DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL
23 FEBRUARY 2017
COUNCILLORS’ ADDITIONAL PAPERS -
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS CIRCULATED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA
1. Speaking Commitment (Page 2)
2. Applications 01 and 02 - 16/02998/FUL and 16/02998/LBC
Emberton House Farm
i. Representations and Photographs – Mr C Tierney (Pages 3 to 9)
ii. Representations from Applicant – (Pages 10 to 21)
3. Applications 06 and 07 - 16/03347/FUL and 16/03347/LBC
The Small House, 6 High Street, Sherington.
i. Representation - Mr D Williams (Page 22)
ii. Representation - Mr S Parmar (Pages 23 to 24)
iii. Officer Update (Pages 25 to 41)
(1)
SPEAKING LIST DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL – 23 FEBRUARY 2017
APPLICATION ADDRESS REQUESTS TO SPEAK IN TIME RIGHT OF REPLY TIME NO. OBJECTION ALLOCATED OR SPEAKERS IN ALLOCATED FAVOUR
APP01/02. Emberton House Farm, Mr C Tierney 3 Mins Councillor P Geary 3 Mins 16/02998/FUL and Newport Road, (Ward Councillor) 16/02999/LBC Emberton Councillor D Hosking 3 Mins (Ward Councillor) Ms G Davidson 6 Mins (Applicant’s Agent)
APP03/04. Old Bunsty, Ms K Hanson 3 Mins Ms J Armstrong 9 Mins 16/02955/FUL and Bunsty Pastures, (Applicant’s Agent) 16/02956/LBC Hanslope Road Mr E Hanson 3 Mins
Mr J Kane 3 Mins
APP06/07. The Small House, Cllr W Bush 3 Mins Mr K Sherwood 9 Mins 16/03208/FUL and 6 High Street, (Sherington Parish (Applicant’s Agent) 16/03209/LBC Sherington Council)
Mr O Powell 3 Mins
Mr D Carew 3 Mins
APP 10 - 16/03305/FUL 11 Wordsworth Avenue, Ms M L’Honore 3 Mins Mr M Cowling Newport Pagnell, (Applicant’s Agent) Right of reply declined.
(2)
Objection to Planning Appn. 16/02998/FUL
Artist impression using scale dimensions and representative colours from Applicants Plans
(3) Objection to Planning Application 16/02998/FUL 1 Recommendation – The Application Must be Rejected
“ Nobody is saying “don’t build”, we owe it to our heritage and landscape, that the Design and Appearance is appropriate”
(4) Objection to Planning Application 16/02998/FUL 2 Rationale for Reasonable Objection
1) The report produced by Planning Officer, recommending approval by committee is inaccurate, incomplete and flawed
2) The proposed development is clearly of Inappropriate Design and Appearance in the context of its setting
3) The above presents sufficient material consideration for rejection (supported by relevant policy and legislation)
(5) Objection to Planning Application 16/02998/FUL 3 Current Setting
(6) Objection to Planning Application 16/02998/FUL 4 Design & Appearance of Proposed Development
Artist impression using scale dimensions from Applicants Plans
(7) Objection to Planning Application 16/02998/FUL 5 Summary of Main Arguments
POOR REPORT DESIGN & APPEARANCE • 5.17 Amenity impact #3 Honey Hill not • Enabling Planning approach led to mentioned <22m from development “modernist” design & scale (seen in report Appendix) • Parish Council and 100% residents • Adjacent houses “stone” not “brick” as affected object to design & appearance FLAWED DATA CLEARLY quoted • 6m height projects 3.5m above wall (all FOR INAPPROPRAITE • Hanging sentence with no conclusion in other property 1.5 height) DECISION DESIGN main Design & Appearance argument • Double Storey – 220m2 of red/brown • Conservation Officer recommendation aluminium amongst stone & heritage missing dwellings (CO requests design softened)
POLICY/LEGISLATION CONSIDERATIONS KEY QUESTIONS FOR PANEL • Not Conducted - Heritage Impact • Normally planning would not be allowed assessment for impact on Grade II in this location – level of diligence? building HistoricMAJOR England (NPPF Para. 128) • Is report accurateCLEAR or complete? • Not AssessedPOLICY - Distance ITEMS to #3 Honey • Has adequate siteLOCAL assessment been Hill (New ResidentialREMAIN Design Guide SPD) undertaken (#3OBJECTION Honey Hill)? • Not Considered - Loss of Amenity to • Is the design appropriate (simple in #1 & #3 (Human Rights Act protocol art. 1 & 8) appearance) and complementing listed • NPPF Presumptive Argument – buildings? adverse impacts outweigh benefits • Should you listen to residents/Parish?
(8) Objection to Planning Application 16/02998/FUL 6 Recommendation – The Application Must be Rejected
“ Nobody is saying “don’t build”, we owe it to our heritage and landscape, that the Design and Appearance is appropriate”
Actual building height (6m) and sample colour - shows 1st floor at actual dimensions (3m) taken from the plan White area is the actual size of 1 of 14 1st floor windows overlooking the east Thank You. Any Questions?
