Democratic Services
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL AGENDA THURSDAY 20 FEBRUARY 2014 7.00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER CIVIC OFFICES CENTRAL MILTON KEYNES
THE DEADLINE FOR REQUESTS TO SPEAK REGARDING PLANNING APPLICATIONS LISTED ON THIS AGENDA IS:
12 NOON ON MONDAY 17 FEBRUARY 2014
Should you have any enquires about this meeting or wish to speak in objection to any applications on this agenda, please contact Dino Imbimbo (Committee Manager) on Tel: (01908) 252458 or E- mail:[email protected] Written Representations to be received no later than 12:00 noon Wednesday 19 February 2014
http://cmis.milton-keynes.gov.uk/CmisWebPublic
Membership: Councillors: Bint, M Burke, Legg, McLean and C Williams
Milton Keynes Council Democratic Services Division, Civic Offices 1 Saxon Gate East Milton Keynes MK9 3EJ Tel: Milton Keynes (01908) 691691 Fax: (01908) 252456 Hays DX 31406 Milton Keynes 1
(1) Health and Safety Please take a few moments to familiarise yourself with the nearest available fire exit, indicated by the fire evacuation signs. In the event of an alarm sounding during the meeting you must evacuate the building immediately and follow all instructions provided by the fire evacuation officer who will identify him/herself should the alarm sound. You will be assisted to the nearest designated assembly point until it is safe to return to the building. Mobile Phones Please ensure that your mobile phone is switched to silent or is switched off completely during the meeting. Agenda Agendas and reports for the majority of the Council’s public meetings can be accessed via the Internet at: http://cmis.milton-keynes.gov.uk/cmiswebpublic/ Wi Fi access is available in the Council’s meeting rooms. Recording of Meetings The proceedings at this meeting may be recorded for the purpose of preparing the minutes of the meeting. Comments, Complaints and Compliments Milton Keynes Council welcomes comments, complaints and compliments from members of the public in order to make its services as efficient and effective as possible. We would appreciate any suggestions regarding the usefulness of the paperwork for this meeting, or the conduct of the meeting you have attended. Please use the slip below by detaching it and passing it to the Committee Manager. Alternatively the slip can be returned by post to Democratic Services, Milton Keynes Council, Civic Offices, 1 Saxon Gate East, Milton Keynes, MK9 3EJ, or you can e- mail your comments to [email protected] If you require a response please leave contact details, ideally including an e-mail address. A formal complaints / compliments form is available online at http://www.milton- keynes.gov.uk/complaints/ ------Meeting Attended: Development Control Panel Date of Meeting: 20 February 2014 Comments:……………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………. ………………………………………………………………………………………………….
...... Contact details:…..……………………………………………………………………………
(2) AGENDA 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Apologies 3. Disclosure of Interests Members to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests, or personal interests (including other pecuniary interests), they may have in the business to be transacted, and officers to disclose any interests they may have in any contract to be considered.
4. Planning Applications To consider Planning Applications and receive representations from objectors, of which notice has been given, and replies from applicants in accordance with the Council’s Procedure Rules. The deadline for requests to speak in objection to a planning application and for Ward Councillor requests to speak, either in favour or in objection to a planning application is 12.00 noon on Monday 17 February 2014.
A LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED IS OVERLEAF
(3) App Reference Address Ward Town/Parish Report Plan(s) Appen- Council Pages Pages dices 13/02304/FUL Local Centre Land, Linford South Campbell Park 16 23 28 Granville Square, Parish Council 1. Minor Willen, Milton Keynes
13/02321/FUL 7 Fortescue Drive, Loughton Park Shenley Church 36 41 45 Shenley Church End Parish 2. Other End, Council Milton Keynes
13/02116/FUL Site East of Sherington Astwood & 53 57 62 No 3, Main Road, Hardmead 3. Minor Astwood Parish Council
13/02312/FUL 6 Prospect Place, Sherington Emberton 66 70 71 Newport Road, 4. Minor Parish Council Emberton
13/02306/MM 2 Long Street Road, Hanslope Park Hanslope 74 81 88 Hanslope, Milton Parish Council 5. AM Minor Keynes
13/00388/FUL Car Park, Stony Stratford Stony Stratford 94 98 101 Market Square, Town Council 6. Other Stony Stratford
13/02413/FUL Lodge Farm, Sherington Stoke 103 106 112 Purse Lane, Goldington 7. Other Stoke Goldington Parish Council
13/02516/FUL 58 High Street, Olney Olney Town 114 117 121 Olney, Bucks Council 8. Other 13/02609/FUL 9 Maidenhead Bradwell Bradwell Parish 125 128 135 Avenue, Council 9. Other Bradwell Common, (i) Milton Keynes
13/02630/FUL Bradwell Sports And Bradwell Bradwell Parish 138 142 144 Social Club, Council 10. Minor Abbey Road, Bradwell
14/00017/FUL 179 Selkirk Drive, Hanslope Park Stantonbury 149 152 156 Oakridge Park, Parish Council 11. Minor Milton Keynes
(4) A Guide to Application Reports
Introduction
The following reports have been prepared by case officers from the Development Management Section of the Council’s Planning and Transport Department. In preparing the reports the case officers have taken into account all the planning issues relating to the application including:
All National and Local planning policies and legislation. All other relevant National and local policies and legislation. Relevant case law All comments received from statutory and non statutory consultees (including neighbours and other local people). The physical features of the property/site. The details of the proposal.
Clearly there is a lot of information to be considered. To keep reports to a readable length and to make sure that the important issues are fully covered, some of the more generic considerations are not explicitly referred to in the report or are only mentioned briefly. However, all the Councillors who sit on the Development Control Committee have been trained in all aspects of considering planning applications and are aware of the underlying issues which may not have been referred to directly in the report.
What is in the report?
In respect of policies, legislation and case law, those which provide the most important advice/guidance on the issues under consideration are referred to in the report.
In respect of comments from statutory and non statutory consultees, these are not normally reported in full. Although all relevant comments received are reported, they are usually summarised. Comments that have been received relating to matters which are not material planning issues are not normally reported. If they are reported for any reason, the fact that they are not material planning issues is clearly stated in the report.
In respect of the physical features of the site and the details of the proposal, the most significant features/details and those which can not easily be seen in the plans attached to the report are described in the report.
In the Considerations section of the report, the Case officer sets out the pros and cons of the application in relation to the relevant polices, legislation and case law and the comments received from everyone who has responded to the application.
(5)
The importance of planning policy
The most important factor that the Committee must consider is the relevant planning policies. Firstly there is the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) produced by the Government, which sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. Secondly there are the Council's own planning policies, particularly the policies in the Council’s Adopted Core Strategy and Adopted Local Plan, but including other policy documents such as Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG). Planning legislation requires that all planning decisions should be in line with the relevant policies.
Further Information
You can find all the information submitted with the application, together with all the comments that the Council received at www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/publicaccess.
You can find all the Council’s planning policies at www.milton- keynes.gov.uk/planning-and-building/planning-policy.
You can find national planning legislation, guidance and advice at www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding.
(6) AMENDED PLANNING USE CLASSES
Class A1. Shops Use for all or any of the following purposes: (a) for the retail sale of goods other than hot food. (b) as a post office. (c) for the sale of tickets or as a travel agency. (d) for the sale of sandwiches or other cold food for consumption off the premises. (e) for hairdressing. (f) for the direction of funerals. (g) for the display of goods for sale. (h) for the hiring out of domestic or other personal goods or articles. (i) for the washing or cleaning of clothes and fabrics on the premises. (j) for the reception of goods to be washed, cleaned or repaired. (k) as an internet café; where the primary purpose of the premises is to provide facilities for enabling members of the public to access the internet where the sale, display or service is to visiting members of the public.
Class A2. Financial & Professional Services Use the provision of: (a) financial services. (b) professional services (other than health or medical services). (c) any other services (including use as a betting office) which it is appropriate to provide in a shopping area, where the services are provided principally to visiting members of the public.
Class A3. Restaurants & Cafes Use for the sale of food and drink for consumption on the premises.
Class A4. Drinking Establishments Use as a public house, wine-bar or other drinking establishment.
Class A5. Hot Food Takeaways Use for the sale of hot food for consumption off the premises.
Class B1. Business Use for all or any of the following purposes: (a) as an office other than a use within Class A2 (financial and professional services). (b) for research and development of products or processes. (c) for any industrial process, being a use which can be carried out in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit.
Class B2. General Industrial Use for the carrying on of an industrial process other than one falling within class B1 above.
Class B8. Storage or Distribution Use for storage or as a distribution centre.
Class C1. Hotels Use as a hotel or as a boarding or guesthouse where, in each case, no significant element of care is provided.
(REVISED 25.05.10)
(7) Class C2. Residential Institutions Use for the provision of residential accommodation and care to people in need of care (other than a use within Class C3 (dwelling houses).
Use as:
(a) a hospital or nursing home (b) a residential school, college or training centre
Class C2A. Secure Residential Institutions Use for the provision of secure residential accommodation, including use as a prison, young offenders institution, detention centre, secure training centre, custody centre, short-term holding centre, secure hospital, secure local authority accommodation or use as military barracks.
Class C3. Dwellinghouses Use as a dwellinghouse (whether or not as a sole or main residence) by: (a) a single person or by people to be regarded as forming a single household; (b) not more than six residents living together as a single household where care is provided for residents; or (c) not more than six residents living together as a single household where no care is provided to residents (other than a Use within Class C4) For the purposes of Class C3(a) “single household” shall be construed in accordance with section 258 of the Housing Act 2004(3).”
Class C4. Houses in Multiple Occupation Use of a dwellinghouse by not more than six residents as a ‘house in multiple occupation”. For the purposes of Class C4 a “house in multiple occupation” does not include a converted block of flats to which section 257 of the Housing Act 2004 applies but otherwise has the same meaning as in section 254 of the Housing Act 2004.”.
Class D1. Non-Residential Institutions Any use not including a residential use: (a) for the provision of any medical or health services except the use of premises attached to the residence of the consultant or practitioner. (b) as a crèche, day nursery or day centre. (c) for the provision of education. (d) for the display of works of art (otherwise than for sale or hire). (e) as a museum. (f) as a public library or public reading room. (g) as a public hall or exhibition hall. (h) for, or in connection with, public worship or religious instruction.
Class D2. Assembly & Leisure Use as: (a) a cinema. (b) a concert hall. (c) a bingo hall (d) a dance hall. (e) a swimming bath, skating rink, gymnasium or area for other indoor or outdoor sports or recreations, not involving motorised vehicles or firearms.
