DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL
16 FEBRUARY 2017
COUNCILLORS’ ADDITIONAL PAPERS -
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS CIRCULATED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA
1. Speaking Commitment (Page 2 to 3)
2. Application 01 - 16/03568/OUT
Land To NW of 46, Yardley Road, Olney
i. Officer Update (Page 4)
3. Application 03 - 16/03347/FUL
53-55 High Street, Newport Pagnell
i. Officer Update (Pages 5 to 7)
4. Application 06 - 16/03250/FUL
The Old Stables, Bay Lane, Ravenstone
i. Officer Update (Page 8)
ii. Submission from Cllr P Geary (Page 9)
5. Application 08 - 16/02502/FUL
18 Gilpin Way, Olney
i. Officer Update (Pages 10 to 11)
ii. Submissions from Applicant and Architect (Pages 12 to 18)
6. Application 10 - 16/03524/FUL
18 Wheelers Lane, Bradville, Milton Keynes
i. Officer Update (Pages 19 to 21)
(1)
SPEAKING LIST DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL – 16 FEBRUARY 2017
APPLICATION ADDRESS REQUESTS TO SPEAK IN TIME RIGHT OF REPLY TIME NO. OBJECTION ALLOCATED OR SPEAKERS IN ALLOCATED FAVOUR APP01. 16/03568/OUT Land To NW of 46, Mr L Costello 3 Mins Mr C Green (Agent) 6 or 9 Mins Yardley Road, Olney (Olney Town Council) Message left
Cllr P Geary and/or 3 Mins Cllr D Hosking 3 Mins (Ward Councillor) APP05. 16/02696/FUL Land To The Rear of Cllr A Webb 3 Mins Mr A Knight (Agent) 3 Mins 58 To 64, Napier Street, (Ward Councillor) Bletchley APP06. 16/03250/FUL The Old Stables, Bay Lane, Cllr P Geary and/or 3 Mins Ravenstone Cllr D Hosking 3 Mins (Ward Councillor) neither in support or object to the application. APP08. 16/02502/FUL 18 Gilpin Way, Olney Recommended for Cllr P Geary and/or 3 Mins refusal Cllr D Hosking 3 Mins (Ward Councillor)
Mr Cole (Agent) or 3 Mins Mr Lavender (Applicant) APP09. 16/02882/FUL 5 Pinks Close, Loughton, Mr M Young 3 Mins Milton Keynes (Resident) Mr A Gill 6 Mins (Applicant) Cllr Dransfield 3 Mins (Ward Councillor) (2) APP10. 16/03524/FUL 18 Wheelers Lane, Mr P Fincham 3 Mins Bradville, Milton Keynes (resident) Mr H Frith 6 Mins (Applicant) Councillor Burke 3 Mins (Ward Councillor) APP13. 16/03169/ADV 16-17 Market Place, Olney Cllr P Geary and/or 3 Mins Ms M Rickman 3 or 6 Mins Cllr D Hosking 3 Mins (Agent) (Ward Councillor) Will attend if able to do so.
(3)
Application Number: 16/03568/OUT (Minor)
Outline permission for erection of up to eight dwellings with detached garages and home office building, together with provision of new access off Yardley Road and associated works with all matters reserved
AT Land To NW of 46, Yardley Road, Olney
FOR Mr J Gill
Target: 13th February 2017
Ward: Olney Parish: Olney Town Council
Report Author/Case Officer: Adam Smith Senior Planning Officer Contact Details: 01908 252499 [email protected]
Team Leader:: Katy Lycett Interim DM Manager West Team Contact Details: 01908 252313 [email protected]
1.0 Condition Update
1.1 The Development Control Panel (DCP) Report omitted the list of plans from the approved plans condition (Condition 1). Therefore it is recommended that the wording of Condition 1 is altered as follows should planning permission be forthcoming:
1. The approved development shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings/details:
1412.PL.03 received by the local planning authority 19.12.2016
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in accordance with the requirements of The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Amendment No. 3) (England) Order 2009.
