APP 02 Application Number: 14/01316/REM RESERVED MATTERS APPLICATION PURSUANT to OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION 06/00123/MKPCO

APP 02

Application Number: 14/01316/REM MAJOR RESERVED MATTERS APPLICATION PURSUANT TO OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION 06/00123/MKPCO FOR ACCESS, APPEARANCE, LANDSCAPING, LAYOUT AND SCALE OF 144 NEW DWELLINGS AND ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT (PARCELS 3A, 4A AND PART 3B). AMENDED.

AT Fairfield Area 11( Western Expansion Area)-Land West of Watling Street And North of, Calverton Lane, Calverton

FOR BDW Trading Ltd And Redlawn Land Limited

Target: 23rd September 2014 (extension of time requested)

Ward: Stony Stratford Parish: Fairfields Parish Council

Report Author/Case Officer: Karen Tate Contact Details: 01908 253238 [email protected]

Team Leader: Nicola Wheatcroft Team Leader Strategic Applications Team Contact Details: 01908 252274 [email protected]

1.0 INTRODUCTION (A brief explanation of what the application is about)

1.1 Development Control Committee considered and deferred planning application 14/01316/REM at the November 19 2014 meeting in order that the applicants could undertake revisions to the proposal following objections to the layout of the scheme in relation to dwellings adjoining the Link Street. A copy of the approved Resolution is set out below, for clarification.

“RESOLVED – That determination of the application be deferred for further negotiations with the applicant specifically around the layby’s and orientation of dwellings on the link road and in the light of the offer of the applicant so to do and a return to this Committee as soon as practically possible.”

1.2 Following a workshop with Development Control Committee Councillors where the applicants were provided with an opportunity to present options for potential revision. Barratts have drawn up and formally submitted a revised scheme which seeks to address the reasons for the deferral of the application on November 19 2014.

1.3 A copy of the original Committee report and recommendation is attached as Appendix A together with a full transcript of the Committee minute of the 19 November 2014.

1.4 This Committee report should be read alongside these Appendices and will provide an update to the previous report and assess and comment on the amendments received to inform Members debate as the acceptability of the revised scheme.

1.5 Due to the timetabling of the revisions, received on 19 January 2015 and the need to draw up this report ahead of the expiry of the consultation period a further update will be provided, in writing, confirming any remaining outstanding consultee responses at the Development Control Committee on the 5 February 2015.

1.6 Full details of the application, including plans, supplementary documents, consultee responses and public representations are available on the Council’s Public Access system www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/publicaccess. All matters have been taken into account in writing this report and recommendation.

1.7 The Site The site is located on the western edge of Milton Keynes and forms a substantial part of the Western Expansion Area (WEA) allocated for development within the Adopted Local Plan. The parcels subjects of this reserved matters application are located adjacent to the roundabout at the intersection of Watling Street (V4) and Millers Way (V2). The application site is an undeveloped parcel of land bounded to the north east by Watling Street which is fronted by a substantial hedgerow boundary. To the west is an existing bridleway and to the east and south and west is further land allocated as part of the Western Expansion Area. It comprises development parcels 3a, part 3b and 4a as defined in the WEA Area 11 Phase 1 Design Code. Infrastructure works within this site area is underway.

Details of the location of the site and its relationship to surrounding properties can be seen in the plans attached to this report.

1.8 The Proposal Outline Consent Outline application 06/00123/MKPCO was approved in October 2007 for residential development for approximately 220 dwellings, employment uses, primary school, a local centre, open space/parks, play areas and allotments, associated structural landscaping and earthworks, extension to the caravan site, associated highways and infrastructure improvements, including a sustainable urban drainage system. Condition 1 of this outline approval requires approval of the details of the siting, design and external appearance of the buildings, the means of access and the landscaping of each development parcel prior to the commencement of that development parcel. Reserved matters 08/01058/MKPCR approved the primary infrastructure works, including roads, footways, cycleways, drainage, attenuation areas, services, utilities, pumping station, sub-station and ecological mitigation measures. The application was approved in 2012.

1.9 Application details considered by Development Control Committee 19 November 2014 The reserved matters application as originally submitted sought consent for access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for 153 dwellings and associated development including associated landscaping, highway infrastructure and means of access with 27% affordable housing provided across a mix of unit sizes.

Other conditions on the outline consent that the application proposed to address were:

- Condition 9 – parking, garaging and manoeuvring - Condition 14 – drainage - Condition 17 – finished floor levels - Condition 21 – landscaping scheme - Condition 25 – boundary treatment - Condition 29 – secured by design

The application also sought to discharge condition 4 (detailed planting scheme) and condition 12 (tracking detail) of reserved matter application 08/01058/MKPCR and 06/00123/MKPCO.

1.10 Amended details to be determined by Development Control Committee 5 February 2015 Following the deferral of the application in November the proposal has been revised in the locality of the link road and continues to seek consent for access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for 144 dwellings and associated development including associated landscaping, highway infrastructure and means of access with 25.69% affordable housing provided within the context of a revised scheme layout. The overall site density equates to 37 dwellings per hectare (dph) comprising:

1 bed flats 4 (Affordable Housing) = 4 2 bed flats 14 = 14 1 bed houses 9 = 9 2 bed houses 3 + 26 (Affordable Housing) = 29 3 bed houses 26 + 5 (Affordable Housing) = 31 4 bed houses 48 + 2 (Affordable Housing) = 50 5 bed houses 7 = 7

TOTAL UNITS 107 + 37(Affordable Housing) = 144

PARKING SPACES Private Spaces = 248 Visitor Spaces/Unallocated Spaces = 68

TOTAL = 316

1.11 The proposed site layout has a single point of access via a new exit from the existing roundabout off Watling Street (V4) and Millers Way (H2). This access forms the Link Street which connects to 2 Community Streets positioned parallel to the east and west of the Link Street. New culs-de- sacs/mews streets are positioned off the Community Streets extending to the boundary with the Link Street either side but terminating at its boundary. No access is provided between the culs-de-sacs and the Link Street. The remainder of the highway layout within the site reflects the originally submitted layout.

1.12 The proposed layout has been amended in relation to the 3 blocks either side of the Link Street and now proposes houses which are positioned at right angles to the Link Street served from 3 cul-de-sacs,/Mews Street 1 on the eastern side of the Link Street and 2 positioned to the western side of the Street. The remainder of the street and block layout remains as originally submitted.

1.13 In respect of the Link Street this has been simplified in terms of its design with unallocated parking bays deleted. Together with the individual pedestrian accesses from dwellings fronting either side of the Street other than in relation to the 3 flatted blocks which adjoin the Street and which retain their pedestrian access as originally submitted. The proposed Redway is realigned marginally and a footpath is retained along the western side of the Link Street. Pedestrian accesses to the Redway and footpath are limited to those from the Community Streets and the flatted units. The deleted visitor parking spaces are transferred to other areas within the development area.