Sui Generis Any use which does not fall within the definition of one of the classes as specified in the Use Classes Order.
(REVISED 25.05.10)
(8) DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE CODE OF GOOD PRACTICE FOR PLANNING MATTERS - GUIDANCE SUMMARY
This Code applies to all Members but particularly members of the Development Control Committee, their substitutes, and officers associated with planning cases.
GENERAL
1 The Development Control Committee (DCC) is a quasi-judicial body.
2 DCC members must therefore act totally impartially at all times from as soon as they first become acquainted with a planning application or potential planning application until the final decision is taken.
3 They must declare the nature and extent of any personal interest they have in any planning matter and must cease to be involved in any planning matter in which they have a prejudicial interest as soon as they realise that they have such an interest.
4 Insofar as possible DCC members should avoid contact with applicants, agents, objectors, and - in particular - decline all offers of gifts and hospitality. Before an application is made they should have an officer present if possible when meeting any of the above and keep a record of the meeting.
5 They should take their decisions in accordance with the Council's planning policies unless there are clear and compelling planning reasons for not doing so.
6 All Members must not disclose or use to their own advantage any confidential information.
7 Members of the DCC should not become associated in the public mind with any vested interest in planning matters.
OUTSIDE THE COMMITTEE BEFORE OR AFTER RECEIPT OF A PLANNING APPLICATION
8 DCC members should not offer any opinion on a planning application until it has come to Committee and they are satisfied that they have all the relevant planning information.
9 This includes all applications arising within their wards - which should be handled by other councillors.
10 DCC members are advised not to allow themselves to be lobbied but, when they are, they must give equal time and opportunity to both applicant and objector.
REVISED VERSION ADOPTED BY COUNCIL - 14 JANUARY 2005
L:\Committee\2012-13\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE\ADMIN\AGENDA PROCEDURE PACK\3. Guidance Summary.doc
(9) 11 DCC members should normally only meet applicants and objectors with a Council officer present.
12 All such contacts must be reported to the assistant Director (Planning, Economy and Development).
13 All Members must not put pressure on any officer associated with planning matters in order to influence their recommendations on a particular application one way or the other (see 19 below)
14 All Members must follow the Council's guidelines on procedure at site visits.
IN COMMITTEE OR CABINET
15 Members must base their decisions only on material planning considerations. No others are permitted.
16 Members must not speak or vote on any planning matter in which they have a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest could be a disclosable pecuniary interest, or a personal interest which a member of the public, looking on may consider so significant that it would prejudice their judgement in carrying out their role as a Member. However, where a Member holds a conflict of interest described above, before retiring he or she may first exercise the ability to address the meeting as a member of the public in accordance with the Access to Information Procedure Rules.
17 They must declare if they have any relevant information on a planning application or have been lobbied in respect of it.
18 They must list their planning reasons for any departure from the Council's planning policies (see 5 above); and take a recorded vote on any such decision.
OFFICERS
19 Officers are required at all times to give objective, professional and non- political advice on all planning matters.
20 Additionally the guidelines above apply as appropriate to all officers associated with planning matters.
REVISED VERSION ADOPTED BY COUNCIL - 14 JANUARY 2005
L:\Committee\2012-13\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE\ADMIN\AGENDA PROCEDURE PACK\3. Guidance Summary.doc
(10) PROCEDURE FOR THE DETERMINATION OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (a) Council Procedure Rule 9 does not apply to the Development Control Committee and the Development Control Panel when determining planning applications. (b) Members of the public may request the right to speak at any meeting of the Development Control Committee and the Development Control Panel to object to a planning application. The number of requests to speak will be limited to three per application (not including any right of reply). A single objector will be allowed to speak for a maximum of 3 minutes. Where there is more than one objector representing a group or organisation, they will be limited to 3 minutes to present the group or organisation’s objection, but more than one representative may speak on behalf of the group or organisation. Both the number of speakers and the time limit may be extended at the Chair’s discretion. (c) If an application is deferred any speaker heard by the Committee when an application was first received will not be precluded from being heard again when the application is reconsidered, subject to the speaker submitting a further request to speak in accordance with paragraphs (b) and (g) of this Annex. (d) Ward Councillors may comment on any application either within their Ward, or which has a significant impact on the residents of their Ward. If a Ward Councillor is objecting to a planning application he/she must advise the Assistant Director (Democratic Services), in order that the applicant can be offered a right of reply. Any request to speak must be submitted in accordance with paragraph (g) of this Annex. (e) Applicants will be entitled to speak in favour of a planning application where the planning officer has recommended refusal and there have been no requests from members of the public to speak in objection. Any speech in favour will last no longer than 3 minutes. (f) Any applicants, or their agents, will be informed when a request to speak in objection has been received and will be invited to exercise a right of reply either in writing or orally at the meeting. Any right of reply will not exceed the cumulative time given to objectors to the specific planning application. Applicants, or their agents, may invite witnesses to give evidence within the allocated time available. (g) Any request to speak (other than exercising the right of reply) must be received by the Assistant Director (Democratic Services) by noon, two clear working days before the meeting. (h) Depending on the volume of representations the Committee / Panel may wish to either: (i) receive all representations and consider the related applications at the commencement of the meeting; or (ii) follow the agenda and receive all representations as the applications are considered; or
1
(11) (iii) take all representations at the commencement of the meeting and then follow the order of the agenda. (i) Deputations and Petitions under Council Procedure Rule 9.12 and Public Questions under Council Procedure Rules 9.1 to 9.10 will operate as set out in these Rules, for matters of general policy and issues not directly related to promoting, or objecting to a particular planning application, and will form part of the 30 minutes allocated for public participation.
2
(12) National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
The Impact of the NPPF of the Council's Planning Policies On the 27th March 2012 the Government's National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published and came into force. The NPPF sets out the Government's planning policies for England and replaces the majority of the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) and Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) produced by the Government together with some ministerial advice given in Letters to Chief Planning Officers and a few Circulars, including Circular 05/2005: Planning Obligations. All Local Planning Authorities must take the NPPF into account in plan preparation and it is a material consideration in planning decisions. Like most Local Planning Authorities (LPA), Milton Keynes Council (MKC) has an Adopted Local Plan and a number of other planning policy documents which pre date the NPPF. The Government recognised that this situation would arise and therefore the NPPF contains guidance on how planning authorities should attribute weighting to their existing policies against the policies of the NPPF until such time as the LPA produces revised policies to take into account the policies in the NPPF. The NPPF advocates progressing revision of plans as quickly as possible. The weight to be given to Local Plan Policies In respect of the adoption of the policies of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011, MKC relied on the transitional arrangements in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, it adopted its local plan under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ( the 1990 Act) and paragraph 215 of the NPPF applies. Therefore when considering planning applications MKC must: (a) take the policies contained in the NPPF into account as a material consideration; and (b) only give weight to MKC’s existing planning policies to the extent and the degree with which they conform with the policies in the NPPF; and MKC may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans to the extent and degree with which they also conform with the policies in the NPPF, the stage of preparation of the emerging plan and the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies The weight to be given to Mineral Plan Policies The MKC’s Mineral Local Plan was also adopted under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and so the same paragraph 215 position applies to the determination of mineral plan applications as set out above. On the 27th March 2012 the Government also published Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework. This technical guidance is intended to ensure the effective implementation of the Framework policies in (a) areas at risk of flooding and (b) in relation to mineral extraction. In relation to mineral extraction, the guidance deals with issues such as dust emission, noise and restoration.
(13) Supplementary Planning Guidance and Supplementary Planning Documents In respect of the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) and Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD), the Council must apply the same weighting and balancing considerations to these documents as to the policies they relate to. Therefore SPG or SPD documents that relate to policies in the Local Plan and the Minerals Plan should be considered in accordance with the approach set out in 215 of the NPPF Planning Obligations S106 agreements In addition to these changes the NPPF replaces the previous 5 part test for planning obligations contained in Circular 05/2005. The NPPF test requires that planning obligations/S106 agreements should only be sought where the requirements are: 1) Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. 2) Directly related to the development. 3) Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. Reports to Development Control Committee and Panel Officers are currently reviewing the NPPF and assessing the conformity of the policies contained in the Council's Local Plan and Mineral Plan with those contained in the NPPF. When this review is complete a comprehensive guide to the weight to be given to the Council's policies will be produced. However, until this can be done each report deals with the issue as far as it relates to the considerations relevant to that particular application.
(14) ITEM 4 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL
20 FEBRUARY 2014
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
MAJOR APPLICATIONS
Major Applications – Major applications are those proposing 10 dwellings or more and for all other types of development those proposing 1000 square metres or more of additional floor space.
MINOR APPLICATIONS
Minor Applications – Minor applications are proposed residential dwellings of less than 10 dwellings or other new commercial, industrial, retail office or warehouse proposals of less than 1000 square metres of new floor space.
OTHER APPLICATIONS
Other Applications – Other applications include most changes of use, all householder development, Listed Buildings and Conservation Area Consent applications and a variety of other types of generally small-scale development proposals
(15)
APP 01
Application Number: 13/02304/FUL Minor
Modernisation and reconfiguration of the Local Centre, involving minor extensions, elevation changes, and use changes of some of the shops.
AT Local Centre Land, Granville Square, Willen
FOR Newcrest Willen Limited
Target: 25th December 2013
Ward: Linford South Parish: Campbell Park Parish Council
Report Author/Case Officer: Jeremy Lee Contact Details: [email protected]
Team Leader: Nicola Wheatcroft Joint 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 The main section of the report set out below draws together the core issues in relation to the application including policy and other key material considerations. This is supplemented by an appendix which brings together, planning history, additional matters and summaries of consultees’ responses and public representations. 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.
1.2 The Site
Willen Local Centre comprises a range of mainly single storey, red brick built units under distinctive hipped roofs. One of the units has a small first floor element that creates a distinctive ‘Tower’ feature. The Local Centre consists of 11 units of retail, hot food take-away and other businesses. The Local Centre has no car parking provision of its own, but it abuts a large public car park which effectively serves the development.
1.3 The Local Centre has a small service yard, accessed via the public car park, which provides servicing of 9 of the units and an even smaller service yard (little more than a courtyard) also accessed via the public
(16) car park, which serves a further 2 units.
1.4 The area is predominantly residential in character however there are also a pub, a doctors surgery (currently vacant) and a primary school in the vicinity of the Local Centre. Details of the location of the site and its relationship to surrounding properties can be seen in the plans attached to this report.
