Councillor Ian Benney defended the removal of all affordable housing from a major Chatteris development by arguing the town could otherwise end up receiving people relocated from London—where housing benefit levels reach £1,500–£1,600 a month, compared to around £600 in Chatteris.
The comparison—used to illustrate why the town risked becoming a cheaper overflow destination—was delivered during a meeting of the planning committee of Fenland District Council on Wednesday that approved the developer’s request to eliminate the 20 per cent affordable housing requirement from the scheme east of The Elms.
The revised plans instead deliver no affordable units, no on-site play area, and no southern vehicular access.
Chatteris Town Council had argued that the loss of affordable homes is a devastating blow for local families.
But it was Benney’s explanation—invoking London placements and the need to “keep my town in a nice place”—that raised eyebrows.
“We don’t need social housing where we could have people just sent here”
Cllr Benney, a former Cabinet member and part of the council’s investment board when it approved the sale of The Elms, also sits on the planning committee.
But on Wednesday he removed himself from the meeting to speak on behalf of the council.
He opened his statement by stressing the flooding problems in The Elms, which he said have plagued residents for years, with water “halfway up car wheels” and “two foot of brown water running through people’s houses.”
But he pivoted sharply when discussing the loss of affordable housing.
“As a councillor, you need social housing for local need,” he told the committee, “but you don’t need social housing where we could have just, you know, people sent here because they need somewhere to live. Chatteris is a nice place.”
He went further, referencing previous years when councils placed tenants from London into cheaper areas like Fenland because the cost difference made it financially attractive: “Council several years ago were taking people out of London where the housing benefit is £1,500–£1,600 a month and send them somewhere like Chatteris where it’s £600 a month.”
He added: “Truthfully, I want to keep my town in a nice place where it is.”
Though he clarified he wasn’t calling such people “bad,” the implication—that the removal of social housing helped prevent the town receiving out-of-area placements—will have angered opponents.
Public land, public disappointment
Chatteris Town Council and dozens of residents had already objected to the removal of affordable housing, calling it the only meaningful benefit for local people. They criticised the use of viability arguments on a site involving Fenland Futures Ltd, a company owned by Fenland District Council itself.
Some residents said the public ownership of the land should have guaranteed affordable homes, not erased them.
The independent viability assessment—reviewed by CP Viability Ltd and a quantity surveyor—concluded the scheme was unviable even without contributions or affordable housing. Planning officers said that insisting on the requirement would “undermine delivery” of homes on an allocated site.
Benney: fixing flooding is worth the sacrifice
Cllr Benney repeatedly returned to the flooding problem as the overriding reason to support the viability-driven changes. He recounted visiting residents whose gardens and cars were submerged, and his meeting years ago with the head of planning, who told him the only workable solution was to build near the site to incorporate new drainage infrastructure.
“This is the once-in-a-lifetime chance we’ve got to fix those flooding issues,” he said, adding that the cost of drainage infrastructure—including two large attenuation ponds—made the original affordable housing requirement impossible.
He told the committee: “If this solves the problem for the residents of The Elms, that is a price worth paying.”
Councillors challenge the claims
Cllr Charlie Marks questioned Benney on:
- How many affordable homes have been built recently in Chatteris
- When The Elms last flooded
Benney could not provide exact figures on affordable housing and could not recall the most recent flooding event. Instead, he relied on past complaints and historic photographs.
But he defended his position strongly, saying he would rather be criticised for approving development than for allowing residents to face flooding again.
Officers: regrettable, but unavoidable
Planning officer Hayley Mears told the committee the viability assessment had been independently verified, and the development was “not viable even without affordable housing or Section 106 contributions.”
Removing these obligations was therefore “justified” to maintain housing delivery.
The play area originally required under condition 16 has also been removed, replaced with a £67,000 contribution to upgrade equipment at Wenny Recreation Ground.
The original 80-home layout is now expected to drop to about 50 due to the land needed for drainage.
Chatteris Town Council has reiterated its strong objection to the latest development proposal, raising concerns that changes to site access, and the removal of affordable housing would leave the community worse off.
Councillors initially warned that closing the planned vehicular access could push additional traffic onto St Martins Road, Birch Avenue and The Elms—routes they say are already unsuitable for higher volumes.
Following a second round of consultation, the council recommended refusal, stating the scheme remains unpopular with residents and offers “no direct community benefit.”
Affordable housing—described as urgently needed for young people in Chatteris—was originally the sole benefit of the project. Its proposed removal has been met with firm opposition.
Town councillors disputed the developer’s updated viability report and argued that the application should have been assessed independently, suggesting the county council as a more appropriate decision-maker due to what they viewed as a conflict of interest.
The town council criticised the absence of any Section 106 contributions, noting that despite the land being sold by Fenland District Council at a profit, “the town will gain nothing from this development.”
They further alleged that repeated viability assessments appear designed to achieve the outcome desired by the planning authority.
Local councillor James Carney also submitted objections. He argued that changes to the southern access are unclear and should remain as originally required to support future growth under local planning policies.
He also warned that removing the 20 per cent affordable housing allocation lacks justification and would undermine essential housing provision for residents wishing to stay close to work, family and local schools.
A decision that leaves Chatteris divided
To some councillors, the choice was clear: approve the changes or risk the entire scheme collapsing, along with the only viable opportunity to fix long-standing drainage failures.
But to others—especially local residents—the decision represents a worrying precedent for if a publicly owned site can be developed with zero affordable housing, what hope is there for future provision?
The most striking takeaway was the framing of social housing not as a local need but as a potential threat—one linked explicitly to London rents and the fear of outside placements.
The council had to choose between viability, drainage relief, and housing policy.
They chose viability and drainage.
They did not choose affordable homes.
And the debate over exactly who Chatteris is for has only intensified.