(4)
Application Number: 16/03347/FUL (Other)
Change of use from bank (use class A2) to restaurant (use class A3)
AT 53-55 High Street, Newport Pagnell, MK16 8AU
FOR Mr A Ahmed
Target: Extension of Time agreed until 13/3/2017
Ward: Newport Pagnell South Parish: Newport Pagnell Town Council
Report Author/Case Officer: Tassama Amlak Contact Details: 01908 254962 [email protected]
Team Leader:: Catherine Lycett Interim Development Management Manager – East Contact Details: [email protected]
1. Additional Condition 1. An additional condition relating to the extractor flue should be imposed on any permission granted as well as those conditions found in paragraph 6.0 of the Panel report. The wording of the condition is as follows:
“Prior to change of use of the premises hereby permitted, details of the extractor flue shall be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the development would not be harmful to the neighbouring amenity. Missing Plans from report
2. Due to technical errors the following plans were included with the officer report.
(5)
(6)
(7)
Application Number: 16/03250/FUL (Minor)
Demolition of existing barn and erection of new bungalow served by revised parking layout (Retrospective)
AT The Old Stables, Bay Lane, Ravenstone
FOR Mr Paul Weller
Target: 4th January 2017 (Extension of Time: 20th February 2017)
Ward: Olney Parish: Ravenstone Parish Council
Report Author/Case Officer: Adam Smith Senior Planning Officer Contact Details: 01908 252499 [email protected]
Team Leader:: Katy Lycett Interim DM Manager West Team Contact Details: 01908 252313 [email protected]
1.0 Representation Update
1.1 The Development Control Panel (DCP) Report detailed that the application has been clarified since its submission with amended plans submitted and the application re-advertised. The clarification confirmed that the application does not include an extension to the previously approved scheme and only seeks a variation to the parking layout. Following the clarification of the proposal and the publication of the DCP Report, the Parish Council have confirmed the withdrawal of their objection.
(8)
16/03250/FUL
Old stables, Bay Lane, Ravenstone.
I am putting my views in writing as due to other commitments in the civic offices I may not be able to get along to speak on this item as originally hoped.
The item is in front of the committee due to the objection of the parish council. When the item was consulted on with the parish council they were unable to determine what the plans were determining as the portal was not clear exactly what was proposed. The parish council complained and sought clarification and this was only forthcoming on Friday, after having been chased on Thursday last week. When clarification was given the PC withdrew their objections.
The parish council have a significant amount of expertise in construction and they could not determine what was proposed therefore how was a layman supposed to be able to understand this.
When the proposals for the changes to the scheme of delegation were discussed a figure was put proposed about how much more it cost to take a application to committee rather than dealing with it under delegated powers. My recollection is hits was a significant sum, nearly £1000, (I may be wrong on this). This amount of money has therefore been wasted in this case. If the portal had been properly undated with information in a clear fashion then money could have been saved. Also if the parish council's concerns had been addressed quicker then this could also have been avoided.
This is a classic example of how the system is not working well, how money and time has been wasted over a miscommunication, including your time now. You will no doubt come to a resolution over this application tonight but could I suggest if you agree with me on the waste here that you also resolve to make your concerns to the head of development management and formally ask him to get these niggling issues that are costing much resolved.
Many thanks for your time.
Peter Geary 15/2/2017
(9)
Application Number: 16/02502/FUL
Two storey and part single storey front extensions with ground floor side extension (Resubmission of 16/00242/FUL)
AT 18 Gilpin Way, Olney, Milton Keynes
FOR Mr And Mrs Lavender
Target: 27th October 2016 Extension of time: 20th February 2017
Ward: Olney Parish: Olney Town Council
Report Author/Case Officer: Matthew Pearce Contact Details: 01908 254819 [email protected]
Team Leader: Katy Lycett Interim West Team Manager Contact Details: 01908 252313 catherine.lycett@ milton-keynes.gov.uk
1.0 Late paper
1.1 Late representation
A second third party representation has been received from No.15 Gilpin Way, after the publication of the Panel Agenda, in objection to the application. The representation is as follows:
“The extension will cast an almost year round shadow on the ground floor front rooms of our property especially during the winter months when it’s likely the proposed building would entirely block out any direct sunlight.
