The developer said it was no longer possible to deliver the promised nine affordable homes and £50,000 towards local services
Councillors have accused a developer of “making a mockery” of the planning committee after rolling back a pledge to put money towards services. Plans to build 36 homes in March were approved in 2023 on the condition that nine be affordable and a £50,000 contribution to local services.
The money was to be put towards libraries, education, and healthcare. But Fenland District Council’s planning committee was presented with an application from developer Cannon Kirk to remove these conditions on Wednesday (May 13).
The planning officer’s report said an independent viability review had shown that it was no longer possible for the scheme to deliver these conditions. They said that if “market conditions change” they could reassess this in the future.
Officers said these changes would cause a “clear shortfall in affordable housing” but found the benefits still outweighed any harm and recommended they be approved.
Another application from Fenland Future Ltd, the council’s social housing arm, had been approved earlier in the meeting for land east of The Elms in Chatteris.
John Mason, the agent, told councillors the 54 homes would provide “much-needed local housing” and “additional revenue” for the council – but proposed affordable homes had been removed from the earlier application.
Cllr Jan French called the change “disappointing”, adding that it “seems to be common practice with agents and developers at this time”. An off-site contribution of £67,000 was agreed for improvements to Wenny Recreation Ground and the plan was approved unanimously.
Cannon Kirk, the developer behind the March proposal, was slammed by councillors for going back on their contributions. Cllr David Connor, chair of the committee, said: “36 houses, no infrastructure at all, no affordable houses – they’re taking not only the kitchen sink, they’re taking the rug away from us as well. My goodness me.
“We can’t get any doctors, I know a friend of mine can’t and she’s been trying to get in the doctors now for two or three weeks – they’re all full. It’s only going to increase the pressure on local services and they can’t even give us £50,000 for doctors, schools or the library either. They’ve taken the whole lot away – this cannot be right.”
Cllr Charlie Marks agreed, expressing frustration that the council was unable to do anything other than accept the plans. He said: “Things arrive here and it all glitters – it’s all gold, all sparkly and wonderful, and then they start coming back like this.
“It’s not right, but unfortunately having spoken to legal there’s very little we can do about it. I think what speaks more volumes is the agent can’t even be bothered to turn up – to come to this planning committee to explain their reasoning why.”
He hit back at their suggestion that if the market changes they may be able to contribute, and said, “we know we’re not going to see any more money from this site”.
Cllr Marks said: “They’re just making a mockery of us as a planning committee, and the planners themselves. I think it’s very, very, unjust and I really think they ought to have a look at their conscience.”
Cllr French said: “To say we’re disappointed is an understatement – I really do feel that our legs have been lifted this time.” She said removing the condition will “set a very dangerous precedent” and the developer could return to remove conditions from their other approved schemes.
Cllr Connor said: “This is what we’re up against as a planning committee – people say, ‘we can’t get doctors, we can’t get this’. This is a typical application that we have had in the past many times and we’re going to see, certainly, a lot more times – just to sum it all up, we’re getting nothing.
“If we, as a committee, turn this down – it would certainly go to appeal, and we would lose the appeal almost certainly. Then maybe there would be some costs awarded, which is obviously taxpayers’ money.”
Councillors “very reluctantly” moved to approve the application and it passed unanimously.



You must be logged in to post a comment Login