1.14 The amended site layout retains the original arrangement over the majority of the site in a series of perimeter blocks which are of an appropriate size and scale to the site and address all the open frontages. Houses that previously fronted the Link Street are now proposed served from culs-de-sacs/Mews streets are re-orientated so gable end walls face the Link Street. Where direct access is limited, the use of courtyard parking is introduced. A revised tracking plan accompanies the revised details.

1.15 In respect of the house types these are largely retained as originally submitted although the range of dwellings has been reduced by 6 house types and 1 new design included. The plot house types have however, been revised as has the quantum of individual house types. A new single garage design is also introduced to the proposed development. The proposed buildings are up to 3 storey in height with a variety of eaves lines incorporated. The bulk of the dwellings are 2 – 2.5 storeys with 3 storey buildings used as landmark buildings.

1.16 Parking is accommodated either on-plot or grouped together with some spaces provided to the front of dwellings. Where no direct access is achievable rear parking is provided in a limited number of courtyards. Visitor parking is provided on street in unallocated parking bays other than the Link Street.

1.17 A Sustainability Statement demonstrating how the Council’s sustainable construction standards are to be achieved accompanied the application and exceeds the requirements of the site specific S106.

1.18 The original submission included landscaping of the site and this remains included within the revised scheme details. This remains an integral part of the application. However the landscaping for the revised area of the site, including landscaping of the Link Street has not been revised at the present time to take into account the revised layout. The landscaping proposal to the site layout unaffected by the revisions remains in place. Similarly, the original boundary treatment proposal remains on the table in relation to the areas of the site unaffected by the revised layout but no details are submitted as to boundary treatments within the revised scheme area of the site.

1.19 Updated materials, surface finishes, finished floor levels plans and sections are awaited at the time of the compiling of this report and an update will be provided at the Committee Meeting. An illustrative Link Street streetscape drawing has been submitted to accompany the revised layout proposal.

Other conditions on the outline consent that the application continues to seek to address are:

The application also seeks to discharge condition 4 (detailed planting scheme) and condition 12 (tracking detail) of reserved matter application 08/01058/MKPCR and 06/00123/MKPCO.

1.20 Details of the revised proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report. A copy of the original submission scheme details are included with the Committee report of the 19 November 2014 appended to this report.

2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application)

2.1 National Policy Sections: 4 – Promoting sustainable transport 6 - Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes 7 - Requiring good design 8 - Promoting healthy communities

2.2 Local Policy Core Strategy (July 2013) CS1 Milton Keynes Development Strategy CS2 Housing Land Supply CS8 Other Areas of Change CS10 Housing CS11 A Well Connected Milton Keynes CS12 Developing Successful Neighbourhoods CS13 Ensuring High Quality, Well Designed Places CS14 Sustainable Construction CS18 Healthier and Safer Communities CS19 The Historic and Natural Environment CS21 Delivering Infrastructure

Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011(adopted December 2005) D1 Impact of Development Proposals on Locality D2 Design of Buildings D2A Urban Design Aspects of New Development D4 Sustainable Construction NE2 Protected Species NE3 Biodiversity and Geological Enhancement T1 The Transport Hierarchy T2 Access for Those with Impaired Mobility T3-T4 Pedestrians and Access T5 Public Transport T9 The Road Hierarchy T10 Traffic T15 Parking Provision H1 Land Allocated for Housing H4 Affordable Housing H8 Housing Density H9 Housing Mix EA1 and EA2 Expansion Area EA5 Western Expansion Area

Supplementary Planning Guidance Western Expansion Area Development Framework (Nov 2005) Parking Standards 9Jan 2005) and Addendum (April 2009) Sustainable Construction (April 2007) Affordable Housing (March 2013) New Residential Development Design Guide (April 2012)

Other Documents Area 11, WEA Development Brief (Approved May 2006) Area 11 Phase 1 Design Code (Approved Nov 2012) Area 11 Highway Code (approved April 2009)

3.0 CONSIDERATIONS (The issues which have the greatest bearing on the decision)

3.1 The application was subject of a detailed Committee report and was debated by Development Control Committee on November 19 2014 where it was deferred for the following reason:

“RESOLVED – That determination of the application be deferred for further negotiations with the applicant specifically around the layby’s and orientation of dwellings on the link roads and in the light of the offer of the applicant so to do and a return to this Committee as soon as practically possible.”

3.2 Having regard to the specific issues of concern to the Committee, and which the applicants have sought to address, the remainder of this report will focus on the revisions as proposed and their acceptability in the context of the reasons for the deferral and compliance with the Area 11 Highway Design Code (2009), Area 11 Phase 1 Design Code ( November 2012) , New Residential Development Design Guide (April 2012) and relevant Core Strategy (2013) and Saved Local Plan Policies (2005 Saved 2009), Parking Standards SPG, Affordable Housing SPG and New Residential Development Design Guide SPG.

3.3 This Committee report should therefore be read as an update to the 19 November 2014 report and will therefore not revisit previous paragraphs 5.1 – 5.5 other than to confirm that the revised design of the Link Street retains the 24.6 metre wide reserve corridor as originally proposed but alters the design of the Link Street and accessed onto it in accordance with Committee’s resolution in November 2014.

3.4 It should also be noted that the revised layout details were received on 19 January and therefore this report does not include full consultation responses, which are subject of a 14 day consultation period. Consultations received after the drafting of this report will be provided to Development Control Committee at the meeting on the February 5.

3.5 The following matters are considered the substantive issues in relation to the revised layout proposal. Highways and Parking Matters Compliance with Area 11 Phase 1 Design Code requirements Design of the Dwellings Designing Out Crime Landscaping Affordable Housing

3.6 Highways and Parking Matters The proposal seeks to reconfigure the highway network around the Link Street and two blocks to the western side of the Street. This has resulted in the removal of one Community Street on the western side of the Link Street provided a second access points from the Link Street. This area, a total of 64 dwellings is served from a single access point via a Residential Road at the southern end of the site. Within the site both areas of development to the east and west of the Link Street are each served by a Community Street which aligns with that originally proposed and is assessed as Design Code and SPG compliant.

3.7 A series of culs-de-sacs/Mews Streets are taken from the Community Streets and facilitate frontage development with parking to the front/side of dwellings and on street parking. In terms of the highway network, the principle of a Link Street, Community Streets and cul-de-sacs/Mews Streets accord with the Area 11 Highway Code and Residential Design Guide SPG but in terms of the urban design layout raise a number of issues and contradictions to the intention of the design Codes and SPG.

3.8 Link Street In relation to the Link Street, in accordance with the deferral by Development Control Committee the applicants have revised the application to remove all on street parking bays to this road. Together with one Community Street junction and have removed individual private pedestrian accesses to the Street other than at a very limited number of points. The Redway and footpath are retained along the Street’s length although some realignment has been undertaken to the position of the Redway.

