Agenda item

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor 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 Karl Timberlake, Director of V10 Homes, a supporter of the proposal. Mr Timberlake stated that V10 is an affordable homes developer and they partner with landowners, build contractors and housing associations to fund and construct affordable homes utilising Homes England grant. He added that V10 has been responsible for creating over 1,250 new affordable homes, which has helped around 3,000 people on low to middle incomes, including key workers, to obtain a safe and secure home to rent at an affordable level or realise their homeowner aspirations through shared ownership.

Mr Timberlake stated that having worked with Fenland’s Housing Enabling Team they are aware of the level of need in the district, which at the end of July this year there were 1,690 households on the Housing Register in Fenland and almost 50% needing categories A and B. He expressed the view that within Fenland, March has the second highest recorded need behind Wisbech and the current projected delivery of affordable housing in the District for the current year is 239 homes or just 14% of the overall level of need so 86% of those who need a home locally will not get one this year.

Mr Timberlake stated that, as of 8 August, the Council had 89 households in temporary accommodation and in respect of shared ownership properties there is no similar data available but a recent release of 40 shared ownership properties in Fenland received 579 enquiries. He expressed the view that the demand for all types of affordable homes in Fenland is overwhelming and compelling.

Mr Timberlake stated that V10 is partnering with Platform Housing Group, and United Livings Lowrise Construction, with representatives in attendance today, to bring about the supply of those vitally needed additional affordable homes. He made the point that Platform is a fully funded strategic partner to Homes England and is already investing tens of millions of pounds in Fenland, referring to a recent article in the Wisbech Standard regarding their 100% affordable housing scheme which has just been launched for 137 homes in Wisbech, with Platform’s Chief Executive being quoted as saying “this is the first time we have worked with Fenland District Council and we are absolutely delighted to see this development come to fruition providing local people with a place to call home, we are committed to providing more such homes in the area and look forward to strengthening our partnerships in the region”.

Mr Timberlake expressed the opinion that with the committee’s support today the project at Barkers Lane would be Platform’s second 100% affordable homes development in Fenland, which will be built out in one single operation. He stated that after working closely with the Housing Team to align the local need with the delivery of the right type of housing and tenure, Platform expect to submit a reserved matters application in the first half of 2025 and to start on site by the end of 2025.

Mr Timberlake stated that he is present at the meeting today to give voice to those people with an urgent affordable housing need and requested the application be approved.

Members asked questions of Mr Timberlake as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked if any discussions have taken place with Anglian Water with regard to the sewage? Mr Timberlake stated that he was not in a position to answer that question but the agent or technical advisers would be able to do this.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to the report being confusing as it states 20% affordable and then 100%, asking which is it? Mr Timberlake responded that they will be looking for a Section 106 which provides 20% as policy and the Housing Association will come along and convert the other 80% to affordable so ultimately it will be 100%.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked if he had been to the site at school run time? Mr Timberlake responded that he has been to the site.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to mention of the lack of affordable housing and that they would not be provided this year, making the point that neither would these as this is an outline application.

·         Councillor Gerstner questioned that his company was the supplier of the housing, there is external funding through the Government’s housing fund and asked who is going to pay for the infrastructure part of the application? Mr Timberlake responded that the contractor would build all the houses and all the infrastructure.

·         Councillor Marks referred to the question asked by Councillor Mrs French about the proposal being 100% affordable housing and the response was it was 20% and then it is expected that somebody else will pick up the 80%, with the way it is being sold to members is 100% and asked if he had been involved with schemes like this before where it has been 100% but had to be reduced as some properties were sold privately? Mr Timberlake responded that every project they have undertaken ends up being 100% affordable as what Platform will do is apply a Homes England grant to the 80% converting them into affordable with the 20% affordable being secured as part of the Section 106 so the delivery will end up being 100% affordable as has been the case at Wisbech.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that he attended the Wisbech completion as Mayor of Wisbech and he feels the quality of the houses that Platform deliver is very good. He made the point that when it says the houses are affordable, with the 137 in Wisbech a certain percentage were on a social rented basis and he met one of the residents who purchased 50% by part rent, part buy, and asked what percentage of these houses will be part buy, part rent and when affordable is mentioned is it the part buy, part rent or the social housing? Mr Timberlake responded that 73 properties will be affordable rented to be delivered by Platform.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Leslie Short, the agent. Mr Short advised that he has with him Damian Tungatt, the Highways Engineer, and Mark Jones, the Drainage Engineer, who will be able to answer any technical questions committee may have. He stated that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the adopted development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise and the application site before members today is part of an allocation for housing land in the adopted Fenland Local Plan 2014, with 10 years on from its adoption this applicant is seeking to deliver this allocation with 130 dwellings.