1.5 The Proposal
This application is for a number of changes to the Local Centre. Some of these changes are effectively changes of use as some of the uses move around within the centre.
1.6 Physically the most significant changes are an extension to one of the units which would reduce the size of the smaller of the two service yards, an extension that would link the smaller group of units to the larger group and amendments to the elevations to brick up a number of windows at the rear (opposite side to the public car park) of the Local Centre.
1.7 Change in Retail Space
The result of all the physical alterations would be to significantly change the configuration of the units within the centre. The existing Local centre provides the following floorspace/uses:
Unit Current Occupier Planning Use Floor Area
2 Indian food take away A5 49.15 sq m
3 Veterinary Surgery D1 52.12 sq.m
4 Hairdresser A1 50.26 sq m
5 Vacant A2 108.05 sq m
6 Sandwich Bar A1 122.45 sq m
7 Vacant A1 99.13 sq m
8 Vacant A1 118.26 sq m
9 Convenience Store A1 149.57 sq m
10 Sandwich Bar (G. Fl) A1 53.60 sq m
10a F/F above Sandwich Bar A1 47.29 sq m
11 Fish and Chip take-away A5 84.36.sq m
(17) Total 932.57 sq m
1.8 The proposal would provide the following floorspace/units:
Unit Proposed Occupier Planning Use Floor Area
2 Indian food take away A5 49.15 sq m
3 Sandwich Bar A1 90. 58 sq.m
4 Convenience Store A1 427.35 sq m
5 Veterinary Surgery D1 64.40 sq m
6 Unknown A1/A2 100.89 sq m
7 Unknown A1/A2 109.13 sq m
8 Unknown (Gr.Fl) A1/A2/A5 53.60 sq m
8a Unknown (1st Floor) A1 47.29 sq m
9 Fish and Chip take-away A5 84.36.sq m
Total 1,034.53 sq m
1.9 Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.
2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application)
2.1 National Policy National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs
Para 14 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Paras 56, 57, 60, 61,63,64 Design Para 69 Crime
2.2 Local Policy
Core Strategy
CS13 Ensuring High Quality Well Designed Places CS4 Retail and Leisure Development
2.3 Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011
D1 Impact Of Development Proposals On Locality D2A Urban Design Aspects Of New Development
(18) D2 Design Of Buildings LC2 Non retail uses in Local Centres LC3 New development in Local Centres T2 Access For Those With Impaired Mobility T3,T4 Pedestrians and Cyclists T5 Public Transport T15 Parking
2.4 Supplementary Planning Guidance
Parking Standards For Milton Keynes
3.0 MAIN ISSUES (The issues which have the greatest bearing on the decision)
3.1 1. Parking The Local Centre does not have its own dedicated car parking, but there is adequate car parking available in the adjoining public car park to meet the Council’s Car Parking Standards.
3.2 2. Access The access to the service yards is not ideal. However, the situation would be no different to that which currently exists.
3.3 3. Impact Upon the Appearance of the Area Whilst the proposal does include a small flat roofed extension, it is considered that the proposal would not have a detrimental imact upon the appearance of the area.
4.0 RECOMMENDATION (The decision that officers recommend to the Committee)
4.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in section 6 of this report.
5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have lead to the officer Recommendation)
5.1 Background
The Willen Local Centre was constructed over 25 years ago and has undergone little change since its development. It currently contains 11 units - 7 retail (A1), 2 take-away food (A5), 1 Veterinary Surgery (D1) and an Estate Agents (A2). The estate agents and two of the retail units are currently vacant.
5.2 Principle of Development
Policy CS4 of the Adopted Core Strategy states:
The various local centres, existing and proposed will provide
(19) convenience shopping and service facilities in order to reduce and minimise car dependency and to ensure ready access by non–car owning households and other people limited or impaired mobility.
5.3 Policy LC3 of the Adopted Local Plan states:
Planning permission will be granted for new retail and other facilities in Local Centres provided the scale and nature of the proposal is consistent with their role and function as Local Centres.
5.4 The proposal would provide a significant increase in the size of retail floorspace available without increasing the size of any of the units above what that which might be appropriate for a local centre (the largest of the proposed retail units would be smaller than the Co-op store at Netherfield Local Centre). It is therefore considered that the principle of the development is acceptable.
5.5 Parking
The existing public car park that serves the Willen Local Centre provides 90 parking spaces. The school, pub and doctors surgery all have their own parking separate parking areas.
5.6 The adopted Council Parking Standards would require a maximum of 77 spaces to serve the proposed development. Therefore the existing parking provision of 90 spaces is considered appropriate given that the overprovision will also cater for overflow from the nearby public house and school.
5.7 Access
The proposed access to the site will remain the same as existing and there would be no alteration to the main service yard. Whilst the smaller service yard would be reduced in size this would have no impact upon the ability to turn or manoeuvre vehicles. Consideration has been given to the question of larger units will create a demand for larger vehicles and the impact this may have. However, there is no evidence that the proposal would alter the size of vehicles required to service the units or significantly increase the number of vehicles visiting the site.
5.8 The Highway Engineer has suggested that conditions be imposed on any planning permission that may be issued regarding the submission of a Service Delivery Plan to control the way in which the units are serviced and requiring and HGV tracking details. However, without evidence to show how the proposal would significantly alter the impact of servicing on the surrounding area it is not considered that these could be justified on planning grounds.
5.9 There is some evidence (provided by objectors to the current application) that the Local centre is already served by delivery vehicles
(20) which are too large for the existing service yards, resulting in parking/access problems. This makes it difficult to argue that the current proposal would make the situation worse. There are currently no planning restrictions on the servicing of the existing units.
5.10 Impact Upon the Appearance of the Area
In general the proposal would have little impact upon the appearance of the Local Centre. The bricking up of the windows on the rear elevations could have had an impact upon the building in terms of creating long stretches of unbroken brickwork. However, these areas would largely be screened from public view by areas of planting around the rear of the buildings.
5.11 The proposed extension in the smaller service yard would be visible from public areas, and the flat roof of this extension would be at odds with the characteristic hipped, pitched roofs of the existing centre. However, this extension would be small and, seen in the context of the buildings around it, it would not have a significant impact upon the appearance of the Local centre or the area in general.
5.12 CONCLUSION
The servicing/delivery access of the proposed units is not ideal. However, it is not considered that the situation would be significantly worse than currently exists. In addition it is clearly the intention of the applicant’s to make the Local Centre more attractive to customers which, if successful, will be likely to attract more vehicles to the site. However, in terms of the number of spaces, the existing car park does meet the requirements of the Council’s Car parking standards.
5.13 In addition the proposal does represent a modernisation of a now rather outdated local facility. It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions below.
6.0 CONDITIONS (The conditions that need to be imposed on any planning permission for this development to ensure that the development is satisfactory. To meet legal requirements all conditions must be Necessary, Relevant, Enforceable, Precise and Reasonable )
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To prevent the accumulation of planning permissions; to enable the Local Planning Authority to review the suitability of the development in the light of altered circumstances; and to comply with section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. (D11)
2. The external materials to be used in the development shall be in accordance with samples to be submitted to and approved in writing by
(21) the Local Planning Authority before any work is commenced.
Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality.
(22)
(23)
(24) (25) (26)
(27)
Appendix to 13/02304/FUL
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 None.
A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS
(Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)
A2.1 Disability Parking Spaces
An objector has raised the issue of the lack of car parking spaces suitable for use by disabled people in the existing public car park. It is true that there are no car parking spaces in the public car park. However, it would not be appropriate to refuse planning permission on the grounds of an existing shortfall.
A2.2 It could be argued that additional parking spaces should be provided in line with the Council’s Parking Standards (which require 5% of spaces to be suitable for use by disabled people) to meet the increase in floorspace proposed. However the proposed increase would be only 101.96sqm. Therefore, taking even the highest parking requirements possible a maximum of 1 disabled car parking space could be justified. However, the car park is not within the applicant’s control and it is considered that it would not be possible to justify such a requirement.
A2.3 Disabled/Pedestrian Access
Objectors have raised concerns that the extension to link the two groups of units will close a path which currently circles the Centre. The objectors are concerned that this would result in a less convenient access and would require customers to cross one or more of the Service yard access points.
A2.4 It is not considered that the proposal would significantly increase the distance pedestrians would have to travel to access some of the units. Whilst pedestrians may need to cross the service yard accesses, depending on where they park/arrive from, this would be no different to the existing situation.
A2.5 Loss of Post Office
Objectors have raised concerns that the proposed changes to the units will result in new occupiers taking over the main convenience retail unit and that those new occupiers will not wish to run a post office from the unit. However, the post office is an ancillary activity within the retail shop and it is a commercial decision of the occupiers as to whether this service is provided. The presence of the post office facility in this instance cannot be controlled through the planning process.
(28)
A3.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS (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
A3.1 Environmental Health Manager
Any comments received will be reported
Crime Prevention Design Advisor
Any comments received will be reported
Highways Development Control
Car Parking The Design and Access statement provides figures for the Noted. floor space of each of the units together with the classification of the specific planning use class under which they fall. The same document provides a breakdown of the proposed unit floor spaces again with the proposed planning use class or range of possible planning use classes for each unit if these are yet to be confirmed. The D&A statement states that for the new configured units, 77 car parking spaces will be required. I have independently calculated the car parking requirement at 80 spaces. This calculation is based on the most intensive requirement for the proposed use options given in the D&A statement and as a result the required parking space requirements could be reduced once the specific uses have been determined. The car park at
(29) the Local Centre is pubic highway and land owned by this authority. It consists of 90 car parking spaces that serve a variety of uses as do all local centre car parks in Milton Keynes. I therefore agree that the existing car park provision is more than adequate to serve the proposed development and as stated by the applicant, the peaks of use for the various retail outlets don’t all coincide with each other and this provides for an economic use of the available spaces.
Access It is clear that a rigid bodied HGV could still deliver to the various stores but this would likely have to unloaded from a Noted position achieved by reversing into the service yard from the public highway or perhaps approaching the service yard in forward gear with goods being taken into the various premises by trolley. The access to the service yard is public highway and I therefore need to see how delivery vehicles will access the yard.
I have had sight of tracking drawings that show an 11m long rigid vehicle can by reverse gear, access the small service yard at the local centre. Whilst the drawing shows that the manoeuvre is tight it can be performed but may not be possible in one single manoeuvre. The tracking drawings also show that the manoeuvre can be made without the need to encroach into the car parking spaces on the opposite side of the car park access road.