3.9 The specification for a Link Street is set out in the Highway Code which confirms mandatory highway design criteria the pertinent criteria as follow:

6.2 m carriageway 2 m on-street parking on both sides of the street width between the carriageway and plot boundary to be maintained where n parking or on street planting occurs Min 2 m footway each side unless Redway takes precedence 1.5 – 3 m private set back 3m Redway =2 x0.5 wobble strip where applicable Bus on street Unrestricted number of properties served No direct access to properties Service /refuse vehicles using own side of road throughout Soft verge to be provided where hedgerows are retained Speed restrain measures – on street parking, material change, tree planting, enclosures by buildings, build outs to compensate for wide verges, building terminate long views Design speed – 20mph

3.10 The highway Code has been updated through the later Area 11 Phase 1 Design Code mandatory requirements which requires: “Layout design should take every opportunity to orientate buildings to face the street, providing natural surveillance over the public realm. Front doors should be located on the primary street elevation- this includes all ground floor apartments.”

3.11 The Design Code also advises that; “24.6 m corridor is reserved within primary infrastructure corridor for future grid road extension”

3.12 The Link Street is sized to achieve the 24.6 reserve corridor, as was the original layout and was designed to accord with the layout design principles set out above which led to concerns by Development Control Committee as to a conflict between the mandatory requirements for the design of the Link Street and its potential for future upgrading to a grid road.

3.13 Counsel’s advice to Committee in November was that there is no formalised requirement for a grid road to be provided into this part of the WEA and therefore the design approach mandated in the Highway Code and Design Code for the Link Street, which the applicant’s accorded with, could stand.

3.14 The Committee, however, wished to protect their future position in this respect and the applicants have responded with a revised layout which accords with the requirements from the November 19 Committee.

3.15 The revised layout, however, leads to a conflict with the Design Code for this part of Area 11, the relevant section being set out in paragraph 3.8 above. In order to accommodate the Committee’s requirements the layout has been reconfigured, resulting in a loss of units and designed to be side on to the Link Road separated from it by a solid screen barrier (screening is not yet determined), direct pedestrian accesses are largely removed and the Link Street becomes a blank frontage as opposed to an active overlooking streetscape.

3.16 The Link Road will therefore have a very different form and character to that envisaged in the WEA masterplan, Highway Code and Design Code. It is and will considered to have the characteristics, albeit more limited green edges than seen in the traditional grid roads, of a grid road.

3.17 In doing so it is considered this will alter the character and appearance of this main ‘entrance’ into the WEA from an urban one, visually connecting the two areas either side of the Link Street to one which is disconnected from it, particularly in relation to the overarching design rationale for Area 11. This conflicts with the design intentions of the Link Road and the character of this part of the development area. The Street in this proposed layout becomes one that is functional and which is passed through rather than one that visually introduces drivers, pedestrians and cyclists to this part of the WEA.

3.18 There is a direct conflict with the mandatory elements of the Highway Code and Design Code as set out above, the proposed development now ‘turning its back’ on the Link Street. It provides very limited surveillance of the Redway and footpath and may become less attractive for pedestrians and cyclists to use exacerbated by the links through from the development being significantly reduced. Connectivity to the wider area is considered to be poor for these particular users. This is considered to be negatively reinforced by the proposed solid enclosures separating the Link Street from the development and is considered to conflict with Local Plan Policy D2A(iv) (ease of movement)

3.19 A separate new issue arising from the proposed revised Link Road layout is the removal of the inbuilt elements which visually define it as a ‘local road’ to users. The inclusion of on street parking bays, tree planting and building in close proximity to the street is an urban design devise which reinforces and encourages reduced traffic speeds appropriate to a residential locality.

3.20 The design speed for the Link Street was identified in the WEA Highway Code as 20mph. The more up to date New Residential Development Design Guide suggests a maximum speed of up to 30 mph. The proposed Street layout by virtue of its uninterrupted carriageway would be likely to encourage higher vehicle speeds and Committee will need to give consideration to measures that would need to be put in place to ensure lower traffic speeds are achieved in accordance with the design requirements of the Link Street.

3.21 Community Streets and Mew Streets/culs-de-sacs In terms of layout the Community Streets and Mews Streets are considered to accord with the Highway Code mandatory design requirements, including on street parking bays, subject to some small scale detailing amendments. Vehicle tracking plans have been submitted and with some limited revisions the highway layout is considered acceptable on these roads. The majority of the network is designed to adoptable standard although some limited sections of shared private drives are included, a number of which remain as per the original layout. Extensions to the Mews streets/culs-de-sacs are by way of shared drives and are considered an acceptable arrangement to the Highway Engineer. Road speeds are required to be no greater than 20 mph.

3.22 However, the configuration of the layout, especially the development of the western part of the site does not encourage ease of movement for pedestrians and cyclists into the wider WEA area. The layout is considered to conflict with the Highway Code connectivity requirements and the more up to date advice in the New Residential Development Design Guide. This latter document sets down as a core principle that cul-de-sacs/Mews Streets should be located within a wider connected movement network for ease and choice of access across the wider development. This, in turn impacts on the permeability of the site which is considered to be diminished in respect of this current proposed layout. There is therefore considered to be some conflict with the requirements of Local Plan Policy D2A (iv) and Core Strategy CS12.

3.23 Parking and detailed highway matters The proposal provides for private parking largely on-plot and with a limited amount of block parking and courtyard parking for the flats. The substantive revisions have been to the parking arrangement for the dwellings which previously fronted the Link Street and which were served from rear parking courts, which are now deleted. This has enabled a larger number of dwellings to be provided with on-plot parking or small blocks of parking bays and an increase in the number of front of dwelling on plot parking. The parking spaces lost from the Link Street are incorporated into the revised layout internal road network and the principle of this is accepted.

3.24 The proposal accords with the Council’s parking standards for Zone 3, although in some instances these are not directly accessible from properties. A total of 256 allocated parking spaces are required and are provided which results in an overprovision of 4 spaces. A limited number of these are provided as tandem parking spaces.

3.25 In respect of unallocated parking spaces the proposal identifies 69 unallocated visitor car parking spaces against a minimum provision requirement of 64. This results in an over-provision of 5 unallocated car parking spaces. Locationally not all spaces accord with the 15m proximity requirements set down in the New Residential Development Design Guide SPG but in this case this is not considered an issue when balanced against the overprovision of unallocated spaces provided. The unallocated spaces include those removed from the Link Street which is now incorporated within the revised layout.

3.26 Previously the Highway Engineer requested traffic calming details, inclusion of Redway wobble strips, bin collection points and cycle storage details. Additional details are awaited from the applicants and an update will be provided to Committee at the Meeting. The proposal also now raises issues as to access for emergency vehicles to the western part of the development which is now served from a single access road. The Highway Engineer has advised an emergency access into this part of the development should be provided, one option being from the end of the cul-de-sac at the northern end of the site adjacent to the Link Street junction with Watling Street.