Mr Short made the point that the same adopted development plan requires that a Broad Concept Plan (BCP) be prepared and this was approved by the committee in June 2023, with this application complying with the adopted BCP and in doing so aligns with the allocation of the more recent March Neighbourhood Plan. He expressed the opinion that in planning policy terms there is nothing to say that this application should be determined otherwise than has been in accordance with the adopted development plan and that statutory duty for the Council is set out in Paragraph 6.1 of the officer’s report.

Mr Short made the point that there are no technical objections, with the key features of this scheme for 130 dwellings comprising of the access, the surface water and foul drainage strategies, the landscaping and amenity proposals, the biodiversity net gain, planning obligations contributing towards infrastructure improvements, heritage impact and the delivery of housing and affordable housing, which have all been successfully addressed in the application’s proposals. He stated that he is not going to ignore or pretend that this area will not change as a result of this development but the details need to be looked at before committee comes to their balanced decision today, the applicant acknowledges that there will be an element of disturbance to the existing residents of Barkers Lane both during construction and after the development is complete but the right amount of weight needs to be applied to this noting that the Council’s Environmental Health Officer has not raised any objection regarding noise and disturbance and considers that any noise impact arising from traffic is not likely to be such that it warrants a noise assessment, with the same advice being given in respect of air quality.

Mr Short expressed the view that any local impact can be mitigated by the imposition of a Construction Management Plan and by restricting the hours of operation, which is one of the officer’s recommended conditions. He advised that the roadway in Barkers Lane is designed to be a 20mph zone where traffic speed is limited and the consequent road dimension designed taking only land that is essential, with the provision of a 3 metre wide combined cycle/footway along the north side of Barkers Lane linking into the housing site and the wider allocation beyond being key to the scheme’s design and will provide an invaluable, sustainable travel mode connection between one of the largest housing allocations to the Neale Wade Academy and to the wider town and town centre.

Mr Short referred to drainage and flooding, with the applicant listening to the discussions about this on the proposal for 425 dwellings adjacent to this site and revised his foul drainage proposals so that they are now independent of any existing Anglian Water foul drainage infrastructure in Barkers Lane, with there being no impact on the existing provision. He stated in terms of surface water flooding, that section of Barkers Lane, which is already a tarmacked surface, will have specific drainage improvements resulting in a change to the experience in that area, with part of the road’s reconstruction brought about by this scheme providing a new dedicated highway drainage system to take away surface water in an easterly direction and into the attenuation basin within the application site.

Mr Short referred to their development partner supporter speaking about the provision of affordable housing and he asked the committee to note and place great weight on the early delivery of housing having heard the adjacent site being given up to 5 years for the submission of reserved matters in June 2024, with this applicant volunteering to accept the condition that says that the reserved matters must be delivered inside 2 years which can only result, in his view, in the early delivery of much needed housing with a start on site likely towards the end of 2025. He stated the benefits of the scheme as outlined and listed in the officer’s report at Paragraph 11.4 far outweigh any disbenefits and he hoped that the committee will come to the same conclusion.