There is no evidence that an articulated HGV will be used to service the proposed development but to ensure that if See para 5.8 required this can be done I propose that a condition be
(30) imposed on any planning consent for tracking details of articulated vehicles compatible with deliveries to the proposed development be submitted and approved by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of any part of the development.
Additionally I recommend that a condition be imposed for the submission of a service delivery plan for approval by the See para 5.8 local planning authority prior to occupation of the proposed development.
On the basis of the inclusion of the above conditions I have no objection to planning permission being granted. Noted.
Senior Landscape Architect
No objections Noted. Ward - Linford South - Cllr Brackenbury
There is much about the application that is welcome, in particular the plans for a larger anchor store and to reduce Noted. the number of stores which have 'hidden' entrances from the car park. There is no doubt that Willen Local Centre is long overdue a refresh and the ambition here is welcome; I would not want the developers - who have been kind enough to meet with me to talk through their plans - to think improvements to the local centre are unwelcome in principle.
However I feel the proposed anchor store is too large for both the community it is serving and for the facility itself. Noted. See para 5.4. The Service yard that is being reduced
(31) The application is to reduce the area of the service yard, in size would not serve the largest retail unit. which will form part of the new anchor store. This space is already tight; a lorry reversing in has little room for error, and the spaces to the side are used for trolley storage with little to spare. With such a large store, there will be additional deliveries, and further need for storage. Yet there will be no increase in service space, instead a reduction! Willen Local Centre is simply not designed to cope with such an increase in service requirement and the planning application does not address this issue. I believe there are safety issues with deliveries, and I believe that public-facing areas would end up being used for storage of trolleys and waste etc. with an impact on environmental health and the overall impact of the local centre.
Such a large store would require additional refrigeration capacity. There's no indication of where this would go. On Any refrigeration equipment located outside the proposed the roof is one option, however another would be in the building would require planning permission. It would be service area; if this was the chosen approach the space for appropriate to consider the impact of such equipment at that storage would reduce further. time.
I'm also concerned that the size of the store will require an increased number of lorry deliveries; potentially several Noted. See para 5.7 daily. As there is no capacity for queuing other than the main public car park, any simultaneous deliveries will block the car park for people visiting the local centre. This is a particular concern at the start and end of the school day given the proximity of Willen Primary School. If the committee are minded to approve the application, I'd be grateful if a condition on the hours of delivery could be considered to minimise this risk.
(32) I would withdraw my objection if the reduction in the area of the service yard was taken out with a consequent reduction Noted. The public car park is separate from the parking area in the size of the anchor store, although the concerns over serving the school although it is likely that some overflow parking and deliveries would still be there and I'd hope an parking from the school does use the public car park. arrangement could be made to support safety measures However, the current application could not be required to around Willen Primary School. respond to an issue that affectively arises from a parking problem associated with another site. It's no secret that there is a lot of public unrest about the application due to the size of the anchor store being pivotal Noted. for the continuation of the post office, and outreach services to Oaktree Court and Lovat Fields Village. While these are not valid planning considerations, it's hopefully useful for the committee to appreciate the motivations for the genuine planning issues above.
As before I'd like this to come to committee, and members of the committee may wish to undertake a site visit to determine how salient these concerns are in practice.
Requested that the item be heard at Committee
Parish - Campbell Park
Welcome the proposals to modernise the local centre but grave concerns that the reduction in the size of the service Noted. See para 5.4. The Service yard that is being reduced yard would be too small to serve the proposed larger store. in size would not serve the largest retail unit.
The current access to the service yard is already awkward and the increased level of delivery vehicles would cause Noted. See para 5.7 severe inconvenience.
If the Council is mindful to grant permission the following
(33) conditions should be imposed: Noted.
Restrict hours of delivery by artic lorries to outside school drop off and collection hours and a raised bus stop should Noted. See para 5.8. No justification has been provided for be installed as part of Section 106 funding. either the proposed condition or the raised bus stop and it is not considered that either would be appropriate. Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application: Flat At 12 Granville Square Willen 2-11 (consec) Granville Square Willen Willen Village Surgery Beaufort Drive Willen
Objections have been received from 4 local residents and one person employed at the Local Centre. Their grounds for objection include:
1. Lack of car parking spaces suitable for use by See para A2.1-2 disabled people. 2. Poor access to shops for disabled people. See para A2.3-4 3. Danger from large vehicles manoeuvring in car park. See para 5.7-9 4. Inadequate size of Service Yard to serve the See para 5.4 proposed units. 5. Inadequate provision for the storage of delivery This would be no different to the current situation. trolleys. 6. Inadequate provision for refuse bins. This would be no different to the current situation. 7. No provision for refrigeration units. Additional external equipment would require pp 8. Loss of Post Office Not a material planning consideration 9. Inadequate car parking See 5.5-6 10. Change in operators of convenience store Not a material planning consideration.
In addition a petition has been received objecting on the Noted.
(34) grounds of the reduction in size of one of the service yards and the increase in size of the convenience store. The petition contains 485 signatures – mainly from local residents.
An objection has been received from the owners of Oaktree Noted. Neither of these are material planning considerations Court. The grounds of the objection are the potential loss of in relation to the current application. the post office and the replacement of the existing occupier of the convenience store.
An objection has been received from Willen Combined See para 5.5-9. School on the grounds that the larger store would attract more customers, increasing traffic movements to the detriment of the safety of children at the school and reducing the amount of parking available for school use.
(35)
APP 02
Application Number: 13/02321/FUL Other
Change of use from dwelling to a House in Multiple Occupation
AT 7 Fortescue Drive, Shenley Church End, Milton Keynes
FOR Derek Cahusac de Caux
Target: 30th December 2013
Ward: Loughton Park Parish: Shenley Church End Parish Council
Report Author/Case Officer: Alex Harrison Contact Details: 01908 252608 [email protected]
Team Leader: Andrew Horner Contact Details: 01908 252609 [email protected]
1.0 INTRODUCTION (A brief explanation of what the application is about)
1.1 The Site The application site is a detached dwelling located at the eastern extent of Shenley Church End. Access to the property is gained through a shared driveway with one other dwelling, 9 Fortescue Drive. Details of the location of the site and its relationship to surrounding properties can be seen in the plans attached to this report.
1.2 The Proposal Planning permission is sought to change the use of the building to a House in Multiple Occupation providing 10 bedrooms. It is currently a 6 bedroom single family dwelling. Amended plans were submitted showing a revised parking layout accommodating 7 car parking spaces. Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.
2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application)
2.1 National Policy National Planning Policy Framework 2012
2.2 Local Policy Core Strategy Policy CS 13: Ensuring High Quality, Well Designed Places”.
Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011
(36) D1: Impact of Proposals on Locality T15: Parking Provision H10: Subdivision of dwellings and houses in multiple occupation
Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPD) Houses in Multiple Occupation Adopted April 2012 Addendum to 'Parking Standards for Milton Keynes' 2005 April 2009.
3.0 MAIN ISSUES (The issues which have the greatest bearing on the decision)
3.1 1. The principle of development: Planning policies allow for the use of homes as Houses in Multiple Occupation subject to compliance with relevant policy.
2. The extent of weighting that can be applied to the Council’s SPD Houses in Multiple Occupation Adopted April 2012: The proposal for a 10 bed HiMO falls outside the scope of the SPD which covers C4 use class HiMOs but its principles can be applied in considering its impact with the assessment following from this.
3. Impact on the character of the area. The change of use will materially alter the character of the area resulting in a significant intensification of activity in the area which is over and above what should be expected on a residential plot in an area such as this. The proposal therefore harms the character of the area to its detriment.
4. Impact on neighbouring amenity. The change of use would likely result in increased noise from the intensification of activity on the site. However as the building is detached it is considered that it is difficult to justify demonstrable harm to amenity as a result of this.
5. Impact on parking and the highway: The curtilage of the property is large enough to provide sufficient on-plot parking however the intensification of use of a substandard access would be detrimental to highway safety and convenience and should therefore be refused.
4.0 RECOMMENDATION (The decision that officers recommend to the Committee)
4.1 It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out at the end of this report.
5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have lead to the officer Recommendation)
5.1 Principle of Development Saved Local Plan policy allows for the subdivision of properties into flats and for the establishment of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HiMOs). Development is acceptable subject to compliance with a number of criterion within this policy relating to character, parking and amenity impacts. The
(37) Council also has a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Houses in Multiple Occupation adopted April 2012 which advises policy H10. The policy and SPD is borough wide and therefore development can be considered acceptable in principle subject to compliance with these. Other, less subject- specific local plan polices, as listed in Para 2.2, can also be applied to cases where relevant as part of the consideration into the principle of development.
5.2 Weighting against the HiMO Supplementary Planning Document. The SPD was adopted in April 2012 as guidance for the Council’s approach to determining planning applications for these changes of use. The SPD differentiates different ‘classifications’ of HiMOs stating:
2.8 The amendments to the Use Classes Order essentially mean that for planning purposes a HiMO can now be defined in two ways:
Use Class C4 HiMO: a property which is occupied by 3-6 unrelated individuals, who share one or more basic amenities.
- unrelated - means that the occupants do not have a relationship by blood, marriage or co-habitation. - basic amenities means cooking facilities (such as kitchens), personal washing facilities (such as bathrooms) and toilets.
Larger HiMOs: Properties occupied by more than six people would not sit in Use Class C4 and may therefore be Sui Generis (in a class of its own), for which any change of use requires planning permission. It must be noted that a property does not automatically become a Sui Generis use just because it has more than six occupants. A change of use has to be “material” and it is possible that individual circumstances may mean that a HiMO with, for example, seven people could be assessed as not being materially different from a six person HiMO. In which case, a material change of use has not occurred and planning permission would not be required.
5.3 This application therefore does not propose a HiMO as set out in use class C4 as it would have more than 6 occupants and is therefore a sui generis use. The HiMO considerations in the document, such as parking, give the appearance of focusing on the C4 HiMO class. However the document can quite clearly be applied to the sui generis type of HiMO. Therefore the SPD is a policy consideration with this application and the principles set out in the document can be given full weight
5.4 Character Impact. The SPD sets out a calculation to ascertain the extent of HiMO concentration in any given area with an adopted limit of 35% being acceptable in a 100m buffer zone from the application property. There are no known HiMOs within the buffer zone from the property and, while the centre point of the buffer zone is discretionary, the density of the areas is such that there are three properties within it. In accordance with the SPD the concentration level is calculated at 33% which is within the accepted limit. As this is below the 35%
(38) given in the SPD, it is considered that the proposed HiMO would not lead to an over-concentration of HiMOs to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area and is acceptable in light of the SPD.