3.27 Compliance with Area 11 Phase 1 Design Code requirements The site comprises parcels 3a, part 3b and 4a all of which are defined in the Design Code. Committee considered the site layout previously and sought revisions in relation to the properties facing the Link Street. This has resulted in a reconfiguration of around 35% of the original layout, some revising of house designs and range of house types and a reduction in the development density from 40% to 37%.

3.28 An updated planning assessment has therefore been undertaken of the proposal with the focus on the acceptability of the revisions. This section of the report section should therefore be read alongside paragraphs 5.10-5.16 of the November 19 Committee report. For clarification the main part of the site lies within the Kiln Brook Character Area with the northern site boundaries lying within the Green Corridor Character Area. The Green Corridor Character Area is unaffected by the revisions. The focus of this updated planning assessment therefore focuses on the proposed revisions which lie within the Kiln Brook Character Area.

3.29 The WEA Design Code Area 11 Phase 1 sets out the layout requirements for the blocks on parcels 3a, 3b part and 4a which includes those edges fronting the Link Street and confirms the urban design form and grain mandated to be achieved as an integral part of the Kiln Brook Character Area. The boundaries of the blocks facing the Link Street are required to include development of a design and nature which incorporates ‘Special Corners’ (south-eastern part of the site adjoining the Community Street) and a ‘Vista Termination’ (south-western corner of the Link Street adjacent to the junction with the Community Street. ‘Entrances’ are identified either side of the junction with Watling street and are unaffected by the proposed revisions.

3.30 The proposed revisions diverge significantly from the Design Code mandatory requirements in relation to the appearance and character of the Link Street as set out below: Continuity of Built Form 70%-90% built form 10-30% gaps

Setback Distance 1-2m

Compliance with materials palate Compliance with boundary treatment and street furniture palate

3.31 The character of the Link Street as defined in the Design Code is mandated within the Code to take the form of a continuous built form. Where gaps occur these are to be infilled with garages and e.g. short sections of screen height garden walls. A mandatory requirement of on-street parking spaces, traffic calming and houses built close to the highway boundary with pedestrian accesses to the Link Street is required in order to contribute, as a whole, to the pre-defined Kiln Brook Character as set out in the approved Design Code. The overall character of the built form to the Link Street, as set out in the Design Code, is that of an active urban residential entrance street to this part of the WEA. Variety in the streetscape was required to be achieved through identified features in the built form, including ‘Entrance’ features/buildings on the corner of Watling Street and the Link Street, ‘Corner’ features at the X junction of the Link Street and the Community Street at the south-eastern end of the site and a ‘Vista’ termination on the western side of the Link Street close to the X road junction. These mandatory requirements were set out in the Design Code approved in November 2012.

3.32 Previously the site layout accorded with these mandatory requirements, provided almost continuous built up frontage to the Link Street with the blocks positioned close to the back of the highway boundary either side of the Link Street or separated by a further Community Street which created two smaller blocks to the western side of the Link Street. The proposed character of the streetscape as originally submitted by the applicants was assessed as according with the pre-approved Kiln Brook Character Area in respect of the appearance of the Link Street. The revised layout, however, results in a substantive breach of the mandatory Design Code requirements for the design and appearance of the Link Street and introduces a more suburban pattern and form which in turn has necessitated changes to the configuration of the blocks on both sides of the Link Street, but in particular to the block arrangement to the western side of the street. The proposed layout arrangement of side-on dwellings to the street served from culls-de-sacs precludes the mandatory requirement of 70% - 90% built form to the block edge facing the Link Street and results in a series of gaps between individual dwellings. The resultant face to the Link Street is assessed as having a low density suburban type appearance to the boundaries of the street, in conflict with the Code’s mandatory requirements. This is considered to undermine the Character Area’s urban form and grain intent. This is exacerbated further by the proposed use of a continuous solid built boundary extending both sides of the Link Street to separate the built development from it resulting in a physical barrier between the highway and the dwellings.

3.33 The applicants have responded to the Committee’s criticisms of the layout and on street parking provision to the Link Street by reconfiguring the development layout from one of dwellings facing the Link Street and served from rear parking courts to one of a series of cul-de-sacs/Mews Streets, designed to adoptable standards which dwellings front onto. The cul-de-sacs are accessed from the Community Streets at the southern end of the site and have turning heads positioned parallel to the Link Street but separated from it by shared drives which terminate at the Link Street boundaries. Dwellings are positioned to face these internal roads and as a consequence it has been possible for the applicants to address the Committee’s requirement that the houses to the Link Street be re-orientated. The arrangement of dwellings directly fronting the Link Street is now removed from the proposal details entirely. The edges of the blocks adjoining the Link Street are as a consequence changed from an active frontage arrangement to a non-active one, disassociated in terms of built development and activity from the pattern and layout arrangements to the other sides of the blocks. This has resulted in a smaller number of dwellings being proposed to adjoin the Link Street and positioned side on (gable end) to the street with obvious gaps between dwellings and buildings. Other than garages which are positioned adjacent to the Link Street boundary houses are positioned off the street boundary with on-plot parking spaces separating the dwellings from this boundary. Development proposals to the northern and southern ends of the site remain as originally proposed. The boundary to either side of the Link Street is now resolved by a continuous boundary enclosure which is understood to be proposed to be a living wall with brick piers between. The blocks within the development adjoining the sides of the Link Street and served from Community Streets now comprise three smaller blocks (two larger blocks were proposed previously -western side of the Link Road) and two blocks (one larger block was proposed previously –eastern side of the Link Road). This change to the layout arrangement adjacent to the Link Street alters the pattern, grain and character of the Link Street from an active and articulated streetscape to one where the houses are seen as part of the backcloth the Link Street and the street itself and the treatment of the reserve corridor becomes the visually dominant element to this entrance to the WEA in conflict with the character of the area agreed by the Council through the adopted WEA Area 11 Phase 1 Design Code for this locality. The proposed amendments will therefore result in a wholly new character coming forward in respect of the built development and the Link Street itself that was not envisaged in the Design Code and which is in breach of the Codes mandatory design requirements for this part of the WEA. The Urban Design Officer has advised that the proposal is non-compliant with the Design Code and it is considered that the previous layout which was developed with the Urban Designers to enable a unique character to be developed for the Link Street.