Members asked questions of Mr Short, Mr Tungatt and Mr Jones as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked if they have had discussions with Anglian Water? Mr Short responded yes. Councillor Mrs French questioned if they were aware when there has been flooding there has been raw sewage pouring down Barkers Lane, she has videos of it, it is disgusting and the sandbags that Anglian Water put down the lane several months ago are still there even after Anglian Water attending a Planning Committee meeting in August for the 425 dwellings promised to do something about it. She has a meeting tomorrow with Anglian Water at Barkers Lane. Mr Jones responded that they have consulted with Anglian Water and undertook a pre-development enquiry with them at the very beginning, with its advice being to connect into Barkers Lane. He added that as his colleague has stated following the committee meeting in June on the Barratt’s development, they have consulted them several times as they were aware of the flooding issues and come up with a new connection point which is now The Avenue to avoid putting any foul drainage into Barkers Lane. Mr Jones stated they are following Anglian Water’s guidance, with the solution that they have for this development being a pump solution from the site from a pump station that will be adopted so that they can control the discharge rate from this development into the Anglian Water system, with the rate being set by Anglian Water through the adoption process.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to a pending application for an access through Lambs Hill Drove and asked if that is approved will they change the access away from Barkers Lane? Mr Short responded that they have a separate application which has been in a considerable amount of time for Lambs Hill Drove but account needs to taken of the timing of these applications as they were first on the scene, with this application in Barkers Lane being submitted before there was any other application but the Lambs Hill Drove access, which is just for an improvement of that junction between Lambs Hill Drove and Wimblington Road, is dependent upon other parties coming along and it may be 5 years before that access comes into operation.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he has had considerable contact with Anglian Water and he has spoken to them again today, with him being told there were two issues, you cannot put the foul drainage system into Barkers Lane drain as it blocks up and as Councillor Mrs French stated there has been raw sewage coming out of those drains. He referred to their report which states that they may wish to connect to the Barratt David Wilson Homes (BDWH) site drainage system but that is not what he is led to believe as he has spoken to the Development Director of BDWH who says “I have reviewed your committee report for the March East Development Ltd (MEDL) site there is reference in the report to MEDL potentially utilising FW drainage system within our development I must make you aware at this stage we don’t have a formal agreement in place with MEDL for them to connect into our drains and further they have made no contact with us in an attempt to agree formal rights of connection or for access across our land to allow them to make a connection.” Councillor Connor asked whether they had spoken to BDWH? Mr Jones responded that they have not made any contact with them, the meeting he had with Anglian Water was purely to take away drainage from the site, wanting their development to be as standalone as much as possible so it can be delivered within timescales that they can control and not be reliant on BDWH. He reiterated that they have a pump solution and that will be pumped to the Anglian Water network in The Avenue, it is not dependent upon the BDWH development coming forward and is in agreement with Anglian Water.

·         Councillor Connor stated that roadway is another concern and asked if they are looking to have the road and spur roads being made up to adoptable standards? Mr Tungatt responded that at this stage the only thing that is in detailed form is the access from Barkers Lane, which will be to adoptable standards and he thinks the internal spine road is something that would be potentially constructed to adoptable standard.

·         Councillor Connor stated Highways have lots of highway agreements that need to be settled and if this application is approved he would like to see all the properties being built but only 90% occupancy until the road has been fully adopted by Cambridgeshire County Council, which would alleviate the problem of roads not being completed in Fenland and asked for their views on this. Mr Short responded that it is a condition that they would have to take instruction on but he does not see it as being particularly unreasonable. Councillor Connor stated it has happened before in an application in Wimblington so they would agree to this in principle? Mr Short responded in principle yes and asked if the Highways Officer knows what the experience and arrangement of the Platform development in Wisbech is with regard to the adoption of roads and he cannot see any difficulty with doing the same on this development. Nigel Egger, Cambridgeshire County Council’s Highways, stated that there can be an undertaking in the planning permission to have the roads completed to a given standard by the 90% house occupation but to say that it should be adopted is a different matter because it is subject to a technical assessment process not least the drainage and getting acceptable outfalls, there is not a problem with adopting a housing estate road but it is iterative process of submission, design and implementation as well. He feels it would be better to say that it gets to a point of completion surfacing because that is the major problem in Cambridgeshire that roads are left unsurfaced, unfinished and then they do not drain properly because the water is not getting to the gully but he does not think it can be a requirement for it to be adopted because it is separate to an entirely different area of law and beyond the planning remit unless they wanted to enter into a Section 106 Agreement, which if they fail to do or there are technical issues with the road becomes a problem. Councillor Connor stated that this does not always happen in Fenland where roads are left unfinished. Nigel Egger responded that there should be a condition that says the road should be completed to binder course level which is the layer below the surface course and would be the approach whereby at 90% house occupancy those roads should be finished off and surfaced and he feels this a good idea and a model that should be used across the County.

·         Councillor Gerstner stated within the report there is a lot of number, figures, charts, diagrams, junctions, calculations, algebra, which is a lot to take in, this is an outline planning application to deal with access and asked why can there not be access from a different place other than Barkers Lane, with there being a route that residents have suggested that could be taken? Mr Short responded that it is not feasible for the very reason that these 130 dwellings need to be delivered as soon as possible and at the previous committee where permission was given for the development with the access approved off Wimblington Road, similarly with Lambs Hill Drove, it could take 5 years for the details to come forward and that allocation to begin to start being developed. Councillor Gerstner questioned whether it was technically not feasible. Mr Short stated that there is nothing technically difficult with using Barkers Lane as an access, with the mitigation proposals and with the design details that they have delivered and in discussion with the County Council’s Highway Authority who confirms they have no objection. He added that the other 2 access points could be up to 5 years away and there is an affordable housing need.