The front rooms to our house (Kitchen and upstairs bedroom) currently look out to a tall existing hedge at 18 Gilpin Way. This proposed extension will be almost twice the height of the current hedge and is extremely out of keeping with the other buildings in the cul-de-sac. This building would look out of place in the small cul-de-sac and would dominate neighbouring properties.
I’m concerned that this large proposal is at the front of the house and that ground floor access has been moved to the North side where there is a narrow footpath. There is a covenant in the Deeds which restricts development to the front of the house.”
(10)
1.2 Officers response
Impact on the amenity of No. 15 Gilpin Way.
No.15 Gilpin Way is located to the North of the application site and looks onto an area of greenery with the north side boundary of the application site. The front elevation of this neighbouring property is approximately 18 metres from the boundary of the application site. The proposed extension will project along this side boundary and as such would be visible from No.15 Gilpin Way. Due to the distance between the two neighbouring properties, it is considered that the proposal would not create significantly adverse loss of light or visual intrusion to the front elevation of this neighbouring property. A rooflight and two small high level windows are proposed on first floor level of the elevation facing this neighbouring property. Given that the windows would serve non-habitable rooms (bathrooms) and the height of these windows, it is considered that the proposal would not create a loss of privacy to this neighbouring property.
1.3 Other matters
The impact on the character and appearance of the local area is covered in paragraphs 5.2 - 5.5 of the Panel report.
1.4 Restrictive covenants are a civil matter and are not a material consideration.
(11) To: The Members of the Development Control Panel c/o Matthew Pearce
14th February 2017
Dear Sirs
APPLICATION NO.:16/02502/FUL Thank you for your letter of the 3rd February 2017 advising that the resubmitted application for planning permission is being considered at a meeting of the Development Control Panel on the 16th. I am pleased that the planning officer has noted that the development is acceptable as regards the impact it will have on our neighbours. We have made every effort to include the views of our neighbours in the design of our proposed development including withdrawing our plans on one occasion so it is gratifying that our efforts have been recognised. We are, of course, very disappointed that despite this, our proposal is recommended for refusal. I would like to set out below some of the reasoning behind our application, and also some comments on your view that our plans impact negatively on the street-scene of Gilpin Way, in the hope that you will consider them in your decision.
We moved to Olney about 10 years ago, and instantly fell in love with it. We have since then put down roots. We have made friends, and become active members of the community. I was a Beaver Scout leader for 5 years but recently had to give it up when I took on a new job. I have arranged touch rugby games for my oldest son and his age-group to keep their fitness up during the summer. My wife and sons sing in the local choir, and my oldest son Matthew was recently granted an organ scholarship at St. Peter and St. Paul. Both boys are taught music by a local teacher, and my youngest also plays cello at the middle school. He has recently formed a group with two other pupils in Olney Middle School so that they can contribute to their annual school music concert. Both our boys have played rugby and football for Olney Rugby Club and Olney Town Colts since they were 5 years old, so for our oldest this is his seventh year of playing sport in the Town. My wife is one of the trained first aiders who can use the defibrillator for the rugby club, and also did the training so that she can monitor hygiene in the kitchen. We both take our turns to cook and sell match-day food, and also work in the bar for the rugby club. So I hope this indicates our love for living where we do, and our commitment to our community.
One of the main reasons we moved to our current property was its proximity to the rugby and football grounds, so that our sons could enjoy the use of the facilities like the rugby club and the recreation grounds. They are now of an age that they can go to those facilities without supervision and without having to cross any busy roads, so they can go there safely. They have both been through the school system here from infant school age and my oldest son is now at Ousedale School, Olney Campus. Their friends are here and often meet to play games at the recreation ground. We are really anxious that we don’t uproot them and if we don’t obtain planning permission there is a real risk we may have to. I hope you will appreciate that we are desperate to remain in our home.