3.34 The requirements by Committee to revise the character of the Link Street has in turn impacted on the layout of the Community Streets and Mews Streets/cul-de-sacs and raises issues of conflict with the Design Code and development of the Kiln Brook Character Area although it is acknowledged that Mews Streets are considered acceptable in principle within the WEA Area 11. Again there is considered to be a Non-compliance position with the Design Code requirements for the appearance of the Community Streets. These design elements diverge from the original layout approach of continuous frontage development and enclosure of space

3.35 In terms of compliance with private amenity spaces a number of the plots fall short of the minimum rear garden depths of 10 metres required in the New Residential Development Design Guide. However the majority of the rear gardens provide acceptable rear garden areas and impact on privacy has been minimised and useable outdoor space provided. It is considered that the scheme generally complies with local Plan policy D1 and New Residential Development Design Guide.

3.36 Design of the Dwellings The proposed house types have been reduced in respect of the variety and mix of designs, which is considered a retrograde step but does take account of the reduction in the number of units proposed on the site. A new design type, the Lincoln, has been introduced and the detailing to the dwellings positioned side on to the Link Street have been designed with side facing windows to provide some articulation to the buildings when viewed from this Street and to provide an element of overlooking of the Red way and footpath. Additionally freestanding pitched roof garages are proposed to the plots adjoining the Link Street to provide some built form along this boundary edge. No issue is considered to arise in relation to the overall designs of these new units subject to appropriate materials being agreed.

3.37 Designing Out Crime The Crime Prevention Design Advisor has raised a number of issues relating to the revised layout and has identified conflicts with requirements in the New Residential Design Guide. His full comments are included in the consultations section of this report but he has expressed concern that the proposed layout now gives restricted natural surveillance to the Link Street and there is limited access to the Street for pedestrians which should be addressed by including new links through from the development to the Street or the boundary treatment provided in a manner that facilitates natural surveillance from within the development.

3.38 Landscaping A landscaping scheme was submitted with the original layout submission and, where the layout remains largely as original, the landscaping scheme will continue to apply. Within the revised area a landscaping proposal is in the early stages of development and an update will be provided at the Committee Meeting. It is relevant that the Design Code mandatory requirement for landscaping to the Link Road was predicated on requiring limited set-backs of buildings facing the Link Street and the relatively limited depth of the planting areas between the carriageway and Redway/footpath which resulted in the Design Code proposing tree planting along the Link Street. The revised proposed layout would continue to enable individual tree planting to be achieved in accordance with the Design Code. It is considered that there is insufficient depth to the Link Street to enable significant areas of landscaping to be achieved in this case along the Link Street. The proposed means of enclosure along the Link Street boundaries is currently awaited from the applicant. Updated details will be provided at the Committee meeting.

3.39 In relation to the remainder of the site landscaping the revised layout provides l opportunities for public realm landscaping or front garden planting in accordance with the Design Code. Whilst landscaping is one of the reserved matters to be determined within this application having regard to the lack of a developed landscaping design for the revised layout area it is considered that a planning condition will be required to require submission of landscaping details for this part of the site only.

3.40 Affordable Housing The proposal has resulted in the loss of 9 dwellings overall from the scheme. This has been achieved by reducing the affordable housing offer from 41 affordable houses to 37 thereby providing 25.7% affordable housing on this site as opposed to the 26.8% proposed in the original submission. Housing Strategy has raised objections to the loss of the affordable houses in the absence of a reasonable justification.

4.0 CONCLUSION

4.1 The amended proposal reducing the proposed number of dwellings on this site, parcels 3a, part 3b and 4a and revising the layout around the Link Street has come forward following a commitment by the applicants to address objections from Development Control Committee to the arrangement of the built form and appearance of the development fronting onto the Link Street. This has necessitated a reworking of the layout on a larger area of the site in order to achieve the development scheme now before Committee for determination.

4.2 Subject to the satisfactory resolution of outstanding queries and proposed landscaping and enclosure details, including the treatment of the side boundaries of the Link Street the proposed layout accords with current New Residential Development Design Guide standards and broadly development management policies in relation to highway matters, parking and residential amenity standards. Rear gardens do not in all cases achieve the minimum 10 metre private amenity standard set down in the New Residential Development Design Guide and not all parking spaces are readily accessible from individual dwellings. Details of cycle storage and bin collection/storage. The applicants have also achieved adoptable standards for the highways with a limited number of shared drives being required and shared surfaces and are proposed as required by the Highway Code and Design Code. The loss of on street parking spaces to the Link Street have been incorporated into the new layout and whilst not all spaces achieve the proximity requirements set out in the New Residential Development Design Guide having regard to the requirement by Committee that all on-street parking be removed from the Link Street it is considered that in this case some flexibility should be offered to the applicant in respect of this requirement.

4.3 There are, however, shortfalls in relation to connectivity and permeability requirements within the revised layout, and for pedestrians there are no segregated footpaths providing shortened routes to encourage walking and cycling to other areas within the WEA a principle requirement established both through Core Strategy policy CS13 and the Highway and Design Codes respectively. Similarly the removal of direct pedestrian accesses to the Link Street from dwellings fronting it results in a diminution of accessible pedestrian and cyclists routes and overall connectivity to the Link Street, Redway and footpath and is considered regrettable. Similarly, there are concerns that the loss of direct overlooking to the Link Street from frontage dwellings may result in the paths along the Link Street being considered less secure for users and therefore less attractive, in conflict with sustainable transport options. The issue of an emergency access for vehicles on the western part of the site is currently under discussion with the applicants. These issues and conflict with Policy should be balanced against other development management Policy and SPD which are assessed as being accorded with.

4.4 In relation to the quantum of development the loss of 9 dwellings and reduction in the density level to 37% is below that set for this part of the WEA – 40% as and reduction of the affordable housing offer to 25.69% (4 dwellings) which is regrettable and in conflict with S106 requirements. There is an objection lodged from Housing Strategy in the objection of an acceptable justification for the loss.

4.5 In relation to the house designs and range it is noted that there has been a reduction in the house types and some alterations to the mix of units. However, there remains a reasonable mix of house types to be provided and other than 1 new house type, the Lincoln and a new garage design adjacent to the Link Street boundaries the Committee considered and did not raise an objection to the proposed house types and designs at the November meeting. It is considered that, subject to appropriate materials being proposed the house types do not raise new planning issues.

4.6 The main planning issue therefore relates to the revisions to the design and appearance of the development fronting the Link Street. The Committee resolution in November 2014 was to reconsider the layout of the development specifically around the layby’s and orientation of dwellings on the link road following a considered view that the Link Street should have the appearance of grid road. This would ensure that the reserve corridor to the Link Street would be potentially available for upgrading to a grid road in the event of the WEA expanding beyond its existing boundaries in the future in accordance with the Area 11 Phase 1 Design Code.