·         Councillor Gerstner expressed concern over public safety, whilst he accepts what Highways have said there is a school with children and access onto Barkers Lane and this development is proposing 130 affordable houses, which will probably be families with children accessing Barkers Lane. He asked how safe are children and the public going to be with that road and the new pathway? Mr Tungatt responded that in terms of the actual trip generation from the site it will still be relatively low compared to other locations and Barkers Lane the fact that there is a school adjacent to it is fairly normal, there are a number of areas where there are schools next to the highway. He continued that they are also delivering a 3 metre wide shared cycle/pedestrian way adjacent to the school, which would be a safety benefit. Mr Short added that the first 120 metres of Barkers Lane is being designed as a 20mph zone so safety is at its heart. Councillor Gerstner made the point that the District has a lot of other 20mph zones but they are not enforced. Mr Short stated that looking at the design details there is a dedicated 3 metre wide cycleway/footway on the northern side of Barkers Lane and for the bulk of the children accessing Neale Wade Academy or going on into the town centre they will come up from the development and use a continuous 3 metre wide cycleway, which will be separate from the vehicle carriageway.

·         Councillor Gerstner asked, as the build out is started, when is that pathway going to be delivered? Mr Short responded that the resolution seeks that committee approve the scheme subject to the conclusion of a Section 106 Agreement and appropriate conditions, with the usual condition, in his experience, is that the access has to be delivered first before other events in the scheme happen. He stated that he is expecting to meet with Gavin Taylor and agree a condition which seeks the early delivery of the access.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked where the 5 years has come from as in August committee recommended approval of an outline application for 425 houses and they were asked when they were going to submit a reserved matters application and members were told as soon as possible so she does not understand where the 5 year delay has come from. Mr Short responded that the resolution included a condition that requires the submission of reserved matters on that consent any time before the end of 5 years and he is sure officers will confirm this. Councillor Mrs French disagreed and stated it was 2 years, it has never been 5 years, with the applicant confirming they would submit a reserved matters application as soon as possible.

·         Councillor Marks asked if the pumps will be installed from day one and adopted by Anglian Water? Mr Jones responded that the general process of putting in the adoptable pumps is that there will be a Section 104 design process and once that technical approval is granted the chamber is then built, with there needing to be a set number of dwellings outfalling and discharging into that station for it then to become active. He added that there will be a mechanism to deal with foul water, ie pump, to a place where Anglian Water agree, which happens on every site where there is a foul water pump station and it will all be undertaken with Anglian Water’s approval so the station would have to be built very early on and they will be looking to get as many houses into that station as quickly as possible as that gets the adoption process finalised. Councillor Marks asked if there could be a situation where it is still pumped into Barkers Lane for a period of time? Mr Jones responded that with the agreement with Anglian Water there is no connection from this application to go into Barkers Lane and it will not happen, the main will have to go from the pump station to The Avenue and a temporary connection cannot be made on a pump.

·         Councillor Marks asked about attempts to speak to the IDB? Mr Jones responded that his first email to the Middle Level Commissioners was in January 2023, there were several emails asking for comments, asking for meetings, he even spoke to one of the engineers saying that they wanted to bring it to committee and would like to bring a strategy that they are in acceptance of and even offered to drive to their office and have the meeting. Councillor Connor suggested that Councillor Mrs French takes this up with the IDB and she agreed to do this.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked for clarification on whether it is five or two years? Gavin Taylor responded that condition 2 of the proposed condition schedule for the BDWH scheme was a requirement for approval of the reserved matters to be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of 5 years from the date of the permission. He stated that the reason for this was that the proposal is to phase this development and a situation was not wanted where a couple of the first phases were agreed and they ran out of time to submit that last phase so it does give them ultimately 5 years to submit their reserved matters application and then to begin within 2 years from the approval of that last reserved matters. Councillor Mrs French made the point that this does not mean they are not going to start for five years though.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to the agent saying they wanted to submit their reserved matters as soon as possible and asked if the reserved matters application had been submitted? Gavin Taylor responded that the Section 106 Agreement is still being finalised and he has not been made aware that they are working on a reserved matters but he would like to think they were.