5.5 However there are concerns over the impact on the character of the area resulting from the extent of intensification of use of the site. The change from a single family dwelling to a 10 bed HiMO will see a significant increase not only in the number of occupiers but also an increase in the independent activity of each. The intensification of use will be evident through the everyday comings and goings from that property which would include footfall, noise and vehicle activity. It is not to say that any of these individual issues will warrant a justifiable reason for refusal but it is considered that the high level of bedrooms provided in this HiMO in what is a low density residential area will materially alter the established character to its detriment.
5.6 The proposal is therefore considered to result in an intensification of residential use at the site which is considered to be out of character with the area to its detriment. The application is therefore recommended to be refused on this ground.
5.7 Impact on neighbouring amenity. The application building is detached and within a reasonably large curtilage. As a result there are no issues to consider regarding noise carrying through party walls. Internally noise insulation measures could be conditioned if the proposal were to be considered acceptable. Outside noise would increase as a result of the intensification of use at the site resultant from the potential numbers of residents that could occupy the building and associated vehicle movements. The increase is noted but it is considered that while intensified, it would not increase noise levels to such a degree that it would be considered to harm the amenity of neighbouring residents detrimentally.
5.8 The change of use would not result in any physical alterations or extension to the building which means there would be no concerns regarding any loss of light issues or overlooking impacts. As a result there is not considered to be any harm to the amenity of neighbouring residents.
5.9 Parking and the Highway The proposal was subject to amended plans following initial Officer concerns over the parking layout as originally submitted. The amended plans show provision being made for 7 spaces on the site. The Parking Standards and the HiMO SPD do not specify a required number of spaces for a 10 bedroom HiMO. It is noted that the HiMO SPD states that for a 7 bed HiMO in this location 5 spaces are required. The Engineer has noted that there is capacity with the current layout to provide 8 spaces (with the removal of the gaps between spaces 3-7) and has raised no objection as a result. As the SPD does not require one space per room for a 7 bed HiMO it is considered a reasonable approach to have a lesser requirement for a 10 bed. 8 spaces is therefore considered to be acceptable and it is noted that the site is of such a size that further spaces could be achieved if required and this could be covered by condition should the proposal have been considered acceptable in
(39) all other respects. This could include any required visitor spaces as well. As a result there would be no harm on the grounds of parking as a result of this scheme.
5.10 Objections received from neighbouring residents refer to parking numbers being between 20 and 24 spaces. These figures are formed on the assumption that there would be two residents per room, each with a car and then 4 staff maintaining the property. Parking standards relating to HiMOs were formed on the basis of single occupancy of rooms and do not contain a requirement for staff parking.
5.11 With regard to the access, there is a clear intensification of use of an access that currently serves two single family dwellings. The width of the access is less than required to allow two vehicles to pass and the Engineer has raised concerns regarding the intensification of the use of the access and conflicts that could occur with other users of the access/bridleway. It is likely that the original creation of the access was not done so with the proposed level of usage in mind. The inability for two vehicles to pass will potentially result in vehicles having to reverse onto Fortescue Drive. There would also be safety concerns with the intensified vehicle numbers and conflicts with pedestrians/horse riders on this part of the bridleway.
5.12 As a result it is considered that there would be harm through the intensification of access which will be to the detriment of highway safety and convenience of both vehicle users and users of the bridleway and it is recommended that the application is refused on this ground.
5.13 With regards to visibility, the concerns of the Engineer are noted however it appears that the areas of landscaping required to create suitable pedestrian visibility splays are in the ownership of the Council and could be maintained to ensure visibility is given. As a result there is no objection raised on this ground.
6.0 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.)
1. The proposed development, by virtue of the intensification of residential use, would result in activity and occupancy at the site which is beyond levels that would reflect the character of the area to its detriment. As a result the proposed development is considered to harm the character of the area and is contrary to policies D1 and H10 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 - 2011.
2. The proposed development will result in the intensification of use of an existing shared access/bridleway to an unacceptable extent. The development would result in users of the access having to reverse out onto the public highway and will create conflicts with other uses of the bridleway to the detriment of highway safety and convenience. As a result the development is contrary to policies D1 and H10 of the Milton Keynes Local
(40)
Plan 2001 - 2011
(41)
(42)
(43) (44) Appendix to 13/02321/FUL
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 None
A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS
(Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)
A2.1 Policy H10 of the Local Plan requires that HiMOs are provided with adequate outdoor space for bin storage. The SPD specifies that an area of 15 sqm should be provided for drying and bin storage. The SPD does not give an indication of the appropriate size for the bin store, but requires that it should provide storage for:
1 black sack per bedroom 1 pink recycling sack per bedroom 1 blue recycling box per 3 bedrooms 1 x 240 litre green bin for food & garden waste per 6 bedrooms
The SPD also requires that bin stores should be secure, unobtrusive and accessible from the road. It is considered that there is adequate space in the rear garden to conform to these requirements.
A.2.2 Cycle storage is required at a level of 1 space per bedroom. Spaces are proposed within the garage on site and this is also considered to be acceptable. .
A.2.3 Objection has been received referring to the need to control the number of occupants. This cannot be done through the planning system, to the same extent that it cannot control the number of people in a single family or the quality of accommodation provided in any home or HMO.
(45)
A3.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS (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
A3.1 Parish - Shenley Church End The plan suggests sufficient parking for 7 vehicles but it is Noted. Paras 5.9-5.10 and 5.12 refer. not clear if there will be enough space to access the parking bays 1-4 if bay 5 is occupied as the plan is not to scale. The property is being considered as 10 bedroom which could if all rooms were shared have 20 vehicles needing to park. There is no provision for additional parking and for tenants to utilise the lane and Fortescue Drive would not be acceptable to that level
A3.2 What additional health and safety features are to be Health and safety features are dealt with as part of the included such as fire doors, fire alarms (hard wired) and licencing process. carbon monoxide alarms.
A3.3 The space being allocated for bin storage does not seem to The plan shows bin storage provided. Although the size be large enough for the number of people. Again the plan is indicated is questioned it is clear that the large curtilage of not to scale so this is hard to judge. How large will the the site will allow for sufficient space. drying area be? What facilities are being provided for cooking and laundry?
A3.4 The shared space seems small in comparison to the Noted. number of rooms and people that could reside in the property The documents also state that noise is to be minimised between 10:00 and 19:00. This is not acceptable as the suggestion is that noise at night and in the early
(46) hours of the morning can be at any level the residents may choose.
A3.5 This shows no regard for the surrounding properties. The Noted. Paras 5.6-5.8 refer. introduction of a HiMO in this area will not be in keeping with the surrounding properties. Contrary to the comments there are other licensed HiMOs in Shenley Church End but they are not along this street. As always, the views of neighbours must be taken into consideration before any final decision is made
A3.6 Following the submission of amended plans Whilst the revised parking seems more acceptable the Noted. Paras 5.9-5.10 and 5.12 refer. Parish Councils concerns remain the same that there will not be sufficient parking for the potential number of occupants. The applicant’s suggestion that the garage spaces could be used ins not acceptable as garages do not count towards parking spaces.
A3.7 The applicant does state that they would not want 20 people Noted. Para A2.3 refers. living in the property but it is a genuine concern that this could easily happen and this would increase the number of vehicles at the property. What will be put in place to ensure no more than 10 people and 10 vehicles are residing at the address at any time? There will be 3 cars that have to park elsewhere, if only 10 vehicles are at the address and this will increase with any visitors resulting in traffic problems on Fortescue Drive which is already a busy road.
A3.8 Ward - Loughton Park - Cllr Dransfield Requested the application be discussed by Members if Noted. recommended either for approval or refusal.
(47)
A3.9 Ward - Loughton Park - Cllr Hoyle Requested that the application be discussed at a Committee Noted. Cllr Hoyle was advised that the scale of development meeting rather than a Panel meeting. was appropriate for a Panel meeting.
A3.10 Ward - Loughton Park - Cllr Jury Requested a Members Site Inspection is held. Noted.
A3.11 HIMO - Private Sector Housing No licence application made. Property is not licensable Noted under the current system.
A3.12 Highways Development Control Access The existing access via the adopted highway is to remain Noted. Para 5.11 refers. unchanged under the proposals. The proposal increases the number of vehicles using this bridleway as a consequence of the increase in number of residents and associated car parking.
A3.13 The proposal will attract an increase in visitors to the site Noted. Para 5.11 refers. and these will either drive along the bridleway to the parking area within the plot or park on -street close to the existing bend in Fortescue Drive . I am concerned that the increased vehicle activity of the HiMO which has several independent residents rather than being a family dwelling is in conflict with the other users of the bridleway such as horse riders and walkers.
A3.14 The bridleway and highway land is extensively planted Noted. Para 5.11 refers. alongside the main surface area with high shrubs and trees which restricts forward visibility for drivers on the bridleway
(48) towards the Redway on Fortescue Drive and an increase in vehicles using this could be unsafe.
A3.15 The bridleway crosses the Redway alongside Fortescue Noted. Para 5.11 refers. Drive and the current layout is not to the standard required for an increase in vehicles accessing Fortescue Drive from the proposed development site. The Redway is a well used route for pedestrians and cyclists to Glastonbury Thorn School and the Denbigh Local Centre.
A3.16 The bridleway is used by horse riders and the intensification Noted. Para 5.11 refers. of traffic on the section to the dwellings where the driveway is narrow is a possible safety issue since horses cannot turn in such a narrow driveway. The horse riders would be faced with cars entering the driveway and nowhere to go. This would result in cars reversing over the Redway to Fortescue Drive which would be unsafe.
A3.17 Visibility. The visibility from the bridleway to Fortescue Drive is Noted. Para 5.13 refers. substandard and to achieve the minimum for safety for users of the Redway and the Bridleway.
A3.18 The existing bridleway has substandard visibility for the Noted. Para 5.13 refers. crossing of the Redway and any intensification of traffic using the Bridleway would require additional maintenance of the landscaping areas to ensure the minimum visibility for the highway users is provided.
A3.19 Parking The existing 6 bedroom dwelling is in Zone 3 for the Milton Noted. Paras 5.9-5.10 and 5.12 refer. Keynes Parking Standards and requires a minimum 2 on-
(49) plot spaces with 1 space for visitors as on- street unallocated parking.
A3.20 The proposal is for a 10 bedroom HiMO in Zone B. HiMOs Noted. Paras 5.9-5.10 and 5.12 refer. with more than 7x bedrooms are considered on a Sui Generis basis for the provision of parking and a 7x bedroom HiMO for example requires 5 on- plot allocated spaces . On a pro rata basis this would mean that the proposal requires 8 spaces (rounded up).