(9) Objection to Planning Application 16/02998/FUL 7
EMBERTON HOUSE - REPRESENTATIONS FROM APPLICANT We are pleased that our application has been recommended for approval by Nicola Wheatcroft and we are looking forward to the panel meeting on Thursday evening. We are acutely aware, however, that this is not a straight forward application and we wanted to provide some more detail around what may well be one of the most contentious elements of the proposal; the design.
We think it would be useful to outline the Council planning team’s advice to date on this subject:
• We submitted a pre-application proposal, Feb 2015, with indicative elevations and forms showing a traditional design and materials.
• A site meeting was held on 10 July 2015 with Debbie Kirk and Martin Ellison. They requested submission of further pre-app proposals of modern design, avoiding more traditional approaches.
• We submitted a design concept document (copy attached) to Debbie Kirk, in consultation with Martin Ellison and Simon on 11 Aug 2015.
• Debbie Kirk’s response presenting the collective view of planning and conservation, dated 14 Aug 2015, was as follows:
‘Dear Mr Mercer,
The Senior Conservation and I have assessed the Design Brief Ideas and Concepts and would advise:
The early formative brief for the proposed dwellings and broadly speaking the ideas mooted are along those that the Senior Conservation Officer envisaged.
Although a set of nearby barns indicated the general direction of travel, that is, the proposals are to be barn like inform, the ‘template’ structures are too austere and of no architectural worth. Whilst the intention might be (from roadside vantage points at least) to create an impression of unassuming low-height windowless structures that might evoke the appearance of working buildings associated with the farmhouse there is also a good deal of scope to create good quality interesting and expressive contemporary buildings on sides facing away from the wall and road. The Senior Conservation Officer thinks this approach is effectively being alluded to in the submitted text and supporting photos.
From roadside vantage points stone and/or brick under slate (or possibly zinc) could be used but on less conspicuous faces there would be greater scope for modern design idioms and materials with a more contemporary balance of glazing to solid wall and so on. The Senior Conservation Officers preference for contemporary buildings is for the use of contemporary building methods and styles to be deployed so that they are more ‘honest’ as new contributions to their context. Pastiche, in his
(10) experience, can be a reasonable option but is difficult to do well under modern building constraints and using modern materials and also tends not to offer the same opportunities for innovation.
To give the project the best chance of success there will need to be input from appropriately architectural advisers with a track record. The line drawings submitted are evidently rough impressions intended to help inform the general intention and direction but deft handling of form, materials and detail will be required to create a convincing architectural composition…’
• On the advice of Debbie Kirk we attended a meeting of the Parish Council on 5th October 2015 to discuss with them the contemporary design direction that we were being asked to follow to obtain their early views. Although the Parish Council felt that they could not fully comment until they saw the actual plans, in principle they had no objection to the contemporary design approach.
• We then appointed Nicolas Tye Architects in December 2015, owing to their national and international reputation for award-winning, high quality, contemporary architecture.
• We attended a meeting at MK Council offices 26 May 2016 with our planning consultant, Debbie Kirk and Martin Ellison. We presented the Nicolas Tye scheme with the design very much as ultimately submitted. We also discussed the planning principle (lack of 5-year housing land supply and enabling development), scale, materials, siting, impact on neighbours and how to mitigate, highways, parking. The scheme, with some slight alterations to siting of the dwellings and other very minor changes, was accepted positively and went on to be formally submitted in the planning application.
• The design has been welcomed by all officers, including the conservation officer who has the specialist design skills to assess the impact of proposals on the setting of Listed Buildings.
• Whilst we appreciate that Council officers provide advice without prejudice to any formal decision the Council may reach on an application, we wanted to give the background to how closely we have worked with MK planning team throughout to try and deliver a proposal that worked for the majority. The guidance around modern design was very clear. It is also fair to say that this approach has resulted in costs much higher than for a more traditional and pastiche design but this was done in the knowledge that we had been given clear advice on what type of design to produce and materials to use.
We are also aware of many images that have been generated by some objectors to the scheme and made public via the planning portal and various other forums. These images are unattested and they are wholly misleading being inaccurate in size, scale and representation of the appearance of the proposed dwellings. We would kindly
(11) ask that the panel disregard these pictures and consider only the official, verified images in the formal application pack. We attach a copy of the verified CGI submitted with the application for ease of reference. The heights of the buildings have also been wholly misrepresented by an objector during a site visit on the 20th February where poles were erected in an inappropriate attempt to lobby and influence opinion during the visit. These poles purported to show the height of the proposed buildings but did not take account of the fact that the buildings will be located a significant distance from the boundary and that they will be set down into the land. In no way did this represent the relative heights of the proposed dwellings, these being:
• Building 1 perceived height only 4.5m
• Building 2 perceived height only 5.2m
• 1 Honey Hill is estimated to be 8.3m to the ridge and
• Emberton House Farm is 11.5m to the ridge.
Whilst the buildings will be visible from the objector’s properties, there is no right to a view across neighbouring land.
Finally, we respectfully ask you to consider the implications of application refusal on the Heritage Asset that it was designed to safeguard: It has been unanimously acknowledged by the bodies that represent the local community that Emberton House Farm, including the boundary walls and outbuildings, is “an Important Heritage Asset, which should be safeguarded, repaired and retained” (D Kirk, July 2015). This asset requires ongoing restoration but the economic reality is that the cost of further restoration work is greater than its resulting value to us or in the property market. This situation is not uncommon with Heritage Assets and is recognised by English Heritage through it’s guidance on enabling development. Refusal of this application still leaves us with the underlying problems with the structure and fabric of the asset and our only alternative is to watch it further degrade.