·         Councillor Connor asked that as soon as the Section 106 Agreement is finalised the reserved maters can be submitted so it does not have to be 5 years, which is the longest timescale it can be. Gavin Taylor confirmed this was correct and a reserved matters could be submitted the day after the Section 106 is signed and the decision notice is issued. He believes that the applicant for this development was alluding to the fact that they have got no control over that and they want to make sure they try and deliver their site as soon as possible.

·         Councillor Gerstner requested clarification that Barkers Lane is the sole access for this development and there will be no other accesses? Gavin Taylor confirmed this was correct, although they would expect to put in an emergency point, a drop bollard or similar, so that in the event that there are emergency services needing to get to either this application site or the wider site. Councillor Gerstner asked if these were shown on the previous map? Gavin Taylor responded that the ones shown on the previous map were pedestrian/cycle connectivity points so that there is permeability through the site for sustainable travel modes through the entire allocation.

·         Councillor Gerstner referred to Highways being satisfied with the access arrangement to achieve a safe and suitable access to the development but he still has concerns with all the pinch points, the junctions, the formulas and it is very difficult for him to understand, with 130 potential houses potentially producing a lot of vehicle movements on a very short stretch of road and the engineering of the road looks to him to be quite complicated especially with a 3 metre cycle and shared pedestrian path. He asked for explanation on how that Highways have come to their conclusions as he needs to be fully satisfied about the safety aspect to pedestrians. Nigel Egger responded that Highways are presented with development proposals and they consider them in relation to the policies in the NPPF and for them to object the development there needs to be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or a severe impact on capacity. He does not look at the numbers that are being referred to, his colleagues in the Transport Assessment Team do this, but typically 130 dwellings is probably only going to generate one to two vehicle movements in the busiest hours, 8-9 in the morning and 5-6 in the evening. Nigel Egger made the point that this is not a very high bar in terms of capacity so the junction will cope, a 5½ metre wide carriageway and 3 metre cycleway will cope with the traffic and the pedestrians adequately. He stated that the latest iteration of the plan includes the raised table to make it 20mph compliant, the speed narrowing and raised table within 50 metres of each other in conjunction with a 20mph zone should police itself nicely, it is when you introduce 20mph zones without the additional engineering feature where compliance is more of an issue. Nigel Egger stated that children and cars are always an emotive issue next to a school and if it becomes a problem with on-street parking throughout the picking up and dropping off period in the future or as part of the 278 Agreement they can ask the developer to consider restriction times, double yellow lines or single yellow line to further regulate the area. He expressed the opinion that overall, given the high bar that is set by the NPPF to have an unacceptable impact on highway safety or a severe impact on capacity, there is not enough trip generation given that this development only serves 130 dwellings, it does not go through the rest of the site and is an enclosed cul-de-sac so an objection could not be justified.

·         Councillor Connor made the point that during pick up time from the school both those sides of Barkers Lane are full up with cars and he would like to see, if the application is approved, a restriction on people parking there. Nigel Egger responded that it is difficult because parking restrictions and traffic regulation orders are a separate area of legislation but you could write into the travel plan something that says the applicant shall promote/investigate/ implement in conjunction with the District and County Council measures to manage on-street parking and then this can be put into the legal agreement that Highways have with the developer, either a Section 38 Agreement for the adoption of the streets or more likely a 278 Agreement for the highway works that they must have to implement the work on Barkers Lane so it is a question of how to secure it in planning terms in principle so that it can be delivered in engineering terms. Councillor Connor asked Gavin Taylor if he had made a note of this? Gavin Taylor confirmed he had against the Travel Plan condition.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to a meeting she attended a couple of weeks ago where it was crystal clear the Police will not enforce 20mph zones and you can put double yellow lines everywhere but they are not enforced either. She stated she has been trying since 2019 to introduce Civil Parking Enforcement across Fenland and due to the unreasonable conditions that the Rainbow Alliance at the County Council have put on it is impossible at this time for the Council to do it. Councillor Connor endorsed these comments and that Fenland is the poor relation in the eyes of the Rainbow Alliance.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that there are some beautiful trees along Barkers Lane that have TPOs and asked if they are going to be felled, which she hopes not? Gavin Taylor referred to a landscaping plan on the screen, with regard to TPO trees there is a Horse Chestnut tree directly opposite the first house as you come into Barkers Lane and the proposal is that this may be felled, however, there is a condition 5 proposed that requires further details in that regard as it does sit quite close to where the footway/cycleway is proposed to be located and whilst there may be an engineering solution they are not certain at this stage. He stated that there is a proposal as secured through condition 5 to have a robust landscaping scheme which would include replanting of trees, hedgerow, etc., but the report acknowledges there will be some loss of vegetation along there.

