Agenda item

To determine the application.

Hayleigh Parker-Haines 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 Kate Wood, the agent. Ms Wood reminded committee that they granted permission for this development last July subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement and during that legal process the applicant started to work on obtaining costs for the construction of the development and the associated road improvement, where it became apparent that materials and build costs have risen significantly such that the development would not be viable. She stated that the applicant, therefore, sought advice from a viability consultant who worked through the calculations and suggested there were two options to make the scheme viable, which were firstly the loss of all financial contributions and the retention of just two affordable dwellings or secondly the loss of all five affordable dwellings but the retention of £186,500 of financial contributions towards the doctor’s surgery and education.

Ms Wood expressed the opinion that given that their experience when this application was previously considered was that improvements to the doctor’s surgery were important to local people and that the Council has granted permission for 70 affordable units further up West Street, they decided that the second option of no affordable units and keeping the financial contributions was the most appropriate way forward. She stated that this was put to officers who, as can be seen from the reports, have agreed with the approach and have had the viability assessment verified by the Council’s own consultants and their quantity surveyor, which has now led to this point whereby they are asking members to agree the change to the Section 106 Agreement.

Ms Wood confirmed that no changes at all are proposed to the development, which was approved unanimously last year, with the proposal before committee solely related to the Section 106 Agreement. She stated that it is regrettable that they are unable to provide the full range of planning obligations but note that this has been the same issue with other recent planning permissions in Chatteris where they have noticed that in some cases there is no affordable housing and no financial contributions have been able to be offered.

Ms Wood expressed the view that the financial contributions in this scheme will help to make the development sustainable and to accommodate the new residents into the community. She pointed out that the scheme includes the upgrading of a length of West Street and that will be an additional benefit to those in the vicinity and to those using the route for dog walking and to access the pocket park, located further south.

Ms Wood expressed the opinion that the application scheme is the only opportunity to provide this upgrade to West Street and to formalise the public footpath, with the scheme also facilitating the removal of the existing industrial buildings on site, which contain asbestos, and enable the proprietor of that business to move to more modern premises elsewhere where they can continue to grow.

Members asked questions of Ms Wood as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked for an explanation on the difference between offering £186,000 against building two affordable dwellings? Ms Wood responded that the actual amount in terms of difference is in the officer’s report, but from their point of view it does not make any difference in terms of actual numbers because the calculation is a specific figure and how that specific figure is spent, is it spent on a combination of affordable housing and financial contributions or all on affordable. She stated that a choice has been made that there should not be the two affordable units, partly due to the fact that permission has been granted for a whole affordable scheme of 70 dwellings, so it is not like this area of Chatteris is without its affordable housing, although obviously there is a need across the District. Ms Wood added that if two affordable units are built in a relatively isolated position from other affordable units, management is an issue as you are unable to secure a housing association to take on just two units and as the officer has said in the report, it makes more sense to provide the money, which then means that the people who move into this development are contributing to the needs that they have created.

·       Councillor Mrs French thanked Ms Wood for the explanation but made the point that this does not help the 3,000 people that are on the Council’s waiting list. Ms Wood agreed and the officer in the report said the same but the officer in Paragraph 4.37 stated that two units would not materially influence the overall supply or address the identified shortfall in any meaningful way. She continued that nobody is disputing the need for affordable housing, but all this development can do is to accommodate it as much as possible and the way it is accommodated is by a contribution to the doctor’s surgery and education, which benefits more people. Councillor Mrs French made the point that the County Council have a duty to educate children, and the Council does not have a duty to supply the Section 106 to them but she obviously welcomes a contribution to the doctor’s surgery.