Kind regards
Neil and Jo Mercer
(12)
Design brief ideos ond concept for 2 no. dwellings in grounds of Emberton House Form, Emberton
SETTING - Rurol / semi-rurol.
DESIGN OVER\IEW - Design should controst ond compliment EHF ond not diminish or seek to mimic EHF
- A contemporory design with obvious orchitecturql merit employing moteriols from o colour ond fexture palette in keeping with the noturol setting.
DESIGN CUES - Trovel oround 4OO melres north of EHF on the A5O9 ond on the eost side of the rood (some side os EHD sits o smoll group of ogriculturol / industriol buildings thot hove on obvious connection ond resononce with their surroundings.
- Following the brood design cues offeredby these structures for the EHF site would leove the cosuql observer unowore of onything out of ploce or context, whilst closer inspection would leod to the discovery of 2 dwellings thot sit comfortobly ond noturolly in their setting yet offer something significontly more sotisfying ond outstonding in terms of design merit ond finish thon of first meets the eye.
- Massing / silhouette -'born-like'ond in proportion with the site ond setting - use ground level re-profiling ond retoining wolls to control visuol impoct from 4509.
- Adding orticulotion to roof lines increoses interesf ond introduces odditionol noturol light to upper f loors.
BUILDIN6S EXTERNAL MATERIALS -Zinc rooves ond portiol woll clodding, Cedar woll clodding
COLOUR PALETTE - Greys, buffs
LAND5CAPING MATERIALS PALETTE - Gravel, re-cloimed / tumbled 'retro' brick, (e.g. Wienerberger - Retro Tiffony Stock), noturol stone, cedor screening, notive plonting
(13) SUSTAINABILIW - Torget C,odefor Sustoinoble Homes - level 5
- Solqr PV / HW
- Air-source heot pump (evoluote bio-moss)
- Roinwqter horvesting
- Triple glazirg
HEATING & COOLINO - UFH throughout
- Cenfrolised ventilotion & hEot ?ecovery
(14) Co gle earth ,.[lij '
(15) \ ,,, \ 'rlt:i \11 , it
i,. \
(16) -iY!s : ;::11 p#x;i
(17) (18) (19) \k .? \, { 5a E'*1.'E e'_L\ q- \.
(20) (21)
RE: 16/03208/FUL Erection of a 3 bedroom detached dwelling house The Small House, 6 High Street Sherington
Representation Mr D Williams
"We have viewed this application and object to it on the following grounds.
This is a grade 2 listed building, garden and outbuildings and one of the few remaining architectural gems in the village, reflecting the once rural character of this area of north Bucks. Once gone, never to be replaced.
We believe this development is not in keeping with the policy of retaining and preserving the listed buildings and garden environment within the village.
We also believe that it contravenes the policy of MK council in discouraging back land development which this quite clearly is.
We consider that it contravenes a number of stated policies in the Sherington Village Neighbourhood Plan which is at an advanced stage and appears to be heading for a referendum early in the new year . We do not think that this should be allowed through by default , when the democratic process which the village has undertaken is 95% complete and would not allow it "
(22)
(23) (24)
Application Number: 16/02502/FUL
Erection of a 3 bedroom detached dwellinghouse
AT The Small House, Sherington
FOR Mr And Mrs Hargreaves
nd th Target: 2 January 2017 Extension of time: 27 February 2017
Ward: Olney Parish: Sherington Parish Council
Report Author/Case Officer: Samantha Taylor Contact Details: 01908 252724 [email protected]
Team Leader: Debbie Kirk Development Management Manager East Team Contact Details: 01908 252926 Debbie.Kirk@milton-keynes .gov.uk
1.0 Late paper
This late paper contains the following: Missing section from the Panel Report Late Public Representation (Powell) Late Public Representation (Sherington House) Public Representation (1 Church End) Update on the progress of the Sherington Neighbourhood Plan Submission of additional drawings Submission of Bat Report and Ecological Assessment On site review by the Countryside Officer
1.1 Missing Section from the Panel Report
The following sections of the Panel Report failed to print in hard copy and have been included as part of the late paper. However, the online version of the Panel Report did include the below assessment.
5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have led to the officer Recommendation)
5.1 Principle of the Development In respect of strategic housing land supply within the Authority, Paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that: ‘Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to- date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites’
5.2 When determining this application it will be necessary to consider the fact that
(25)
the Authority does not have a 5 year housing land supply, and the proposed development would contribute towards meeting the identified shortfall. An assessment must therefore be made as to whether the proposal can be considered to be sustainable development in terms of the economic, social and environmental roles as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.
