain the water away which is why the variation of condition application is needed due to the costs of undertaking the work, which are prohibitive and could stop the development from going ahead.

Councillor Benney added that he appreciates that there is a loss of social housing from the proposal but there have been several houses approved in West Street and as a councillor there is the requirement to have social housing for local need as opposed to people being sent from outside the area because they need somewhere to live. He made the point that Chatteris is a nice place and he fully supports the application for the social housing that was passed which he appreciates is required but if the reduction in social housing means that the issue in The Elms is resolved then, in his view, it is a sacrifice which is worth it and he asked members to support the proposal. 

Members asked the following questions:

·       Councillor Marks asked Councillor Benney whether he was able to confirm how much social housing has been approved in Chatteris recently? Councillor Benney stated that he does not know a definitive number, but he explained that there is the whole estate located down West Street and the Hallam Land development will include an element of social housing. He added that there needs to be enough social housing in the first place for local need and it should not be the situation where people are just sent to Chatteris because it is cheap to live. Councillor Benney expressed the view that several years ago the Council were moving people out of London, where the Housing Benefit equated to £1,500 a month and in Chatteris it was £600 per month. He expressed the opinion that he wants to keep Chatteris a nice place to live and the houses should be for local people. Councillor Benney stated that he does fully support the developments which are being undertaken but his focus with the current application is overcoming the drainage issues for the residents of The Elms.

·       Councillor Marks asked Councillor Benney whether he can recall when the last episode of flooding occurred? Councillor Benney stated that he did not know as he is no longer the ward councillor where the site is located but does recall an instance where he was called to a meeting in a resident’s home and the gardens were all under water and their cars had water above tyre level with the road at the bottom of The Elms being flooded. He made the point that this is a one-time opportunity to fix the problem and he would rather be unpopular for building something that people do not want than be unpopular for having a house that has 2ft of water running through it as it is a situation that people should not find themselves in.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that it is disappointing that there is a loss of affordable housing, but she does understand why. She asked Councillor Benney whether he is aware if the Lead Local Flood Authority has been consulted on the proposal? Councillor Benney stated that he did not know as he is no longer the Portfolio Holder he is no longer involved in briefings.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from John Mason, the agent. Mr Mason stated that the application seeks to amend several key aspects of an outline planning permission granted by the Council in September 2024. He added that the outline application for land east of The Elms, approved the principle of up to 80 dwellings on the site and the principle of access from The Elms and all other matters were reserved.

Mr Mason stated that the site has been purchased by Fenland Future Limited (FFL) for delivery and he explained that FFL is the wholly owned subsidiary of the Council and the purpose of FFL is to deliver much needed housing and to provide a financial return to the Council which can be used to support Council services and local projects. He made the point that the site in Chatteris provides FFL with the opportunity to build a range of homes for local people and to provide a revenue stream for the Council, with the FFL employing highly experienced construction company Lovell Partnerships (LP) to design and deliver a housing scheme which provides much needed local housing and additional revenue back to the Council and maximising the financial return from the site.

Mr Mason explained that following the outline approval FFL and LP have been working with the architects and engineers to fully understand the constraints of the site and this has led to three key changes being proposed which require an amendment to the outline application. He made the point that the site is at risk of surface water flooding and the outline application including limited detail on how surface water could be safely managed without increasing flood risk elsewhere.

Mr Mason added that updates to the Environment Agency’s flood map to account for climate change now suggest that the site is more at risk than previously thought and that as a result a cut and fill exercise will be proposed in order to raise some parts of the site and lower others to ensure that the new homes are protected from flooding and any flood waters can be directed out of the site to the east. He stated that as a result this has reduced the developable area and increased the engineering costs meaning that only 54 homes can now be delivered instead of 80 and there cannot be any affordable housing included.

Mr Mason explained that this change has been subject to robust scrutiny with officers and third-party consultants, and he added that whilst there has been some disagreement concerning the exact construction costs, all parties agree that the scheme will not be viable if it provides affordable housing and consequently would not be able to proceed. He added that the second key change is with regards to the vehicular link to the south, however, the outline application only proposed a link from The Elms, which was on the basis of highways modelling done at the time and this is what was shown on the approved outline plans.

Mr Mason explained that a pedestrian and cycle link to the south will have several advantages and, in his opinion, it will promote walking and cycling through the developments to the east of Chatteris and will link the public footpaths to the town centre and out to the countryside. He added that it will also limit the traffic going through The Elms which will now only have a vehicular link to the homes on the application site rather than a vehicular link to homes across the entire eastern allocation.

Mr Mason made the point that the change has been reviewed with the Highways Authority and Planning Officers who have confirmed that by removing the link it will comply with both the allocation and the outline application. He explained that he is also proposing to remove the public play area from the site and make a commuted sum payment of £67,000 to replace and improve existing play equipment nearby.

Mr Mason stated that the proposed homes are already within walking distance of several play areas and officers agree that it will be better for the local community if the existing play areas are upgraded, making the point that a play area on the application site would duplicate existing provision and would also be located in areas at risk of flooding which may limit its usability. He stated that if the application is approved then FFL will move forward with the reserved matters submission for 54 dwellings which will set out the precise layout and designs of the homes and open space.