A3.21 The revised plan submitted shows that the applicant can Noted. Paras 5.9-5.10 and 5.12 refer. provide 6 spaces in the main parking area at the rear of the dwelling using a 2.5x 5m standard parking bay with 0.5m between the fences/hedges and the rear of the garage block. The New Residential Development Design Guide and the supplementary information produced for the standard parking spaces layout must be used for the parking area. A further 2 x spaces are shown in front of the garages and the main dwelling.
A3.22 The garages are not included in the overall parking Garages do not form parking spaces in accordance with the provision although if parking space 2 is not used the parking standards and therefore are not counted. garages could be used for parking which would result in the provision of 9 parking bays/spaces.
A3.23 Overall from the information provided it would be possible to Noted. Paras 5.9-5.10 and 5.12 refer. park the minimum of 8 vehicles on the plot in marked out bays in accordance with the HiMO standard. The provision of visitor parking on the plot is not required in the MK Parking Standards for HiMOs although in this case the plot has some areas that could be used for occasional visitor parking.
(50)
A3.24 Visitor parking on Fortescue Drive could be accommodated Noted. since there are no waiting restrictions on the highway; however visitor parking on the bridleway would cause an obstruction for access to the other property alongside No 7, Fortescue Drive.
A3.25 Powered 2 Wheelers The parking area has adequate turning space for the Noted. vehicles. It may also be possible to park a powered 2 wheeler in any space remaining on the plot.
A3.26 Cycle Parking The proposal shows 10 cycle storage within the existing Noted. Para A2.2 refers garage which is acceptable
A3.27 Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application: 1, 3, 5 and 7 Selby Grove Shenley Church End 2, 4 and 9 Fortescue Drive Shenley Church End 1 Hedges Court Shenley Church End
12 Letters of objection have been received raising the following summarised planning issues:
A3.28 Increased noise levels in what is a quiet residential Noted. Paras 5.7-5.8 refer area from residents and vehicles.
A3.29 Not enough parking proposed leading to parking on Noted. Paras 5.9-5.10 and 5.12 refer. Fortescue drive which will lead to safety issues for children and congestion.
(51)
A3.30 Estate developed for family homes. A HiMO would Noted. Paras 5.4-5.6 refer. attract a ‘transient’ type of resident and alter the character of the area.
A3.31 Access does not allow two cars to pass and is not Noted. Para 5.11 refers. suitable for the increased number of vehicles.
A3.32 Increased littering in the area. Noted. Bins are provided and addressed in para A2.2
A3.33 Property and gardens would be poorly maintained The applicant has stated that a management company will maintain the property.
A3.34 HiMO would increase safety and security concerns This consideration is given little wright as there is considered due to the type of residents. an unreasonable assumption to stereo type a particular occupier to a type of accommodation. It is considered that here would be no increased issue by default in this regard.
A3.35 Questions over whether the sewerage would be able The applicant would be obliged to ensure sewerage capacity to cope with the proposed change of use. is acceptable and such matters are the responsibility of the water authority.
A3.36 Concerns that a business could be run from the Permission is not sought for a business and such a change property. would be outside the extent of what is applied for here. It is not being considered as part of this proposal.
(52)
APP 03
Application Number: 13/02116/FUL Minor
Demolition of redundant agricultural buildings and erection of single storey dwelling and detached garage.
AT Site East of No 3, Main Road, Astwood
FOR Mr And Mrs Demmon
Target: 29th November 2013
Ward: Sherington Parish: Astwood & Hardmead Parish Council
Report Author/Case Officer: Katy Lycett Contact Details: 01908 252313 [email protected]
Team Leader: Alex Harrison Contact Details: 01908 252608 [email protected]
1.0 INTRODUCTION (A brief explanation of what the application is about)
1.1 The Site The application site is a parcel of land accessed via Main Road in Astwood adjacent to Silver Trees and adjoining rear property boundaries of numbers 3 to 3 to 17 (odds) Main Road. The existing access to the site is opposite the entrance to the car park for The Old Swan Public House and the site is within designated Open Countryside and falls outside, but adjacent to the settlement boundary. The site currently has a variety of redundant farm outbuildings including piggeries, livestock buildings and workshops. Details of the location of the site and its relationship to surrounding properties can be seen in the plans attached to this report.
1.2 The Proposal The proposal seeks consent for the redevelopment of the site which includes the demolition of some of the buildings on site and erection of new detached residential dwelling on the footprint of some of the smaller out-buildings. The existing buildings which are to removed cumulatively measure approximately 800 square metres in area.
1.3 The proposed dwelling forms a ‘U’ shaped layout with a courtyard and two bedrooms and associated living accommodation at ground floor level. The dwelling has a maximum ridge height of 3.9 metres with some ridges at a lower level. Proposed materials include cladding, facing brick and large areas of glazing with two free standing privacy screens. The proposal also includes a detached garage at the rear of the site with vehicle access via a loose gravel
(53) driveway leading from Main Road. The site also has a large area for vehicle parking and manoeuvring in addition to this. Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.
2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application)
2.1 National Policy National Planning Policy Framework paragraph: 7 – Requiring Good Design 14 - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development 17 – High Quality Design 55 – Housing in the Open Countryside 64 – Impact of Character and Appearance of the Area
2.2 Local Policy
Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 D1 – Impact of Development Proposals on Locality D2 – Design of Buildings T15 – Parking Provision S10 – Development in the Open Countryside E5 – Re-Use of Rural Buildings
Supplementary Planning Guidance Parking Standards for Milton Keynes 2005 (amended 2009)
3.0 MAIN ISSUES (The issues which have the greatest bearing on the decision)
3.1 1. The principle of development in this location. Under the most relevant Local Plan Policy S10, the site falls outside the established settlement boundary which restricts development unless essential for agriculture or associated rural activities.
2. The impact of the development on the nearby occupiers and the street scene. The proposed dwelling has been carefully designed at single storey only to limit the impact upon the amenity value of nearby occupiers, especially those at Silver Trees.
4.0 RECOMMENDATION (The decision that officers recommend to the Committee)
4.1 It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out at the end of this report.
5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have lead to the officer Recommendation)
5.1 Principle of Development
(54) The NPPF provides specific guidance on dwellings in the Open Countryside. Paragraph 55 that:
To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be sited/ located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.
5.2 For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as:
the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside; or where such development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets; or where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting; or The exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwelling.
5.3 Such a design should:
– be truly outstanding or innovative, helping to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas; – reflect the highest standards in architecture; – significantly enhance its immediate setting; and – be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.
On this basis, the proposed dwelling would not be in accordance with guidance as set out in the NPPF under Paragraph 55.
5.4 Under the relevant criteria of Policy S10 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 development is restricted unless essential for agriculture, forestry, countryside recreation or other development which is wholly appropriate to a rural area and cannot be located within a settlement. On this basis, the proposed redevelopment of the site, including the creation of a new dwelling would fail to meet the essential criteria of Policy S10 in this instance.
5.5 It is acknowledged that the dwelling has been designed carefully to represent agricultural buildings in terms of scale and materials and the buildings to be removed have little architectural or historic value. However the principle of a new dwelling in this location cannot be supported by the Local Planning Authority.
5.6 Under the guidance associated with Policy E5 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 the proposal would not be supported as the residential development does not form part of an employment re-use.
5.7 Impact Upon Nearby Properties and Occupiers
(55) The proposed development has been designed with a scale and design reminiscent of agricultural outbuildings and the ridge heights and proposed materials have been carefully chosen to produce a structure which is not visually prominent from Main Road.
5.8 The most significant impact of the development would be to the occupiers of Silver Trees, a large detached dwelling adjacent to the application site. The design of the proposed property has limited openings along the nearest elevation to this dwelling and it is expected that only a limited impact will be encountered by the occupiers. In addition a new hedge and fence is proposed along this boundary to add additional landscaping and privacy.
5.9 The dwellings along Main Road (numbers 3 to 17 odds) which adjoin the site boundary are not expected to encounter significant disturbance or loss of amenity value as a result of the proposed works. The scale of the dwelling is of a similar extent to the existing farm buildings on site and as a result the new property is not expected to generate a significant impact to these nearby occupiers.
5.10 Parking and Access The proposed dwelling would utilise an existing vehicle access from Main Road and the site widens to provide more than adequate turning and parking areas for vehicles.
5.11 Previous Appeals The history of this site is extensive with several applications for residential development which have been unsupported by the Local Planning Authority on the basis of the proposals being contrary to relevant Local Plan Policies. This most recent submission remains unacceptable in principle although it is accepted that the scheme itself is less visually intrusive than previous applications.
6.0 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, by virtue of its location outside the settlement boundary would be an unacceptable, unsustainable and intrusive development in the open countryside detrimental to the rural appearance and character of the area and the objectives of the development plan and NPPF to guide development in a sustainable manner. The proposal is therefore contrary to the requirements of Policy S10 (Open Countryside) of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 and the advice in the National Planning Policy Framework.
(56)
(57) (58) (59) (60) (61)
Appendix to 13/02116/FUL
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 08/01623/FUL Erection of detached house and garage. Application Refused Appeal Dismissed
09/00667/FUL Erection of detached house and garage (Resubmission Of 08/01623/FUL) Application Refused Appeal Dismissed
11/00800/FUL Change of use of agricultural barns to B1 (office) use and B8 use with new vehicle and pedestrian access, internal and external changes including demolition of 4 buildings or part thereof Application Refused
A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS
(Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)
A2.1 None.
(62)
A3.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS (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
A3.1 Astwood & Hardmead Parish Council Objected to the application on the grounds that the Noted. development is outside the village ‘envelope’.
A3.2 Cllr Mclean Requested that the application be considered at a Panel Noted. meeting.
A3.3 Environmental Health Officer Commented that prior to the commencement of any Noted. development on site an assessment of grounds conditions be carried out.
A3.4 Senior Landscape Architect The proposed development is shown within an area of open Noted. countryside as identified within the council’s adopted Local Plan. If the application proposals are permitted, and then appropriate landscaping to address the immediate & wider landscape context must be conditioned.
A3.5 Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the Noted. application:
Village Hall Main Road Astwood
(63) 5 to 15 (odds) Main Road Astwood Newport Pagnell
A3.6 Representations were received from two properties within Noted. Astwood. This is in addition to a submission from the applicant with a sheet of signatures from residents whom are in support of the proposal.
A3.7 One letter was received in support of the application raising Noted. the following issues:
A3.8 - Permission has already been granted for an Noted. office/commercial redevelopment of the site and a residential property in this location is not deemed to be more significant.