5.3 In this case, policy CS9 of the Milton Keynes Core Strategy 2013 is permissive of residential development in villages such as Sherington provided the development would be infill and in sympathy with the character of the area. As this policy is out-of-date limited to no weight can be given to this policy at the current time as a result of the lack of a sufficient supply of housing. In addition, the emerging Neighbourhood Plan policy NP1, supports the principle of windfall infill development provided that the aims of the Neighbourhood Plan are met. The application site would be an infill plot and as such the principle is acceptable, subject to other material considerations being satisfied. Whilst relevant to the consideration of this application, the emerging Neighbourhood Plan policy NP1 carries limited to no weight.
5.4 Paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that: ‘Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites’.
5.5 It has been accepted that the Council that it is currently unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites and for this reason the Council must rely upon the provisions of Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework when considering the submitted application. Paragraph 14 states that: ‘At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development.
For decision taking this means: • Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; an • Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission unless: - Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or - Specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.’
5.6 In the determination of this application consideration needs to be given to the fact that the Authority does not have a five-year housing land supply and the proposed development would contribute towards meeting the identified shortfall. An assessment must therefore be made as to whether the proposal can be considered to be sustainable development in terms of the economic, social and environmental roles as set out in the National Planning Policy
(26)
Framework.
5.7 The application site is located within the built-up area of Sherington. The proposed development is within an established residential area and the dwelling is to be located in close proximity to the services located along Church Road and within the village, as such it is considered that the location is sustainable. In terms of social issues, the development would provide an additional dwelling to meet the currently identified housing need and is located within a residential area. In terms of economic issues, the construction activities associated with the development could potentially generate employment opportunities in the short term and in the longer term the occupiers could potentially support the local economy and services. The environmental impacts of the development in terms of the impacts on ecology, residential amenity and the designated heritage assets are discussed in more detail below.
5.8 Overall, having weighed these matters, it is considered that the development would meet the definition of sustainable development and would comply with the provisions of paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework as the adverse impacts of the development would not significantly and demonstrable outweigh the benefits of the development. The reasons for this conclusion are set out in more detail in the remainder of the report.
5.9 Design Paragraph 63 of the NPPF supports the use of innovative design measures which hep to raise the standard of design more generally in an area. Securing good design is a requirement of both national policy (Section 7 of the NPPF) and local policy. Saved Policies D2 (i), (ii), (iv) and (v) and D2A (i) of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 and Core Strategy Policy CS13 seek to ensure that all new buildings are high quality, well designed and relate well to the surrounding area. It states: ‘Development proposals for buildings will be refused unless they: i) Are in scale with other buildings in the immediate vicinity in terms of their height and massing, except where a greater scale is necessary to reflect the development’s function and importance. ii) Relate well to and enhance the surrounding environment iv) Allows for visual interest through the careful use of detailing where this is appropriate to the character of the area v) Include landscaping and boundary treatments that integrate with those of the surrounding area’
5.1 The overall design concept of the new dwelling is representative of a 0 traditional barn style dwelling which has been reinterpreted utilising modern materials and contemporary design features. This design follows discussions and advice from both the Case Officer and Conservation Officer. The impact of the proposal and its design in terms of the impact on heritage assets is discussed at paragraphs 5.27-5.38 of this report and within the accompanying Listed Building Consent report (application reference 16/03209/LBC).
(27)
The design of the proposed dwelling incorporates an asymmetric sloping roof 5.1 which is continued over the front projecting element at ground floor level. This 1 projecting element is located centrally within the two storey building. The use of this roof form helps to visually reduce the bulk of the new dwelling giving a 1.5 storey appearance.
The building has been positioned along the northern boundary of the site such that that front elevation would be the principal elevation overlooking the 5.1 amenity space of the dwelling. The rear elevation is simpler in design. The 2 fenestration detailing supports the contemporary appearance, with large volumes of glazing. The cubed form of the windows to the front which are positioned through the eaves line at first floor level is a key a feature of the design.
The contemporary style of the building is also supported by the use of traditional materials which are found within the local area, applied to the elevations in a modern way. Within Sherington, properties styles and designs 5.1 vary, representing the vernacular change of the village through time. Slate 3 tiles, although typically confined to the roofs of dwellings, are a common material found on properties within the village. On the elevations, slate tiles would be hung vertically. Examples of this elevational treatment in situ are on a number of properties has been supplied as part of the supporting documentation. This external material would be combined with an area of timber cladding a ground floor level and an external chimney, with details of the finish to this element yet to be submitted. The combination of materials and use of slate on the facing elevations would create visual interest. In principle, these materials are considered to be acceptable, although a condition requiring samples of the materials to be submitted for approval is recommended at section 6.0 of this report should planning permission be granted.
The design of the proposed dwelling, which is representative of a traditional barn style building with contemporary design features would comply with saved policies D2 (i), (ii), (iv) and (v) and D2A(i) of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 and Section 7 of the NPPF. 5.1 4 Impact on Neighbouring Amenity The proposed dwelling would be positioned to the rear of The Small House, close to the northern site boundary. On all sides, the development would be surrounded by residential properties with a business located to the north. The proposed dwelling has been carefully positioned and orientated in order to 5.1 minimise any impact on neighbouring properties and to ensure the 5 development would comply with the spacing and separation standards set out in the New Residential Development Design Guide, SPD.