When we bought the property, we saw it’s potential to become a long term home for us. The elongated plot shape suggested that we would be able to develop it to accommodate our family as it grew. The boys need larger bedrooms as they get older, and our application is partly intended to (12) achieve that. However my wife’s mother and father have recently decided to move to Olney also. They have visited us and also love the community feel. We have discussed them moving in with us, and we find this a good solution. My father-in-law has a bad back so for this reason we would prefer that they live with us. These living arrangements would also have many benefits for both family units, as my in-laws will be able to look after the children after school, and also allow them to share in these formative years and also to have some added flexibility with our living arrangements. My wife, who is a nurse, often works on the weekends and it makes child minding, especially when our boys have away fixtures at different venues (since they are in different age groups), very difficult and we often have to arrange for friends to take one of the boys to one venue while I take the other to another venue. Having my in-laws living with us will make this easier to manage. It also means that the children will be able to come home after school instead of having to stay with a child minder away from their home, which cuts them off from their friends.
We have looked at house prices in Olney which would equal our proposed development and we would simply not be able to afford them. We desperately do not want to leave our home or Olney, where our roots are firmly established. So at this time when housing is so scarce, and where suitable alternative accommodation for the whole family would be difficult (if not impossible) to find, we face the prospect of having to find two smaller units neither of which would give us the living space we could enjoy in our proposed home. Coupled with that housing supply in Olney is scarce.
We feel saddened that on the basis that our proposed development is not perceived to be in keeping with the character of the original building and the street-scene. The original building is a basic box-shape, and I believe the appeal of the property will be enhanced by altering it. Our plan has been designed without a great deal of consideration. It also embodies the life-savings of two families, and as such, we have taken great care with the kerb-appeal to preserve the resale value of the property. It is clearly not in our interests to build something that reduces the character and value of our property or the general area. I think this is evidenced by our diligent efforts to find a solution that finally does not impact on our neighbours, as a result of which none have asked to speak at the meeting. In addition the houses that will look directly onto our proposed development have not lodged any opposition to our proposal. So of the 12 houses to whom notice was given, only 1 has objected, and we have addressed their objections as noted by the planning officer in paragraph 5.9 of the application. It is sad that despite all this work the planning team have recommended our application be refused, but I hope that this letter will give you some grounds to reconsider that recommendation.
To the South of us are two lines of garages which echo the lines of our proposed extension (but extend beyond where our proposed house will end), so it is difficult to understand how the lines of our planned extension would be incongruous with the lines of the garages. In fact I believe that in echoing those lines we are enhancing the eye-appeal of the street-scene for those approaching the property from the Southern side. Most traffic will come from that side since the Northern end of Gilpin Way is a cul-de-sac. In addition, the houses to the South of us all have a building line which approximates to where our proposed extension ends, and so I would argue that this more accurately reflects the building line of Gilpin Way, and is more in keeping with the street-scene than the current building. To the North of our property is a small green (which people park their cars on, which is not particularly sensitive to the green space) and I think that by enclosing the Southern end of the green our development will create a pleasing symmetry and enclose the green in an appealing way. Our proposal does not affect our parking which is on site on the Eastern road frontage, so we will not be creating any additional demand for parking, and our cars and our Eastern hedge also limit the impact (13) of our development on the street scene, and is exactly the same as the houses to the South of our plot on Gilpin Way.
I note that one neighbour also complained about the height of our hedge, but our intention (if planning permission is passed) is to replace the hedge with a fence as we have already done on the Eastern side of our house, and which will also give us the opportunity to replace the gate with a proper arched entrance gate, which will much enhance the attractiveness alongside the public walkway. In addition, the restrictive covenant preventing building across the building line which applied to our property regarding the old building line that our neighbours apparently mentioned in their objection to our planning application was in favour of the developer who no longer exists, and therefore the restrictive covenant has lapsed. As I have suggested, I also think our proposed building would more closely reflect the building line along Gilpin Way and so I would respectfully suggest that any concerns about massing in the front are limited. I also hope that you will see that our proposal has not been taken lightly, and that it embodies the hopes and dreams of two families. I sincerely beg you to reconsider your recommendation that the application be refused.