A3.9 - Refusal at this stage could lead to a many more Any future applications would be assessed on their own applications in the future for larger proposals. merits at the time of submission.
A3.10 One letter was received objecting to the application and Noted. raising the following issues:
A3.8 - Placing pressure on villagers to sign a petition. Noted however this is not a relevant planning consideration. Knocking on doors and not leaving until they sign for something they do not have all of the facts and information.
A3.9 - Providing limited information and old pictures. Noted however this is not a relevant planning consideration.
A3.10 - Not informing residents of the village that this Noted. property is on open countryside which will set a precedent.
(64) A3.11 The submission of signatures has twenty two residents in Noted. support of the application for the redevelopment of the site.
(65)
APP 04
Application Number: 13/02312/FUL Minor
Demolition of redundant outbuildings and the erection of a code 6 Eco dwelling in garden land (re-submission 13/01584/FUL)
AT 6 Prospect Place, Newport Road, Emberton
FOR Mr B Soul
Target: 26th December 2013
Ward: Sherington Parish: Emberton Parish Council
Report Author/Case Officer: Katy Lycett Contact Details: 01908 252313 [email protected]
Team Leader: Alex Harrison Contact Details: 01908 252608 [email protected]
1.0 INTRODUCTION (A brief explanation of what the application is about)
1.1 The Site The application site is land associated and adjacent to 6 Prospect Place in Emberton. The site sits within the Open Countryside and forms part of a small run of Victorian terraced properties facing directly onto the highway. There are existing redundant outbuildings on the site which are to be removed from the plot which has a size of approximately 4000 square meters. Details of the location of the site and its relationship to surrounding properties can be seen in the plans attached to this report.
1.2 The Proposal The proposal seeks consent for the erection of a new detached dwelling on the site to create a four bedroom two storey dwelling. Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.
2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application)
2.1 National Policy National Planning Policy Framework 7 – Requiring Good Design 14 - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development 17 – High Quality Design 55 – Housing in the Open Countryside 64 – Impact of Character and Appearance of the Area
(66) 2.2 Local Policy
Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 D1 – Impact of Development Proposals on Locality D2 – Design of Buildings D2A – Urban Design Aspect of New Development T15 – Parking Provision H7 – Housing on Unidentified Sites S10 – Development in the Open Countryside E5 – Re-Use of Rural Buildings
3.0 MAIN ISSUES (The issues which have the greatest bearing on the decision)
3.1 1. The Principle of Development. In this rural location residential development is resisted under Paragraph 55 of the NPPF 2012 and Policy S10 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 making housing development unacceptable as matter of principle.
2. Impact on the Local Area and Nearby Occupiers. The introduction of a new dwelling in this location will erode the Open Countryside to the detriment of the rural setting and established settlement boundary.
4.0 RECOMMENDATION (The decision that officers recommend to the Committee)
4.1 It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out at the end of this report.
5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have lead to the officer Recommendation)
5.1 Principle of Development This proposal is a resubmission of a recently refused application for a similar scheme in the same location. The earlier application is currently being considered at an Appeal and the outcome of this has yet to be published.
5.2 The NPPF provides specific guidance on dwellings in the Open Countryside. Paragraph 55 states that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be sited/located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as:
the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside; or where such development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets; or where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings
(67) and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting; or The exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwelling.
5.3 With reference to the last point, such a design should:
be truly outstanding or innovative, helping to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas; reflect the highest standards in architecture; significantly enhance its immediate setting; and be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.
5.4 In terms of Local Plan policy, S10 relates to development in the Open Countryside. The criterion of this policy restricts any development in designated Open Countryside to be essential for farming, agriculture and countryside recreation and prevents other types of development from eroding rural areas.
5.5 This proposal would create a new dwelling in the Open Countryside which would not be supported by relevant Local Plan policies. It is acknowledged that there is a run of terraced cottages adjacent to the application site; however these are period dwellings which have been situated in this location historically and do not themselves form part of any village confines.
5.6 Under the guidance as set out in the NPPF 2012 is advised that new housing in rural areas should be located where is will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances.
5.7 This application has been assessed on these grounds does not meet any of the prescribed criteria. Although the proposed dwelling has incorporated several elements to make the property energy efficient these measures are not sufficient to warrant the dwelling being ‘exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design’. It can be said that such energy efficient aspects are becoming more and more common place in new housing developments which would, by nature of the term, erode its innovation when applying it to paragraph 55.
5.8 The nearest dwelling, 6 Prospect Place is the property most likely to be affected by the development however openings facing the closest elevation are limited. There is expected to be a very minimal impact in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy to this property and other dwellings beyond.
5.9 The proposal includes sufficient parking and manoeuvring space for vehicles and will utilise an existing access.
5.10 Overall it is considered that this proposal would fail to meet the necessary criteria as set out in the Local Plan or the NPPF and as a result would not appropriate in this rural location. The location of the new dwelling is not close to any of the village facilities within Emberton and sits in a relatively isolated
(68) location. This would lead to a property which has little or no access to nearby resources which creates a new dwelling that would be better located within an existing settlement.
6.0 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, by virtue of its location outside the settlement boundary would be an unacceptable, unsustainable and intrusive development in the open countryside detrimental to the rural appearance and character of the area and the objectives of the development plan and NPPF to guide development in a sustainable manner. The proposal is therefore contrary to the requirements of Policy S10 (Open Countryside) of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 and the advice in the National Planning Policy Framework.
(69) (70) Appendix to 13/02312/FUL
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 13/00163/OUT Outline application for a detached two storey dwelling REF 30.04.2013
13/01584/FUL Erection of one new detached dwelling REF 26.09.2013
A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS
(Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)
A2.1 None.
(71)
A3.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS (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
A3.1 Emberton Parish Council Raised an objection to the application on the grounds that Noted. the development is outside the village boundary.
A3.2 Cllr Burke Noted. Requested that a Panel Site Inspection was carried out prior to the application being considered at DC Panel. A3.3 Development Management Highways Visibility is acceptable because of the wide grass verge in Noted and see paragraph 5.1 to 5.8 front of the dwelling and the low volumes and speeds of traffic on the highway. The proposed dwelling is in Zone 4 for the Milton Keynes Parking Standards and the proposal shows that the minimum 3 parking spaces can be accommodated on the plot. Visitor parking on the street is acceptable on this cul-de-sac.
A3.4 Milton Keynes Council Urban Design Officer Such a design should: Noted and see paragraph 5.1 to 5.8
be truly outstanding or innovative, helping to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas; reflect the highest standards in architecture; significantly enhance its immediate setting; and Be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the
(72) local area.’
The proposed building is certainly not visually outstanding or innovative. As a result I cannot support this application.
A3.5 Landscape Architect commented Noted and see paragraph 5.1 to 5.8
The proposed parking area located against the south elevation will conflict & result in some removal of the existing mixed species native hedge, which provides a strong boundary to the site & adjacent agricultural field. A public footpath runs adjacent to the hedge, so the hedge provides appropriate separation between the dwelling & footpath. The site topographical survey drawing shows the extent of the hedge & I request the hedge remains untouched & no construction takes place within 1.5m of the hedge extremity.
A3.6 Environmental Health Officer Noted. Commented that prior to the commencement of any development on site an assessment of ground conditions shall be carried out.
A3.7 Local Residents Noted. The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application:
1 to 5 Prospect Place Newport Road Emberton
No representations received.
(73) APP 05
Application Number: 13/02306/MMAM Minor Minor material amendments to planning permission 11/01777/FUL for revisions to site layout; revisions to site layout to plots 1, 2 and 3 including roolights, windows and low level plinth; revised house type for plot 4 to be handed version of plot 1; installation of photovoltaic panels.
AT 2 Long Street Road, Hanslope, Milton Keynes
FOR HSW Holdings Ltd
Target: 26th December 2013
Ward: Hanslope Park Parish: Hanslope Parish Council
Report Author/Case Officer: Jeremy Lee Contact Details: 01908 252316 [email protected]
Team Leader: Nicola Wheatcroft Contact Details: 01908 252274 [email protected]
1.0 INTRODUCTION (A brief explanation of what the application is about)
1.1 The Site
The application site is a former bus garage although it has now been cleared of the buildings relating to its former use. There is a lengthy planning history relating to the potential redevelopment of the site for residential use. The site is situated in a predominantly residential area, close to the boundary of the Hanslope Village Conservation Area. Details of the location of the site and its relationship to surrounding properties can be seen in the plans attached to this report.
1.2 The Proposal
The application is for a number of amendments to a scheme granted planning permission in 2012 on Appeal. Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.
2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application)
2.1 National Policy National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs:
14. Presumption in favour of sustainable development 111. Re-using Land Previously Developed.
(74)
2.2 Local Policy
Core Strategy
CS9 – Strategy For The Rural Area CS13 – High Quality Well Designed Places CS20 – The Natural and Historic Environment.
Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011
S7 – Key Settlements H7 – Housing on unidentified sites D1 – Impact of Proposals on Locality D2 – Design of Buildings D2A – Design of New Development HE6 – Conservation Areas T10 – Traffic T15 – Parking Provision.
Supplementary Planning Guidance
Parking Standards For Milton Keynes (2005) Addendum to Parking Standards for Milton Keynes (2009)
3.0 MAIN ISSUES (The issues which have the greatest bearing on the decision)
3.1 1. Would the proposal have a significantly different impact, to the scheme already approved, on the amenities of neighbours? It is considered that the proposal would not have a significant impact on the amenities of neighbours over and above that which would arise from the previously approved development.
3.2 2. Would the proposal have a significantly different impact, to the scheme already approved, upon the appearance of the area? It is considered that whilst the proposal would increase the impact of the proposal upon the street scene, this increase would not be so significant as to warrant refusal of the application.
4.0 RECOMMENDATION (The decision that officers recommend to the Committee)
4.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of this report.
5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have lead to the officer Recommendation)
5.1 In weighing up the appropriateness of dealing with the proposed changes to the existing permission as Minor Material Amendments it is necessary to
(75) consider those changes under two broad headings: Impact upon the amenities of adjoining occupiers and Impact upon the appearance of the area.
5.2 Impact Upon Amenities of Adjoining Occupiers
Revisions to Layout The most significant change proposed to the layout moving plot 1 0.6m north of the position shown in the existing approval bringing it closer to 2a Long Street Road. Whilst this (together with in the increase in height of the house on plot 1) would result in some slight additional shadowing of the garage and driveway of 2a it is not considered that the impact in itself and in particular in relation to that resulting from the existing planning permission would warrant refusal of the current application.