Impact on The Small House As the dwelling would be sited in the rear garden of The Small House, it is important to consider the impact of the development on the occupiers of the existing dwelling. The proposed dwelling has been carefully positioned along
(28)
the northern boundary of the site, there are no windows proposed at first floor level in the west elevation of the proposed dwelling such that there would be 5.1 no harm from overlooking of The Small House from this elevation. At ground 6 floor level of the proposed dwelling, there is a large area of glazing on the west elevation from which there may be some potential for overlooking of the garden space of The Small House. However, it is unclear what boundary treatment would be proposed and as this glazing serves a small entrance way, which is not a habitable space, any potential would be minimal.
In terms of a loss of light, The Small House has an L-shaped form with minimal window treatments directly facing the proposed dwelling. In addition, following advice, the proposed dwelling has been sited further away from The Small House. The proposed side elevation would align with the side elevation of The Small House in order that the bulk of the new dwelling is sited away from the existing house. It is accepted that there may be some loss of light to The Small House, but given the spacing and separation distance between the 5.1 rear of The Small House and the dwelling of 19 metres and the orientation of 7 the proposed dwelling, any reduction in light would not be significant.
Adjacent Properties along High Street To the north west of the site lies Nos. 8, 10 and 12 High Street, which are understood to be residential properties. Of these properties, No.8 lies in closest proximity to the proposed dwelling. The proposed dwelling is not sited directly in line with these properties and is instead off set to the south. Given the orientation of the proposed dwelling to these properties it is reasonable to apply the flank to rear spacing and separation standards as set out in the New Residential Development Design Guide SPD. This requires a spacing 5.1 and separation distance of 13.7 metres flank to rear. The proposed 8 development would be sited at 19.8 metres to the closest point of No.8 High Street. This distance increases to Nos. 10 and 12 High Street. As such, the development is not considered to cause significant harm to these properties though a loss of light, visual intrusion or loss of privacy. It should also be noted that the closest window show on the rear elevation of the proposed dwelling would serve a bathroom and as such would be obscurely glazed, further limiting any potential for back to back overlooking.
Properties along Church Road To the north of the proposed dwelling is a haulage business, No.9 Church Road and the Chapel (both understood to be residential properties). In terms of the siting of the proposed dwelling to No.9 Church Road and the Chapel, these would be sited opposite the rear elevation of the proposed dwelling. As such the required spacing and separation distance set out in the New Residential Design Guide SPD is 22metres. No.9 would be more directly impacted by the proposed dwelling and as such would be most affected by the proposed dwelling out of these properties because of its siting opposite 5.1 part of the proposed development. The spacing and separation distance 9 between No.9 Church Road and the proposed dwelling would be 45 metres. To the rear of the Chapel, although at an offset angle, the spacing and separation distance would be 41 metres. These distances are in excess of the
(29)
required back to back spacing and separation standard.
The proposed dwelling would be sited in close proximity to the shared boundary with the haulage business located to the north of the site. From the rear of the dwelling to the boundary there would be 1.5-2 metres, to the rear of the main haulage business building there would be a spacing and separation distance of 18.5 metres. Between the boundary and the main building, the haulage business benefits from an area of open air storage used in conjunction with the business.
Whilst a haulage business is not a use which is usually seen by the planning system to be compatible with a residential area, this business has been 5.2 operating from this site for a number of years, understood to be 80 years from 0 third party submissions. The Case Officer is not aware of any ongoing issues with regards to the business use of the site or from any adjoining neighbours. The haulage business site is surrounded by residential development to the north, west, and east already. As such, the application site is not considered to suffer from significant harm through noise emissions or any other health related concerns that would result in the site being considered unsuitable for a residential use.
5.2 1 Impact on Properties along Carters Close There are a number of properties along Carters Close that may be impacted as a result of the proposed development. Carters Close extends from the east of the proposed dwelling to the south of the site. Given the positioning of these properties in relation to the proposed dwelling it is considered that Nos. 22, 23 and 24 Carters Close would have a flank to rear relationship and Nos. 19, 20 and 21 Carters Close would have a rear to rear relationship. Whilst the properties (nos. 19, 20 and 21) would be sited opposite the front elevation, by reason of the siting and internal layout of the dwelling, it would be reasonable to apply the rear to rear spacing and separation distances as set out in the New Residential Design Guide. This is because the internal layout shows a corridor and bathrooms along the rear elevation with the principle living 5.2 spaces and habitable bedrooms providing outlook via the front elevation. In a 2 standard configuration, usually habitable rooms would have a rearward outlook.
Taking the impact on Nos. 22, 23 and 24 Carters Close, which lie to the east of the site, it is considered the relationship would be flank to rear. The spacing and separation distance between the side elevation of the proposed dwelling and these would be 35 metres with No. 22 Carters Close, 36 metres with No, 23 Carters Close and 38 metres with No. 24 Carters Close. The spacing and separation distances are in excess of the required 13.7 metres flank to rear distance set out in the Design Guide.
The residential properties Nos. 19, 20 and 21 Carters Close lay to the south east and south of the application site. These would lie opposite the front elevation, and as set out earlier, it would be reasonable to apply the required back to back spacing and separation separation distance of 22 metres. The
(30)
distance between the proposed dwellings and properties would be 35 metres 5.2 with No. 21 Carters Close, 36 metres with No.20 Carters Close and 45 metres 3 with No. 19 Carters Close.