Yours sincerely
Guy Lavender
(14) STEPHEN COLE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN First Floor, 24 High Street South, Olney, Buckinghamshire, MK46 4AA tel - 07795 246179 email - [email protected] SUPPEMENTAL INFORMATION (HEDGING) 16/02502/FUL for TWO STOREY FRONT & SINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSION AT 18 GILPIN WAY, OLNEY
Fig. 1- View looking North-West towards parking spaces, showing coniferous hedging and garaging to side boundaries of the private garden space
Fig. 2- View looking South-West towards parking spaces, showing coniferous hedging and garaging to side boundaries
(15) Fig. 3- View showing parking spaces and coniferous hedging to side boundary and with the gravel parking spaces in view
(16) STEPHEN COLE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN First Floor, 24 High Street South, Olney, Buckinghamshire, MK46 4AA tel - 07795 246179 email - [email protected] PLANNING RECOMMENDATION RESPONSE – 16/02502/FUL for TWO STOREY FRONT & SINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSION AT 18 GILPIN WAY, OLNEY
Gilpin Way is a cul-de-sac of dwellings accessed off East Street via Austen Avenue and built during the 1970’s and contains properties numbered from 5-29. It is believed that 18 Gilpin Way occupies a slither of land that was originally set aside as a vehicular access as part of the wider ‘Hatch Farm’ development but during construction stage this area of the site around this plot was amended (or this plot was possibly added) to become a dwelling that was set back from the public highway resulting in a larger than normal front garden. The fact that 19-21 Gilpin Way feature reduced length rear gardens supports this belief that a significant site layout amendment occurred during build stage.
The boundary facing 14-17 Gilpin Way is a fenced boundary with coniferous hedging behind it measuring some 3.6 metres in height at its lowest point and rising to over 5 metres in height at the corner of Gilpin Way public highway. The proposed extension is intended to sit within this hedge line with the coniferous hedging being entirely removed, apart from individual non-coniferous species.
This application follows earlier discussions with the planning officer, Paul Bartos following confirmation that the original application 16/00242/FUL was being recommended for refusal. That earlier application was then subsequently withdrawn following the discussion with Paul Bartos, when it was clear that no form of amendment would deem it an acceptable scheme in its proposed two storey form. It was then subsequently agreed that the only area where a two storey extension would be likely to gain planning consent was the North Western corner of the plot away from the cramped rear gardens of 19-21 Gilpin Way and re-positioned to the front of the property where overlooking issues were significantly less problematic and also locating the extension in the area of the larger part of this properties private garden space. For absolute clarity the advice given by Paul Bartos followed the earlier planning submission 16/00242/FUL that was withdrawn as it was being recommended for refusal.
This application seeks to add living and sleeping accommodation for a growing family soon to include grand-parents that will be living in the same property with the parents and children that currently occupy number 18 Gilpin Way. The current housing crisis makes it impossible to locate a suitable property that is in an affordable price bracket anywhere in Olney.
Olney Town Council responded during the consultation period with ‘No Comments’
Neighbour concerns relating to over-shading by this extension have been responded to by reducing the overall projection of the extension to fall within the 45 degree line. Adjusted drawings have been issued that reduce the overall length of proposals to ensure that the 45 degree line from neighbouring front elevation kitchen window is not crossed. We believe that the first floor side elevation windows to 17 Gilpin Way are serving the bathroom and stair landing and as such are not habitable rooms.
Neighbour concerns relating to new windows over-looking their property have been responded to by confirming that these windows are to feature obscured glazing as they
(17) Revision: A Development Control Planning Panel submission 14.02.2017 serve only a bathroom and en-suite. We are happy for these to be conditioned to be both obscured and non-openable, if it deemed necessary.
These proposals are recommended for reufusal by the planning officer. We believe that the proposed extension will by featuring matching brickwork, matching roof tiles with matching white windows creating an extension that is intended to match and not contrast with the existing property. The roof areas and the ridge lines have been set down at a level lower than the existing house to create a subservient effect in relation to the existing dwelling, particularly in the area of the stair and entrance hall area where the eaves is set down at a lower level, also. The proposed bedroom over garden room will feature a vaulted ceiling with roof windows internally to allow us to lower the overall roof heights without compromising the use of the bedroom. It is our view that this proposed extension is subservient to the original dwelling.