4.7 The Link Street is acknowledged as an important entrance to Area 11 of the WEA and this application, which is the first of the reserved matters applications for the development of the parcels will set the benchmark in terms of the quality of the built development and the confirmed requirement of the Council to deliver distinct and attractive sustainable new Character Areas within this particular Urban Expansion Area. The successful achievement of this is predicated on developers, Barratt Homes and other volume developers on the WEA having a clear understanding as to the baseline requirements and standards to be achieved across the whole of the WEA. The Design Codes form part of the package of documents and standards which informs the details of these standards and allows each planning application to be considered in the wider context of the intended character and sustainability of the WEA. The Character Areas provide certainty and direction for developers as to the parameters and quality of development they are expected to bring forward and ensures individual planning applications are determined within the wider context of, in this case Area 11.

4.8 The Link Street extends through to two other parcels to it junction with the City Street and therefore the determination of this application and the approach to the design and appearance of development fronting the Link Street will need to be carried forward to ensure consistency in respect of the applicant’s second application for these remaining parcels.

4.9 As set out in the Committee report of 19 November extensive work has been undertaken with Barratt’s in respect of the quality and appearance of this application, the first of the WEA development reserved matters application. An emphasis was placed on ensuring the development to the Link Street achieved the mandatory design requirements of the Highway Code and positively responded to the prescribed Kiln Brook Character Area definition and standards set down in the Design Code.

4.10 The Codes established that the Link Street would have the character and appearance of an active road, serving residential development, albeit with no direct vehicular access from individual properties, with properties built close to the highway boundary and to an urban form and pattern to reinforce its status as a residential entrance point to Area 11. Specific key points of interest were built into the Design Code relating to individual buildings fronting the Link Road to ensure the delineation of the street as such and to provide points of interest for users of the street.

4.11 The reserve corridor results in a wider street than is required for a local distributer road and, when a Redway and footpath and highway landscaping is included the appearance of the street, on the ground, will have the appearance of a higher tier highway with the potential for encouraging higher traffic speeds. The building in of features such as on street parking spaces and traffic calming and enclosing building provides an accepted and self- enforcing means of encouraging drivers to limit their speeds, which in this case will be expected to be no higher than 30mph maximum. In the absence of these elements it will be necessary for a maximum speed limit to be imposed by regulatory order. The road design is such that this will be necessary under the proposed revised layout which is of concern to officers having regard to the approved status of this road. There is therefore a direct conflict between the proposed design of the Link Street and the approved Highway and design Codes.

4.12 In relation to townscape and urban design matters the approved overarching character of the Link Street as set down in the Codes is that of an active and built up streetscape which informs users that they are entering one of a series of accesses to the WEA and a residential area. In accordance with the design Code the positioning of dwellings fronting the road ensures a clear and visible marker to drivers and pedestrians that they are within a residential area and provides a visual connectivity to the adjoining residential streets and into the wider Area 11 and WEA.

4.13 The revisions as proposed in relation to the arrangement of proposed development adjoining the Link Street moves away from this agreed townscape approach. Rather it introduces a new and distinct character to the Link Street which has not been factored into the Design Code nor considered in relation to the knock on impacts of the change in character of this street in the context of the wider character of Area 11. Of further concern is the uncertainty that a divergence from the approved Design Code imparts to other developers bringing forward design proposals on other parcels which are predicated on the design steer informed by the definition and mandatory requirements of the Character Areas as set out in the Design Codes.

4.14 Members concerns to ensure a potential grid road and the reserve corridor is not compromised by the design of the Link Road is acknowledged as the Design Code includes as a mandatory matter a “26.5 m corridor of land reserved within primary infrastructure corridor for future grid road extension” to the Link Road. However the Design Code includes this requirement within the mandatory requirements for the design of the Link Road which includes on street parking, traffic calming and houses fronting the street. The Design Code clearly assessed the two as being compatible as built development, a view that officers accord with. Should a grid road be required and agreed at a future date as an upgrade to the Link Street there would inevitably be a need to remove the on-street parking spaces and traffic calming to the Link Street.

4.15 However, the built development to the blocks fronting the Link Road would be unaffected, being served in any case from rear servicing areas. Whilst this would see a step change away from the traditional appearance of grid roads as previously designed it would enable a new interpretation of the grid roads design-wise relevant to the 21st century. This takes account of the relatively limited width of the reserve corridor which precludes extensive landscaping to the highway verges if an upgrade to a grid road were to come forward in the future. The Design Code has therefore future proofed in the event of the eventuality and is considered to have provided opportunities for a 21st century reinterpretation of the character of new grid roads as an integral part of the overall unique character intended for the WEA.

4.16 The revised proposal has merit in its own right and accords with development management requirements and development plan Policies. It is acknowledged that the applicant have expended time and effort in order to achieve a revised layout which accords with the reasons for deferral by Development Control Committee in November officers consider, having considered the concerns expressed by Committee in the wider context of the design intent for the WEA that the original layout proposed is not incompatible with future proofing a potential upgrade of the Link Street to a grid road in the future if so required.

4.17 In the officers opinion to approve a substantive change to the approved Design Code for Area 11 phase 1 and the overarching Kiln Brook Character Area through an individual planning application would not only undermine the wider character area development requirements but would lead to uncertainties amongst other developers as to the design requirements for their respective parcels and could potentially compromise the ability of the WEA to deliver the highest quality built development expected for this urban extension in accordance with the Core strategy Policies CS12 and 13 and National Planning Policy Framework requirement paragraph 56 which confirms that “good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible form good planning and should contribute positively to making places better for people.”

4.18 The proposed development is considered to be incompatible with the approved character requirements of these parcels and the status, role and design of the frontage development to the Link Street, and the design of the street itself. If permitted the design of the layout is considered to significantly undermine the intended character and appearance of the Link Street and in doing so compromise the ability of this part of Area 11 to contribute and deliver the quality of development required to be achieved within the wider context of the WEA.

4.19 However, Members of the Development Control Committee in November 2014 were clear on their preference for grid roads over link streets in this part of the WEA. Barratts have listened to this and have amended their scheme accordingly. Members may feel in their planning balance of the application that they would weigh the importance of the inclusion of grid roads above compatibility of the scheme with Policy and guidance in this instance.

5.0 RECOMMENDATION (The decision that officers recommend to the Committee)

REFUSAL

5.1 REASONS (The reasons that officers recommend that the application should be refused. The reasons must be ones that the Council can demonstrate with evidence, should the applicant appeal against the refusal.)

The proposed development is considered to be incompatible with the approved character requirements as set out in the approved WEA Area 11 Phase 1 Design Code in particular the approved status and design of the Link Street and its frontage development. If permitted the design of the layout would undermine the approved intentions as to the intended character and appearance of the Link Street and in doing so compromise the ability of this part of Area 11 to contribute and deliver the quality of development required to be achieved within the wider context of the WEA. The proposal is considered to be in conflict with Core Strategy Policies CS12 and CS13 and Local Plan Policies D2A.