There are two further residential properties to the south and south west of the application site, Nos. 17 and 18 Caters Close. These lie at even greater distance from the development than No 19 Carters Close and would not have a rear to rear relationship due to their orientation. As such, the proposed development would not cause significant harm to the amenity of these properties. 5.2 4 As the above assessment shows, the proposed development would not cause an unacceptable visual intrusion, loss of light or loss of privacy to any of the surrounding residential properties. The development would secure a spacing and separation distance to all properties in excess from that set out in the adopted New Residential Development Design Guide. The proposed dwelling is of two storeys in height, which is in scale with the height of the surrounding dwellings. As such, the proposed development would comply with saved policy D1 (iii) of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 seeks to protect the 5.2 amenity of any affected neighbour. 5 Impact on the Heritage Assets The application site is located within the curtilage of the Grade II Listed Building, The Small House and forms part of the Sherington Conservation Area. Section 12 of the NPPF requires great weight should be given to the conservation of Heritage Assets including their setting. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a 5.2 designated Heritage Asset, this harm should be weighed against the public 6 benefit of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.
In addition, the Council has a statutory duty to pay ‘special attention’ to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and the Listed Buildings and their settings under Sections 66 and 72 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act.
5.2 Principle 7 The Conservation Officer was consulted as part of this application. Within the responses provided during the application process, the Conservation Officer has identified less than substantial harm to the setting of the Listed Building and Conservation Area in terms of the principle of allowing a dwelling on the site. Any harm that was identified in terms of the principle was considered to be limited, provided that the design would and other considerations were found to be sufficient to offset any harm to the setting of the Listed Building and the character of the Conservation Area.
Design 5.2 The Conservation Officer has been involved throughout the process and
(31)
8 expressed advice that given the context of the site, within the grounds of the listed The Small House and between a more contemporary form of development to the west (modern properties along Carters Close), the design of the building should be one which interprets a traditional subservient form with a modern style. This advice has been satisfied by the proposed design which has evolved though the process. An earlier scheme that had a more standardised contemporary form with a large balcony and in closer proximity 5.2 to The Small House was submitted first. The Conservation Officer considered 9 that the form of the first scheme did not have a subservient form and would have contributed negatively to the setting of the Listed Building which could not have been overcome by any public benefits.
It is considered the revised design is subservient in form, representing a traditional barn style building, with a sloping roof form but using modern materials and design features. This ensures that when viewed from any of the public vantage points along the High Street, Church Road, or Carters Close, The Small House will remain dominant. The use of modern detailing also helps to ensure that there is legibility between the historic fabric of The Small 5.3 House and Conservation Area and any modern additions. The Conservation 0 Officer considered that opposite The Small House, No. 3 High Street has been finished in a contemporary style with smooth white render, timber doors and long window length.
Advice from the Conservation Officer was given which outlined reducing the scale of the proposed dwelling and siting the proposed dwelling further within the rear of the site to give a more equal separation of garden. This adviece has been followed with the proposed dwelling sited further from The Small House, and a more equal division of the garden is now proposed. This ensures that The Small House will retain more of the garden space and the primary focus of the site, with the barn style dwelling appearing as subservient.
Assessment of Harm 5.3 The principle of allowing a new dwelling at the rear of The Small House was 1 found to cause less than substantial harm to the setting of the Listed Building and Conservation Area. The proposed design ensures the proposed dwelling would be subservient and of a form which allows the historic fabric to be clearly distinguished from the modern. As required by paragraph 134 of the NPPF, where less than substantial harm is identified, the public benefits of the development must be weighed against any harm found. In this instance, the design is innovative and would provide public interest from vantage points into the site although these are limited and there is social, economic and environmental benefits attached to allowing a new dwelling in a sustainable location and further weight given where the proposal would contribute to the supply of housing where the Authority cannot demonstrate sufficient supply. 5.3 2 Overall, the harm identified would lead to less than substantial to the significance of the heritage assets and is considered to be outweighed by the benefits of securing an innovative, new dwelling in a sustainable location. As such, there are not considered to be sufficient reasoning for the development
(32)
to be refused on Conservation grounds. As such the proposed development would comply with saved policies HE5 and HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011, policy CS19 of the Core Strategy and advice contained within Section 12 of the NPPF. In addition, the Council has satisfied its responsibility to conserve and enhance heritage assets as required by 5.3 Sections 66 and 72 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Building and 3 Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Local Area The application site falls within an Area of Attractive Landscape as defined in the Saved Milton Keynes Local Plan Proposals Map 2001-2011. This designation is protected under Saved Policy NE4 of the Local Plan which requires the conservation and enhancement of the landscape character. Saved policies D2(iv) and D2A(i) of the Milton Keynes Local Plan seek to protect the character and appearance of the area through the use of carefully design built form.
The village has a distinct close knit character, with development radiating out from the core of the village to a more sporadic form on the outer periphery. Interspersed within the largely residential development of Sherington are 5.3 areas of open greenery such that the character of the village has a rural feel. 4 The properties located within the more historic part of Sherington, largely within the east of the village, have a unique and differentiated form which shows the development of the vernacular style of the village over time as architectural styles developed.