We firmly believe that this plot would benefit from a two storey extension in the front garden area to create the much needed extra living and sleeping accommodation, as it clearly will not gain planning consent for a two storey rear extension, due to it being surrounded by neighbouring dwellings to the South, East and North sides that are as close as 7 metres from the rear garden whereas the neighbouring dwellings to the front are set some 18.5 metres away from the proposed North side elevation of the extension. We have made concerted efforts to consider the neighbours outlook by locating the extension in the suggested ‘best location’ for this particular plot, as put forward by the previous planning officer, Paul Bartos.
(18) Revision: A Development Control Planning Panel submission 14.02.2017
Application Number: 16/03524/FUL (Minor)
Erection of 1.8 metre boundary wall with brick pillars and timber fence panels to enclose land into rear garden
AT 18 Wheelers Lane, Bradville, Milton Keynes
FOR Mr H Frith
Target: 24th February 2017
Ward: Stantonbury Parish: Stantonbury Parish Council
Report Author/Case Officer: Joanne Spurrell Contact Details: [email protected]
Team Leader: Catherine Lycett Contact Details: [email protected]
1.0 Late Paper
Since the publication of the Development Control Agenda and the Officer’s report for the above application from page 144 of the agenda, the following additional representations have been received:
1.1 Members Site Inspection
A members site inspection took place on 13th February at 10.30am. The Case Officer (Joanne Spurrell), Planning Officer Matthew Pearce and Cllr Andrew Geary were present, as well as Ward Cllr Margaret Burke and Parish Cllr Geoff Parker.
1.2 Comments received from Stantonbury Parish Council
Subsequent to the members site inspection, comments were received on 13th February from Stantonbury Parish Council, see below.
“Councillor Geoff Parker from Stantonbury Parish Council has just returned to the Office from the site inspection at 18 Wheelers lane, Bradville.
Councillor Parker says that the only objection that he does have with Planning Application No: 16/03524/FUL is that the bottom wall is a bit too close to No: 4, Westborne Court.”
1.3 Officer’s Response
The impact to amenity of neighbouring residents is covered in paragraph 5.5 of the Officer’s report. With regard to no. 4 Westborne Court, the
(19) section of proposed wall nearest the neighbouring dwelling would be replacing the existing 1.8 metre timber fence, therefore there would be no further loss of amenity to this neighbour.
1.4 Third Party Representation
A third party representation was received on 10th February from no. 4 Westborne Court regarding the Officer’s report, see below.
“Having now looked at your case report on the subject application please could you review the following points:
Para 1.5. The distance from the main north facing wall to Westbourne Court is 6.1 metres. Consequently, in para 5.3 the retained strip of land would be 2.6 metres.
Para 6.0 sub-para 2. If the rule of 3 metres from the edge of Westbourne Court is to be retained, the maximum distance should be 3.1 metres.”
Para A3.5. The objections were received from Nos 1, 2 and 4.”
1.5 Officer’s Response
The distance from the north elevation of the application dwelling to Westborne Court was measured by the Case Officer using GIS, and was measured as 6.5 metres, as stated in paragraph 1.5 of the Officer’s report. With regard to the point raised about Condition 2, it does not state what the distance the proposed wall should be from the road, but the distance the proposed wall should be from the existing north elevation of the application dwelling. It is noted that the objections were indeed received nos. 1, 2 and 4 Westborne Court, and not from nos. 1, 4 and 5 as stated in the Office’s report.
1.6 Submission from Applicant
Comments were received from the applicant on 3rd February in support of his application. Points were raised regarding the use and access of the garden, the amendment to the scheme to reduce the width of the enclosed land from 4 metres to 3.5 metres therefore leaving space to retain existing planting, and in response to comments made by neighbours regarding the proposed wall.
1.7 Elevation Drawings Received from Applicant
Elevation drawings showing the proposed wall with timber fence panels rd were received from the applicant on 3 February, see below.
(20)
(21)