Parcel 3a

Parcel 3b

Parcel 4a

Appendix to 14/01316/REM

A1.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY (A brief outline of previous planning decisions affecting the site – this may not include every planning application relating to this site, only those that have a bearing on this particular case)

A1.1 06/00123/MKPCO residential development comprising approximately 2220 dwellings (including classes C2 and C3), a range of employment uses including classes B1, B2 and B3, erection of primary school (class D1) (2.13 ha.), local centre comprising class A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 uses (0.25 ha.) with residential accommodation above (Use Class C3) up to 3 storeys, open space/parks, play areas (14.27 ha.) and allotments (1.53 ha.), associated structural landscaping and earthworks (24.72 ha.), extension to the caravan site (1.10ha), associated highways and infrastructure improvements, including sustainable urban drainage system. PER 15.10.2007

08/01058/MKPCR Reserved matters application for primary infrastructure works, including roads, footways, cycleways, on-street parking, drainage, attenuation areas, services, utilities and ecological mitigation works (amended plans) PER 25.04.2012

12/01288/MKPCR Application for the approval of reserved matters for Phase 1 Landscaping pursuant to outline planning permission 06/00123/MKPCO PER 30.08.2012

14/01790/REM Reserved Matters application pursuant to outline planning permission 06/00123/MKPCO for access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of 262 new dwellings and associated development PCO

A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS

(Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)

A2.1 Appended to this report are the Committee report of the 19 November 2014 and a Supporting Statement form Barratt Homes.

A CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS 3 (Who has been consulted on the application and the responses received. The following are a brief description of the comments made. The full comments can be read via the Council’s web site)

Comments Officer Response

Comments awaited - consultation period expires on 2 February 2015. An update will be provided for the Committee meeting. Parish - Abbey Hill:

Parish - Stony Stratford:

Parish – Fairfields:

Parish – Calverton:

Parish – Whitehouse:

Ward - Stony Stratford - Cllr Brunning

Ward - Stony Stratford - Cllr E Gifford

Ward - Stony Stratford - Cllr R Gifford

Ramblers Association

Highways Agency

Senior Landscape Architect

Highways Development Control

Parking Parking bay specification to accord with Milton Keynes New Applicant has been requested to address these issues Residential Design Guide.

MK minimum standards for allocated and (unallocated) car parking standards for Zone 3:

1 bed = 1 space (0.25) 2 (flat) = 1 space (0.50) 2 (house) = 2 spaces (0.25) 3 bed = 2 spaces (0.50) 4+ bed = 2 spaces (0.50)

The layout plan 57357-101 M confirms a total of 144 units. The car parking spaces have been provided in accordance with Parking Standards for MK. For the site a total of 325 allocated and unallocated car parking spaces have been provided. The applicant has provided 256 allocated car parking spaces (site layout plan 57357-101 Rev L) - an acceptable over provision of 4 car parking spaces.

The applicant has provided 69 unallocated visitor car parking spaces against a minimum provision requirement of 64 – an acceptable over provision of 5 unallocated car parking spaces.

Where on-street bays are being provided on shared surfaces, demarcation of visitor spaces needs to be provided to distinguish between the road, bays and drives. All turning heads should have a 1m clear perimeter around them without obstruction, at present and laid out in accordance with MK Guidance.

Car Parking:

Plot 33 has been provided with 1 allocated parking bay – a total of 2 parking spaces to be provided.

The allocated parking bay for plot 27 opposite plot 26 needs to be tracked to ensure the vehicle can leave the location in a forward gear – tracking to be provided.

Allocated car parking spaces 125 and 126 are not acceptable due to their location; residents will not be parking in front of their own dwellings – to be revised accordingly.

Parking bays 93 and 131 have been provided with a 0.5m pinch point - in accordance with MK Guidance these widths should be increased to 1.0m.

The siting of unallocated (visitor) spaces should be in accordance with the Residential Design Guide in terms of their viewing distance from dwellings i.e. 15m max. At present it should be noted this is not the case for some of the visitor parking spaces being provided.

Traffic Calming:

All traffic calming features should be spaced at 40-60m intervals in order to achieve 20mph design speed.

Visibility Splays:

The site layout plan 57357-101 L provided shows the visibility splays at the junctions, however it should be noted all the visibility splays cut into private gardens, which is not accepted– in order to safe guard the visibility any objects within these visibility splays should be kept below 1.05m above the carriageway height, applicant to revise the visibility splays accordingly.

Tracking:

Refuse tracking layout drawing 6765-650 Rev B has been provided to ensure the vehicles are able to leave the location in a forward gear – this is acceptable.

Bins:

A refuse strategy plan shows the distances a resident has to carry the refuge and bin collection points – this is acceptable. Bin units to be secured, self-closing and locked at all time.

Redway Routes:

Redway route and junctions should be laid out in accordance with MK’s Redway Design Guide.

Cycling

Provision of cycle parking should be set out in accordance with the Parking Standards for MK i.e. 1 space cycle stand per flat. Cycle parking for houses should be in lockable buildings located in the rear gardens, if the cycles are to be located within garages then please refer to Parking Standards for MK layout and size etc. The cycle storage buildings need to be secure and covered with natural surveillance, all cycle storage buildings should be located where they can be seen via natural surveillance by residents to encourage use of this facility.

Other:

No connectivity (pedestrian link) has been provided between the Mews and the Link Road; the council’s recommendation is that a pedestrian access be considered to promote connectivity and accessibility to/from the proposed development.

Conclusion

I have no objection to the proposed development subject to the amendments/ revisions requested above are provided by the applicant. I also recommend the following conditions:

The scheme for parking and manoeuvring indicated on the submitted plans shall be laid out prior to the initial occupation of the relevant plots hereby permitted and that area shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose.

Reason: To enable vehicles to draw off, park, load/unload and turn clear of the highway to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway.

Where hedges form the front boundary to a plot they will have a maximum mature height of 750mm.

Reason: To minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway.

Notwithstanding the submitted details, prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted further details of the bin/bike stores and how they will be lit and locked shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the relevant plot and thereafter maintained for this purpose.

Reason: To ensure that there are adequate bin/bike stores facilities to serve the site.

Environment Agency

Crime Prevention Design Advisor DWH Noted

This latest layout has further been changed positioning detached houses (Plots 42, 45, 54 and 55) at the end of the cul-de-sacs/Mews. I also note that this layout indicates that there will be some form of boundary treatment from the Apartment Blocks Plots 35-42 down the edge of the Link Street to Plot 56. Unfortunately there isn’t any indication as to what this boundary treatment will be.

1. Access – My comment haven’t changed with regards to this matter. I would however, question why the properties within these two cul-de-sacs aren’t able to access the Link Street footpaths, yet the front door for the apartment containing Plots 35-41 accesses straight out onto Link Street?