·         Councillor Marks asked if to the entrance of Barkers Lane is that County Council or District Council land? Gavin Taylor responded that the area to the north of Barkers Lane is highway land and the area immediately south is a Fenland District Council asset but there is not proposed to be any works to that area of land, with the area of works being to the northern side of Barkers Lane in order to achieve the footpath/cycleway. Councillor Marks asked if those trees have a TPO on them? Gavin Taylor responded that the TPO recording is a group recording for two Horse Chestnuts, which is actually now only one, which is identified in the arboricultural report submitted as a category B/C tree. He believes there are some historic TPOs further along Barkers Lane but some of them have been removed for some of the school buildings historically but the TPO records are a bit out of date in parts and could do with a refresh.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that with the TPO she thinks it is disgraceful that this tree may have to come down. She referred to the Section 106 and notes that what is proposed is for Early Years, Primary and Secondary schools, libraries and strategy and asked why nothing is included for doctors, NHS or anything else and stated that the County Council is sitting on over £72 million for education and there was no money spent on education in 2022/23 and there was an agreement through the last Government that the area was going to obtain a new SENs school, with the Government in place now pulling this, which is another disgrace. She made the point that the County Council does not need this money, they are sitting on all of the Section 106 money, including travel, health care etc, of over £89 million and education keeps being put on a Section106 but infrastructure is needed which will help doctors etc, especially with that amount of homes with March East being one of the most deprived areas in March, and open space contributions are required and play areas need upgrading. Councillor Connor advised that this issue has been raised with the Head of Planning and a meeting will take place regarding this shortly, it may not be possible for this application but for ones in the future. Gavin Taylor referred to Section 10.80 of the officer’s report where the applicant is proposing to provide contributions towards transport impact mitigation, there is a MATS scheme of £1,500 per dwelling and there is also £96,000 towards the on-site demand responsive bus service, which members may recall from the BDWH scheme with there already being land gifted or proposed to be reserved for the school site so in terms of addressing some of the education requirements that could be deemed to do so and the £96,000 for the demand responsive bus service could be argued that the site is not actually that far from the nearest bus stop at Wimblington Road, therefore, that £96,000 could instead be directed towards health care requirements of which there is a request for £561,000 for upgraded surgery facilities and £138,139 for ambulance services so there could be a pro rata split for these items instead of directing it towards education. Councillor Connor expressed the view that the £96,000 for the buses can be redirected elsewhere into health care or open space.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to the £96,000 for buses and asked what buses as there are no decent buses in March. She referred to 10.76 with regarding to financial contributions of £1,500 per dwelling for MATS and stated that she is Chairman of MATS, with the money from MATS coming from the Combined Authority so why are developers trying to be milked when developers could actually be doing something for the town that these houses are going to be built in. Councillor Mrs French stated that she has been working since 2018 for a BMX track, pump track for West End Park and finally there is an application in, which has taken 6 years to achieve, March is the fastest growing town and there is nothing for the children to do and this is where the money should be going to keep the youngsters busy and stop anti-social behaviour. Councillor Connor added that within 400 yards of the application site on Wimblington Road there are two bus stops so another bus stop is not required and the £96,000 can be diverted somewhere else where it is needed. Councillor Mrs French stated that she has been the Chairman since 2017 on MATS and they have never discussed this or asked developers for money, she has a meeting in about 3 weeks time, there is major work that they are doing and she will be bringing this up at the next meeting. Councillor Connor asked if the £96,000 can be used for something else? Gavin Taylor responded that subject to being CIL compliant project then money could be put towards this and what is suggested is the identified health care requests the money could go towards this. He stated in terms of other projects, such as for young people, he is not aware of any being put forward through this application to consider and consultation was undertaken with the Open Spaces Team but that is not to say that it cannot. Gavin Taylor made the point that the application is before committee at a time when it is known what is required in terms of formal requests so in terms of health care contributions this could be proportionately split between the surgeries and the Ambulance Service. He referred to the MATS scheme and reminded members that the BDWH scheme came forward at the end of August with exactly the same request from the Transport Team, the same financial contribution per dwelling, and that was accepted at that time and it has also been a requirement of all the strategic allocations in March from the Transport Team in order to finance that MATS scheme which will improve Peas Hill roundabout and Hostmoor Avenue. He feels that not supporting this at this stage needs further discussion as the amount requested through this application is consistent with the previous one on the same allocation.