The proposed development is located in the rear garden of The Small House and would be surrounded by properties. From the surrounding roads, there are limited public vantage points, which have been assessed, been assessed by the Case Officer through a visit to the site and surrounding area. Notwithstanding the limited opportunity for viewing the site from the public realm, the design of the proposed dwelling is considered acceptable in the context of the local area and heritage assets representing a modern shift to 5.3 architectural styles through the careful use of detailing. By reason of the siting 5 of the proposed dwelling, much of the garden space to the south and east of the site would remain as amenity space, retaining the character of the site and its contribution to the character of Sherington and the Conservation Area. As such, the proposed development would comply with saved policies NE4, D2 (ii) and D2A(i) of the Milton Keynes Local Plan through the conservation of the built and landscape character of the village.
Transport and Highways Impacts of the Development 5.3 Saved policies D1(i), (vi) and T15 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan are 6 relevant to the consideration of this application. T10 relates to the highways safety implications of the proposed development and T15 requires development proposals to provide sufficient parking. The required parking spaces are set out within the Parking Standards SPD.
The proposed development would result in the partial removal of the high
(33)
stone wall to the front of the property. This is considered to be an improvement to the existing access arrangement, currently used by The Small House. The access would serve both occupants of The Small and the 5.3 proposed development. The Highway Engineer has been consulted on this 7 proposal and does not raise any objection to an access to serve two dwellings or the proposed alteration.
As identified by the Parking Standards SPD, Sherington falls within Zone 3 of the standards such that 2 on plot spaces would be required to serve the proposed 3 bedroom dwelling. As shown on the submitted layout plan there are two on plot space proposed with a turning space that would allow vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward gear. The proposed development meets the required parking provision.
The proposed development would result in the loss of existing hardstanding to The Small House. However, as shown on the submitted site plan, there is sufficient space to the rear of The Small House to provide at least two parking spaces that would fulfil the required standards.
The proposed development would comply with D1(i), (vi) and T15 and T15 of 5.3 the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011. 8 Impact on Ecology The Council has a statutory duty to pay special regard to the potential impacts of a development on ecology. Saved Policy NE2 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 states that planning permission will be refused for development that would adversely affect animal or plant species, or their habitats specifically protected by law. 5.3 9 An Ecology Assessment was provided during the application process as requested by the Countryside Officer. It notes that there are no statutorily designated sites within 2 kilometres of the application site and that the timber shed and much of the mature landscaping will be retained as part of the proposed development. There is limited potential for protected species on the site as indicated by the search of local records. A condition requiring a biodiversity enhancement should be imposed on any planning permission.
5.4 Impact on Protected Trees and Landscaping 0 By reason of the sites location within the Conservation Area, the trees located within the rear amenity space of The Small House have the same level of protection as if they were designated under a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). In addition, there are a number of trees within the east and south of the site which are protected under designated individual TPOs.
The Arboricultural Officer provided comments on the application. The officer considers that one of the protected trees is missing from the Tree survey and 5.4 that T1 which has a TPO and T11 of the submitted tree survey are proposed 1 for removal. The Officer does not raise objection to the application and instead recommends a series of conditions which seek to protect the remaining trees and their root protection areas.
(34)
The proposed development will result in the loss of some of the existing landscaping and trees on the site. The development has been carefully sited to minimise any impact on the remaining trees in the east and south of the 5.4 site. The proposed development is not considered to result in any significant 2 harm to the protected trees. The development would comply with saved policies D1(v) of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.
Conclusion In light of the above assessment, it is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to the conditions set out in section 6.0 of this report.
1.2 Late Public Representation
This representation was received on 26th January 2017, following the completion of the Panel Report by the Case Officer. This representation notes that the Conservation Officer has not objected to application reference 16/03209/LBC.
In regards to 16/03208/FUL
The representation identifies an inconsistency on the submitted plans showing the south east window proposed to serve the first floor master bedroom window. The representation notes in plan form the window is shown to be 3.5 metres wide and 2.9 metres wide on the elevational drawing.
The submitted desk based survey has not taken account of the wildlife seen within the local area or the proposed removal of trees.
Reiteration of concerns regarding the proposed dwelling location, tree roots and privacy/overlooking into the neighbouring properties along Carters Close.
Response:
The applicant’s agent has provided an amended plan to show the correct size of the window. This drawing has been included as part of this late paper and shows the window size as 2.9 metres in both plan and elevation form.
Further to the submission of the desk-based ecological survey, an on-site assessment has been carried out by the applicant’s ecologist. The assessment relates to bat roosts and confirms that the trees are unsuitable for bats. There is suitable habitat within the existing timber shed but alterations are not proposed to the shed. As such, the proposed development is not considered to cause harm to protected species. In addition, the Council’s Countryside Officer (ecologist) has carried out an on-site assessment. A summary of the response is provided in section 1.8 of this late paper.
(35)
The comments in regards to the location of the proposed dwelling, tree roots and privacy issues has been addressed in the panel report.
1.3 Late Public Representation (Sherington House) This representation was received on 21st February 2017. This representation has been made available on the Council’s website and is summarised as follows.