2. Surveillance – Again my comments haven’t changed with regards to this, except that it is now easier to swap the garages and driveways for Plots 42, 45, 54 and 55, to allow those plots to provide some surveillance onto Link Street. It is thereby even more critical that the boundary treatment along Link Street allows surveillance from the ground floor windows. The boundary treatment therefore needs to be railings or a low brick wall and railings. Any planting must have a maximum growing height which does not impede this surveillance.

BH Likewise the Barratt Homes layout has been further amended. I note that there is now only a single cul-de- sac/Mews, similar to the two cul-de-sacs/Mews in the DWH layout. As such my comments are as per the above DWH comments, except that this side of Link Street has two apartment blocks fronting out to Links Street. These are: Apartment Block Plots 70-76 and 86-91.

With regards to the DWH layout I note that two adoptable Mews have been created. These both appear to be cul-de- sac, which end at the private drives for Plots 42, 43, 45 & 46 and 53-56.

I have concerns the following concerns:

1. Access – as to how the occupants from these Mews will access the Link Street. It is likely that the private driveway for the above plots will become a desire line. This is likely to create neighbourhood disputes and confuses whether these driveways are public or private.

Either an adoptable path needs to connect the adoptable Mews and the Link Street or the boundary treatment needs to be sufficient to prevent this route from becoming a cut through. While a 1.8m wall, with planting either side, would provide the visual cue that there is no route through, I do have concerns that such a boundary treatment would restrict any surveillance opportunities onto Link Street. The boundary treatment should therefore be 1.8m railings or a low wall and railings.

2. Surveillance – I also have concerns that the proposed layout restricts any natural surveillance, from ground floor active windows, onto Link Street.

These dwellings should provide an active frontage onto both the shared private driveway, accessed from the Mews, and the Link Street. This would require the parking to be moved from its current location.

Barratt Homes

With regards to the BH layout I note that one adoptable Mews have been created and one private driveway. Like the DWH scheme the adoptable Mews would appear to be cul-de-sac, which end at the private drives for Plots 77, 78 80 & 81. While the Private drive ends between Plots 216 and 218.

My concerns with regards to this layout are:

3. Access – as to how the occupants from these Mews will access the Link Street. It is likely that the private driveway for the above plots will become a desire line. This is likely to create neighbourhood disputes and confuses whether these driveways are public or private.

4. Surveillance – I also have concerns that the proposed layout restricts any natural surveillance, from ground floor active windows, onto Link Street.

5 Defensible Space/Blank Elevation – Plots 265 and 264 – These are positioned at the entrance to the private driveway serving for Plots 216-221. I am unable to judge what surveillance opportunities they provide over the entrance to this private driveway, however, these Plots either have a blank elevation facing into the entrance, which lacks any defensible space or has ground floor windows, which lack any privacy due to the lack of defensible space. If the elevation is blank then it is likely to attract anti-social behaviour or criminal activity. This will include the blank elevation being used as a football rebound wall or attract graffiti. If windows are present then the occupants are likely to leave their blinds or curtains closed to retain some privacy. As well as remove any surveillance opportunities, this also tends to raise the fear of crime.

Plots 265 and 264 need to be setback to allow at least 1.5m of defensible space. This is in line with the Council’s New Residential Design Guide.

A MK Parks Trust

A MKC Urban Design 3. The areas where Phase One of the WEA is Non-compliant 1 with the mandatory elements of the Adopted Design Codes 6 are as follows.

Pg. 33, Mandatory compliance with Safer Places principles. (The proposed wall and lack of built form frontage results in a lack of natural surveillance). Pg. 38, Mandatory compliance with key building typology and locations. (The side elevation of plot 55 terminates a side street. This area is identified as a key location on the southern part of the site along the Link Street. The current proposal is not in accordance with the code) Pg. 50, Mandatory compliance with layout specification (Continuity of built form and Set Back distances are not compliant with the code). Pg. 52, Mandatory compliance with car park matrix (The link street does not have on street parking as stated in the code). Pg. 54, Mandatory compliance with boundary treatments and street furniture palette. (The proposed wall along the Link Street is not included as an acceptable boundary treatment to the proposed Link Street) Pg. 69, Mandatory compliance with key building typology and location (vista not terminated along the link street as proposed, plot 55) Pg. 90,92,98, Mandatory compliance with all information (non-compliance with built form frontage on to the proposed Link Street) Pg. 91.93,99, Mandatory compliance with all information (non-compliance - The layout design should take every opportunity to orientate buildings to face the street, providing natural surveillance over the public realm. Front doors should be located on the primary street elevation – this includes all ground floor apartments).

Highway Design Code

The mandatory criteria for the design of the Link Street that are not met are listed on Pg. 38 of the Highway Design Guide, and include.

2metre wide on street parking bays on both sides of the Link Street. 1.5 to 3m private setbacks from the footpath or redway. Speed restraint measures include, on street parking and enclosure by buildings in order to help create a design speed of 20mph.

The areas that the proposed scheme is contrary to Policy D2A in the Local Plan are below.

The lack of connectivity from the proposed cul-de- sacs to the Redway along the proposed City Street / Grid Road is contrary to Policy D2A,IV (Ease of Movement) in the Local Plan that states that new development should seek to be permeable and well connected with attractive and convenient routes along streets, giving priority to Walking, Cycling and Public Transport. By siding onto the street the proposed layout is inconsistent with Policy D2AII (Continuity and Enclosure) which promotes continuity of street frontage and enclosure of space by clearly defining public and private areas and locating main building entrances on the street. A Housing Strategy (Affordable Housing) 3. The previous comments of 1 September 2014 with slight 1 amendments to address the reduction in the overall 7 percentage of Affordable Housing still apply:

The site requires 30%, not 25.7%, Affordable Housing as per the S106 agreement. I understand from the developer that this shortfall will be provided on adjacent phases but a clear explanation is needed for how this will be done, why it is necessary and why it should not be provided within the application site. 2) The site should provide at least 7 (5%) Social Rent and 22 (15%) Shared Ownership properties. The S106 also requires 5% Low Cost & 5% Reduced Cost Sale but as neither of these tenures equates to Affordable Housing in Milton Keynes, would support any proposals to vary these to an affordable housing tenure type. 3) The Affordable Housing house size mix is still in line with current affordable housing need and policy although the loss of 6 3bed houses means there will potentially be less Affordable family Housing. A tenure schedule would be very useful to confirm the tenure type of the housing that has been removed. 4) The Council needs Affordable housing for Rent to house people in housing need – it had 72 households placed in B & B accommodation as of 15 January 2015.

Amendments are required to provide 30% affordable housing within the application site or explanation of the shortfall.

Internal Drainage Board Bucks & MK Environmental Records Centre

Natural England Confirms the previous comments apply – no objection Noted

British Pipeline Agency

Councils Countryside Officer

Policy (D4) Officer

Local Residents Comments awaited –consultation period expires on 2 9 occupiers who previously commented on the application February 2015 were consulted.