Mr Mason made the point that FFL in partnership with Lovells are confident that the scheme is deliverable and they will be able to get on site in good time to ensure that the new homes can be delivered. He added that it is regrettable that the site cannot deliver affordable homes and the site will continue to play an important part in delivering housing, open space and pedestrian and cycle connections for the district whilst fulfilling the aims of the allocation.

Members asked the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked whether the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) have been contacted with regards to the existing flood issues which are being experienced? Mr Mason explained that he has already submitted the reserved matters application which contains a detailed surface water drainage scheme and his engineer has been engaging with the LLFA on a pre application basis to agree the plans and the reserved matters application has also been subject to consultation as well from the LLFA and Anglian Water. He explained that their written responses already appears online which approves the drainage strategy and officers will be making their assessment of that shortly. Mr Mason added that it is his understanding that with regards to the surface water flooding issues is that the water comes into the site from a variety of directions and the cut and fill exercise will create contour lines which will channel the water out of the site and out to the countryside to the east taking flood water from the surrounding areas and direct the water in a controlled manner.

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to the public open space and the proposed financial contribution that has been stated, and she expressed the opinion that as the Portfolio Holder for Parks and Open Spaces it is far preferable to have better quality play areas as opposed to too many smaller ones.

·       Councillor Marks stated that he understands that the £67,000 will be for the park provision, however, he asked for clarification as to what the actual original figure was for the initial proposed park? Mr Mason stated that in the original viability review there was a figure for public open space and it is his understanding that the £67,000 figure was provided by the Public Open Spaces Team.

·       Councillor Marks stated that there is going to be a loss of social housing which he is concerned about and he added that there is a very large attenuation pond proposed on site which will affect land use and he questioned whether that is one of the reasons why there is a loss of social housing. Mr Mason explained that it formed part of the flood engineering works that are creating the areas of raised and lowered land, they can only raise enough land to lower the equivalent amount of land which means that you are not going to flood back into The Elms and as a result it means that there is a tightly defined developable area. He explained that by increasing the developable area to include a play area would mean that there would be the requirement to deepen those channels for surface water which was reaching the point where it would not work anymore. Mr Mason stated that the balance has been struck where the land will be raised and that can only fit 54 homes plus the engineering works means it is no longer viable to provide the 20% affordable homes.

·       Councillor Connor stated that whilst he was initially disappointed with regards to the loss of social housing, he is now content that the works being undertaken will alleviate the flooding from the nearby properties which is a very positive step.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Marks asked what the initial figure was which was submitted for the play area? Matthew Leigh explained that officers do not have the information submitted by the applicant in their original assessment for what they were looking to spend. He added that the figure officers have, which has been negotiated in the Section 106 contributions, relates to what the Parks and Open Spaces Team were looking for in 2021 in relation to improvements and enhancements to the existing play facilities and officers have index linked it up to the figure as stated within the officer’s report.

·       Councillor Marks requested clarity that it was considered in 2021? Matthew Leigh confirmed that the figure has been index linked and is now, therefore, higher as originally the figure was £60,000.

·       Councillor Connor expressed the view that £67,000 does not provide much play area equipment and is very frugal amount. Matthew Leigh explained that the issue of the application is viability and the reason that the request for this amount of money is still valid is to make the scheme acceptable because of the shortfall on site.

·       Councillor Murphy stated that the land needs to be built on and was earmarked for housing 30 years ago.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that the figure of £67,000 is irrelevant because by the time the reserved matters is submitted and works starts it is likely to be another four or five years. She stated that the Council are working on Inspire and Place and Pride projects and as a result of funding from Central Government, every play area across the district is being assessed and reviewed, which could mean that the play areas in Chatteris will be enhanced. Councillor Mrs French expressed the opinion that she is delighted that the flooding issue has been considered by the agent and applicants as it has been a known problem for some time. She stated that she will support the application and referred to the fact that Chatteris Town Council are of the opinion that the application should have been determined by another authority but made the point that the Planning Committee members are very experienced, and she does not agree with the comments that they have made which she finds to be offensive.

·       Councillor Connor stated that he agrees with Councillor Mrs French adding that members of the committee are experienced and he was also the Chairman of the County Council’s Planning Committee.

·       Councillor Marks stated that £67,000 is only a small amount and he is concerned with regards to the loss of the social housing, but there is community benefit by dealing with the drainage further along the road, making the point that the land was earmarked for housing 30 years ago when the bypass was built. He stated that if there was just social housing on the site then it would be unaffordable anyway, meaning the land would never be built on and the flooding issue would still exist and, in his view, this is the best way forward for the land and for the surrounding community and he will support the application.

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

(Councillor Benney declared that as he was a previous member of Cabinet and sat on the Investment Board who are involved with Fenland Future Limited, he would take no part in the discussion and voting thereon, and following his presentation to the committee he left the meeting for the duration of the item)

(Councillor Imafidon declared that as he is a member of Fenland Future Limited, he would not take any part in the item and left the meeting for the duration of the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillor Murphy registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a member of Chatteris Town Council but takes no part in planning)