·         Councillor Marks suggested that the Chairman and himself deal with this via the Head of Planning to sort out the distribution of this money? Gavin Taylor responded that one point of note, 10.78 of the report does refer to the developer contributions SPD and sets out where a scheme is affordable housing led the Council would not look to secure financial contributions against that scheme because of the other benefits it would otherwise provide and possible viability considerations. He made the point that if the scheme does come forward as 100% affordable housing which is what is being put forward then the Council would not be seeking financial contributions and whilst it would be built into the Section106 there would also need to be a clause in there that should it ultimately come forward as 100% affordable housing that those contributions would fall away. Councillor Marks expressed concern that if only 50% affordable housing is provided then it needs to be clear where the money should be allocated and it wants to be kept local as Fenland does miss out. Gavin Taylor asked members to be mindful of the recommendation as that is seeking delegated powers for officers to finalise the Section 106 Agreement so if that needs to be changed that needs to form part of the proposal. Matthew Leigh added that members would need to slightly amend Clause 1 to add in “in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman” if they wished.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to Table 1 of the Section 106 requests and she has advised that the County Council are sitting on £89 million, they keep asking for education money and why are they being given it if they are not building schools, no money was used in 2022/23 and there is nothing planned to her knowledge for 2024/25. She expressed the opinion that the difference between Barratt Homes and this development, is they did not push for extra money as they offered a piece of land that will be available as an orchard which she understands that many people in March want which she feels was generous of them. Matthew Leigh responded that he cannot answer the specifics but the issue that has been raised is county wide and Section 106 contributions will be allocated to certain projects and there will be periods of time allowed for them to be put into before they will happen so if there is a scheme occurring in an adjacent authority, a large scheme for 2,000 houses, that may well need to deliver a junior school or even two, that scheme would require through the phasing to pay for various contributions, it is unlikely that the scheme would then deliver the school until all that money has been received by the council as they have limited budgets and they are unable to fund forward so what that results in is a significant build up of money with the County Council for them to look to deliver schemes in the future. He referred to transportation and that money is taken to cover transportation for a period going forward for however many years for the future occupiers of these dwellings to be transported to their schools so that money needs to sit in perpetuity as it will be spent on an on-going rotation. Matthew Leigh stated that the issue that Fenland has the inverse of that as month after month education requirements are not being met, schemes are being accepted that put additional burden on the existing education facilities and the funding that they require is not brought in so unlike other authorities where they are viable and the application for the scheme provides all the money that the County needs to deliver that school, Fenland does not have that so that means there is a deficit that puts it onto the County and this is a general point about the planning system. He stated that this needs to be balanced and in a different situation where you have x amount of units and you need a junior school, four or five viable schemes would bring forward that junior school within the country but in Fenland due to its viability issues that does not happen and it is not as simple as saying there is money because if there is money sitting there for Section 106 it probably is not from any of Fenland’s schemes and from other councils adjacent within Cambridgeshire who have met their requirements. Councillor Mrs French stated that she does realise this but she has sat here for years and seen the millions that has been allocated to education and nothing has been built.

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

·         Councillor Benney made the point that this is a policy compliant application and the foul water drainage has been addressed, which may not be to the satisfaction of all members but does not give committee any grounds to refuse the application.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough agreed that there does not seem to be the material considerations to refuse the application having covered all the concerns and there will be on-going discussions with the conditions.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Sennitt Clough and agreed that the application be GRANTED as per the officer’s recommendation to include the amendment to conditions as discussed.

(Councillor Connor declared that he does live near to this site but the proposal has no impact on his well-being and he has also been involved with drainage issues in Barkers Lane but he is not pre-determined and has an open mind)

(Councillors Mrs French and Gerstner declared, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they had been lobbied on this application)

(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. She also declared that she is a member of 11 Drainage Boards)