The representation considers that the Case Officer has wrongly interpreted and ignored the significance of national and local policy. The Case Officer has noted that the Council has a statutory duty to pay special regard to the desirability of preserving and enhancing the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and Listed Building, including their settings The application site is located within the curtilage of the Grade II Listed Building and Conservation Area Too much weight has been afforded to the 5 year housing land supply requirement with little or no weight given to national or local policies and the emerging Sherington Neighbourhood Plan The Sherington Neighbourhood plan contains adequate provision for new housing The Officer has ignored the requirement to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the Conservation Area or the Listed Building and their settings. More weight should be afforded to the Neighbourhood Plan, given its local support The partial removal of the stone wall and number of protected trees would have a significant adverse impact on the appearance of the character and setting of the Listed Building and Conservation Area The representative considers the application should be refused
Response: It is considered that the Case Officer has not failed in their statutory duty to pay special regard to the preservation of the Listed Building and Conservation Area and their settings. Nor has the Officer failed to interpret or apply relevant national and local policies. The recommendation has been carefully considered throughout the application process and is based not only on the Case Officer consideration but also on advice provided by the Conservation Officer. As outlined in the considerations section (5.0) set out in the Panel Report, the appropriate weight and considerations have been applied to all policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework, Milton Keynes Core Strategy 2013, saved policies contained with the Milton Keynes Local Plan, relevant standards as set out within the relevant supplementary planning documents and the Sherington Neighbourhood Plan. It is acknowledged that since the time of writing the report, the Sherington Neighbourhood Plan has progressed and a summary of this progression is provided at section 1.5 of this late paper. The appropriate balancing of all the benefits and issues raised, as required by paragraph 134 has been carried out, with the agreement of both the Case Officer and Conservation Officer.
(36)
1.4 Public Representation (1 Church End) The public representation was sent to the Council 1st December 2016, but was not available on the internal system, at the time of writing the Panel Report and is summarised as follows: The proposed development would not be in keeping with the policies requiring the preservation of the Listed Building or gardens. The proposed development would contravene a number of policies in the Sherington Neighbourhood Plan
These objections are noted and have been addressed within the considerations section of the Panel report as set out at section 1.1 of this late paper.
1.5 Update on the progress of the Sherington Neighbourhood Plan
The below is based on advice received from the Council’s Neighbourhood Planning Officer, the guidance outlined in the NPPF and the Briefing Note presented to the Development Control Committee in February 2017.
The Panel Report was finalised prior to the closure of the Sherington Neighbourhood Plan public consultation. The Sherington Neighbourhood Plan consultation was held for 8 weeks from 15th December 2017-9th February 2017. Since the closure of this consultation, the comments have been submitted to the assigned Neighbourhood Plan Examiner who will make a decision about the next stages for progressing the Neighbourhood Plan. As such, the examiner has not yet considered any of the representations made. In terms of the assigned weight, some additional weight can be given to the limited weight applied within the Panel Report by the Case Officer.
It is acknowledged that the Sherington Neighbourhood Plan is a material planning consideration of the current application. Some additional weight should now be applied in the balance, however this would still be of limited weight in the overall planning balance. Notwithstanding the above assessment of the weight to be attributed to the Neighbourhood Plan, Policy NP1 of the Sherington Neighbourhood Plan accepts the principle of windfall infill development provided that the aims of the Neighbourhood Plan are met. With the additional weight applied, the recommendation for approval would remain.
1.6 Submission of Amended Plans The following documents have been submitted as part of the application submission and can be found in Appendix 1 of this late paper. Staircase and entrance section Typical section detail Amended Plans and Elevations 2941-31 Rev B
1.7 Submission of Desk Based Ecology Survey and Bat Roost Assessment The applicant has submitted a desk based ecological survey and separate bat roost assessment.
(37)
The ecological survey confirms that there is restricted wildlife interest on the site. The potential impacts are further mitigated by the retention of habitat located within the trees and shed that are to be retained. The potential for great crested newts on the site is very unlikely.
The bat roost assessment confirms that the trees are not suitable for bats. There is some potential for the existing garage to provide an occasional roosting site for bats. Measures are recommended if works are to be carried out to the garage. However, no works are proposed to the garage and as such, mitigation is not required.
1.8 On Site Assessment by the Countryside Officer Following concerns raised by the neighbours with regards to the potential for protected species on the site, the Council’s Countryside Officer carried out an on-site assessment.
During this assessment, the trees identified for removal along with site’s potential for habitat for protected species was assessed. The Officer found no evidence of roosting bats within any of the trees identified for removal. In addition, the Officer notes the only area for the potentially suitable habitat for great crested newts on this site, would be within the wall located at the front of the application site. Part of this wall is noted to be removed to improve the access to the site, and the Officer has identified that this could be carried out by hand and should great crested newts be found, a license sought from Natural England.
An informative is recommended with the lasted comments received 22nd February 2017 from the Countryside Officer, as follows:
Informative: The stone garden wall should be carefully deconstructed by hand and in the unlikely event that any Great Crested Newt are discovered, work should cease immediately and Natural England contacted for advice.
The condition requested in regards to the provision if a biodiversity scheme has been included within the conditions list set out at section 6.0 of the Panel Report.
(38)
Appendix 1
(39)
(40)
(41)