·       Councillor Benney expressed his disappointment that this application has had to be brought back before committee, it was only approved last year and whilst he appreciates that oil prices have risen in light of the Iran conflict, this application was approved well before this and he does not believe there is that much of a change in building costs between when this application was approved and the second application has been submitted. He asked what is the proposed mix for contributions between the doctor’s surgery and education? Ms Wood responded that it is within the officer’s report, with the £186,000 being 90% of what was originally required but she does not know how it is split between the surgery and education.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Benney asked what the split is between education and the doctor’s surgery? Hayleigh Parker-Haines responded that each have 90% of their original amounts but will come back with the exact monetary value. Councillor Benney stated that he would rather see the money going towards the doctor’s surgery than to education as Councillor Mrs French said Government has a duty to educate children and health care in Chatteris is quite good and he would like to keep it this way if he can as a local councillor. He added that from being on the patient participation group the surgery is always looking for funding and they are going to need it long term as the housing grows, which covers everybody of all ages, not just children. Hayleigh Parker-Haines stated that 90% of the NHS total amount is £16,243 and education, 90% of their requested amount is £170,257.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that it is unfortunate that once again a developer returns, after getting their permission, with viability, it is very disappointing for this committee which spent a long time discussing this application last year. She added that the County Council have a duty to educate children and the Council does not have a duty to supply the Section 106 and she is disappointed that it is not going into affordable housing.

·       Councillor Benney stated that he would rather see more of this money going towards the doctor’s surgery in Chatteris, with £170,000 education money being a ‘drop in the ocean’ and £16,000 does not go far enough to help provide the first line of health care that is deserved in Chatteris. He knows the George Clare Surgery has got plans to expand as Chatteris is growing and they are going to need money to expand because it is not an NHS practice, it is private, and they have to raise the money privately and feels that from the money on offer the figures should be swapped around and he would like to see it ring-fenced for Chatteris.

·       Councillor Marks agreed, he thinks the figures are ‘back to front’ and he has spoken to the Legal Officer to see if it is feasible for the amounts to be swapped around, change the figures or ring-fence the money. David Rowen pointed out that the NHS only requested a total contribution of £18,000 in respect of this development, which is now slightly less, but in terms of members being in a position to justifiably ask for a greater level of contribution it would be unreasonable for members to be seeking anything over that £18,000 which the NHS have actually asked for. The Legal Officer added that it would be unlawful to require more funds than are needed to be allocated towards the medical facilities because an extra amount cannot be required via a Section 106 beyond what is requested.

·       Councillor Benney stated that he accepts the legal argument, but the NHS does not run the surgery, it is run as a private business as most surgeries are, and the surgery has to bid from the NHS to obtain funding, and he knows they struggle with this. He acknowledges that the NHS has not requested a significant amount but knows that on the ground the surgery needs this money for the work it is planning to do to ensure that the health care continues. Councillor Benney referred to Sutton losing their surgery and he would do anything to keep George Clare in Chatteris and not have it amalgamated into health care in the district and keeping this surgery afloat ensures that the surgery is retained in Chatteris. He feels as much as legally the committee cannot, he feels morally they should but is disappointed if legally this cannot be undertaken but will have to accept it.

·       Councillor Mrs French made the point that the committee can give them what they originally requested, which might not seem a big difference, but a few hundred pounds does make a big difference to a small surgery.

·       Councillor Marks agreed, it is sad that more cannot be given to the surgery, and it seems there has been a breakdown in communication between the surgery and the NHS themselves. He asked if it is possible that the amount can be raised back to the original request? The Legal Officer stated it is what extra funds are required by these extra 21 dwellings and that has been assessed at £18,000 so committee could ask that this amount be allocated.

·       Councillor Mrs French formally requested that the NHS be given what they originally requested. Councillor Benney stated he would second this because the application cannot be refused as the Council would lose at appeal so if the figures could be adjusted that would be good.

·       David Rowen acknowledged the disappointment in terms of the changes from the original Section 106 package but that this disappointment is reconciled with a pragmatic way forward and it is within the committee’s gift to seek the full amount that the NHS requested, £18,000, but it would need to be included as part of the proposed recommendation.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Benney and agreed that the application be GRANTED as per the officer’s recommendation but that the Section 106 Agreement contribution to the NHS be increased to the original request of £18,000.

(Councillor Benney 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)

(Councillor Marks registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he attends meetings of Chatteris Town Council but takes no part in planning)