5.3 Revised house type for plot 4 The currently proposed house type would be slightly larger in footprint than that which has already had planning permission. This largely results from a 0.6m wide protrusion set onto the north side of the house (effectively making the house a handed version of the house proposed on plot 1). This would be away from the adjoining property in Long Street Road and would have no appreciable impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties.
5.4 The change in house type would also result in an additional ground floor window facing toward the dwelling at 1 Gold Street. However, this would look only into the flank elevation of the adjoining property and would be screened by the fencing between the properties.
5.5 Increase in size of houses All the proposed houses are larger than those shown in the drawings previously approved. The following tables set out the change in size of the houses between what was proposed and what has been permitted.
Permitted Height at Ridge Height at Eaves Depth Plot 1 8.4m 5m 9.4m Plot 2 8.8m 5m 11.4m Plot 3 8.8m 5m 11.4m Plot 4 8.4m 5m 10m
Proposed Height at Ridge Height at Eaves Depth Plot 1 8.5m 5m 9.5m Plot 2 9.1m 5m 11.4m Plot 3 9.1m 5m 11.4m Plot 4 8.6m 5m 10.1m
5.6 The proposed increase in the height and depth of the houses would have some impact upon the daylight/sunlight reaching adjoining properties – particularly those to the north of the site. On that basis the most significant
(76) relationships are between Plot 1 and the property at 2A Long Street road and Plot 2 and 4 and 6 Eastfield Drive. However, in the first instance there is a distance of more than 4m between the properties and in the second a distance of around 9m. Given the separation between the houses it is not considered that the proposed increase in size of the dwellings would have a detrimental impact upon the amenities of adjoining occupiers.
5.7 Relocation/Additional Roof Lights The proposal would result in one additional roof light on the northern roof plane of plot 1 facing towards 2a Long Street Road and one additional roof light in the southern roof plane of plot 3 facing towards 19 Mauduit Street and 1 Gold Street. However in both case the existing approval already included roof lights in these roof planes and the proposal would not increase the potential for overlooking the adjoining properties.
5.8 It is also considered that given the height of the roof lights, the angle of the roof plane and the relationship between the proposed plots and the adjoining dwellings the roof lights would not enable any significant overlooking of the adjoining properties.
5.9 The proposal includes the insertion of an additional kitchen window in the ground floor, northern elevation of plot 1. This window would face towards 2a Long Street. However, the window would be below the height of the existing boundary fence between the properties and would not significantly overlook the adjoining property.
5.10 Impact Upon the Appearance of the Area
Revisions to Layout The slight change in the position of plot 1 and the access road would have little impact upon the appearance of the development in the street scene.
5.11 Revised house type for plot 4 The proposed revision effectively creates a mirror of the dwelling proposed on plot 1. The revision would not significantly alter the character and appearance of the house in relation to the street scene.
5.12 Increase in size of houses The increase in the height of all the dwellings and the depth of the two front dwellings would increase the visibility of the development as a whole. However, as a proportion of the development as a whole it is not considered that the proposal would significantly alter the impact of the proposal upon the street scene and the area in general.
5.13 Relocation/Additional Roof Lights The proposed changes to the provision of roof lights in the roofs of the proposed dwellings would not result in any roof lights being added to roof planes that did not have roof lights in the previously approved scheme. It is not considered that the changes would have any significant impact upon the appearance of the development as a whole.
(77)
5.14 The Introduction of Solar Panels The solar panels proposed for plot 1 are scattered on different roof planes and so would have little visual impact upon the appearance of the building or the area in general. The solar panels proposed for plot 2 would largely be screened from public view by the dwelling on plot 3. However, the proposal is for large groups of solar panels on plots 3 and 4 and these would be clearly visible from outside the site. In particular the panels on plot 4 would be visible in the street scene looking north from Gold Street.
5.15 It is considered that the solar panels proposed for plot 4 would appear as a significant feature in the street scene. However, if the dwelling were built and occupied the householder could install the proposed solar panels under the General Permitted Development Rights Order without requiring planning permission. On balance it is considered that the proposed solar panels would not have such a significant impact upon the appearance of the street scene that it would justify refusal of the proposal.
5.16 The Conservation Officer has made an objection to the proposal on the grounds of its impact upon the nearby Conservation Area. However, given the existing planning approval for the development of this site it is considered that the proposal is not so different from what has already been approved that a refusal could be justified on that ground.
5.17 Conclusions The proposal is for a number of relatively small changes to the scheme previously approved. Although cumulatively they would have an impact upon the appearance of the development, it is considered that the proposal would not have a significantly different impact upon the amenities of neighbours or the appearance of the area to the scheme previously approved
5.18 It is therefore considered that it is appropriate to consider these changes as a Minor Material Amendment to the approved scheme and it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out below.
6.0 CONDITIONS (The conditions that need to be imposed on any planning permission for this development to ensure that the development is satisfactory. To meet legal requirements all conditions must be Necessary, Relevant, Enforceable, Precise and Reasonable )
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the 25th July 2015.
Reason: To prevent the accumulation of planning permissions; to enable the Local Planning Authority to review the suitability of the development in the light of altered circumstances; and to comply with section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The development herby permitted shall be carried out using Ibstock bricks and Red clay tiles as per the details submitted on 7th August 2013. No development shall take place until samples of all other materials to be used in
(78) the construction of the buildings hereby permitted have been submitted to and been approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the area.
3. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown in drawings 2054/9 and 2054/7D as submitted on 7th August 2013 and the details shown in those drawings shall thereafter be retained in that form.
Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the Conservation Area.
4. No development shall take place until full details of tree planting and soft landscaping works shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall include the location of planting; planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant establishment); schedules of plants noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate; and a timetable for implementation. These works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved timetable. If within 2 years of being planted any tree, plant or shrub is removed, uprooted, destroyed or dies, another tree, plant or shrub of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted in the next planting season and in the same place.
Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the area.
5. The development shall not be occupied until the car parking areas and turning areas shown on Site Plan 2054/6A has been constructed, surfaced and permanently marked out. The car parking and turning areas so provided shall thereafter be retained for the parking and turning of vehicles.
Reason: To ensure that adequate parking and turning facilities are provided to serve future occupiers of the development.
6. No development shall take place until details of the proposed access have been submitted to and been approved in writing by the local planning authority. No part of the development shall be occupied unless and until the access has been fully constructed in accordance with the details approved. The details shall include the closure of the existing access, reinstatement of the footway verge, repositioning of the street lighting column and the system for disposal of surface water drainage.
Reason: In the interests of Highway safety.
7. The development hereby permitted shall not commence until the remedial measures set out in the ground investigation report (12401/GIR) submitted on 7th August 2013 have been implemented in full.
Reason: To safeguard the health of future occupiers.
(79)
8. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling, all windows indicated by the approved drawings to be fitted to that dwelling with obscure glazing must be fitted Pilkington Texture Glass Replacement Range - Stippolyte Glass Privacy Level 5 as shown in the details submitted on 7th August 2013.
Reason: To safeguard the privacy of adjoining occupiers
9. Prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted, the finished floor and ground levels shall be as shown in the approved drawings.
Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the area and the amenities of adjoining occupiers.
10. Prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted the ground surfaces shall be completed in accordance with the details submitted on 7th August 2013.
Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the area.
11. Demolition or construction work shall not take place outside 0800 hours to 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0800 hours to 1300 hours Saturdays nor at any time on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of local residents.
12. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the Construction Method Statement submitted on 7th August 2013.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of local residents.
13. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, wheel cleaning facilities shall be provided on site in accordance with details submitted on 7th August 2013.
Reason: In the interests of Highway safety.
14. Access to and egress from the site during construction work shall not be obtained except to and from Long Street Road.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of Local residents.
15. No overhead lines, wires or cables, whether for the purpose of telephones, electricity, wired television or any other purpose shall be erected on, over or across any part of the application site.
Reason: To protect the amenities of the locality.
(80)
(81)
(82)
(83)
(84)
(85)
(86) (87)
Appendix to 13/02306/MMAM
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 99/00151/MK Demolition of existing bus depot, erection of 3 detached dwellings, two storey rear extension and detached garage to existing house and construction of new vehicular access. Permitted 22.06.1999
04/01829/OUT Demolition of existing buildings and siting of two detached dwellings accessed off long street road and two detached dwellings accessed off Mauduit Road (Outline). Withdrawn 23.11.2004
04/01830/OUT Demolition of existing buildings and siting of two detached dwellings accessed off long street road and four terraced dwellings accessed off Mauduit Road (Outline). Withdrawn 23.11.2004
05/00299/FUL Retention of existing detached dwelling, demolition of existing commercial buildings and construction of three detached dwellings with vehicular access and parking. Refused 29.06.2005
05/01349/FUL Demolition of commercial buildings and construction of three detached dwellings including vehicular access and parking. Permitted 01.02.2006
07/01715/FUL Demolition of existing industrial buildings, retention and conversion of existing house to two dwellings, erection of one detached and four terraced dwellings including vehicular access and parking. Permitted 02.06.2009
09/00975/FUL Erection of pair of semi-detached houses with associated vehicular access/parking (substitution for single dwelling on previously consented scheme). Permitted 02.12.2009
10/00025/FUL Erection of pair of two storey semi-detached dwellings on plots 6 & 7 with associated vehicular access/parking (substitution of part of consented scheme 07/01715/FUL for conversion of existing house to two dwellings) Permitted 22.02.2010
10/00770/OUT Outline application for 5 terraced houses (revised scheme of 07/01715/FUL) Refused 21.06.2010
(88) 11/00844/FUL Erection of 4 dwellings with associated vehicle and pedestrian access and parking. Refused 19.05.2011
11/01777/FUL Erection of four dwellings (re-submission of 11/00844/FUL). Refused 04.11.2011. Appeal Allowed 25.07.2012
12/00766/FUL Application for a new planning permission to replace an extant planning permission 07/01715/FUL in order to extend the time limit for implementation by a further 3 years for the erection of one detached and four terraced dwellings including vehicular access and parking. Permitted 15.06.2012
12/02312/FUL Renewal of extant application 09/00975/FUL for erection of pair of dwellings with associated vehicular access/parking. Permitted 20.12.2012
12/02434/FUL Renewal of extant application 10/00025/FUL for erection of pair of two storey semi-detached dwellings on plots 6 & 7 with associated vehicular access/parking (substitution of part of consented scheme 07/01715/FUL for conversion of existing house to two dwellings). Permitted 02.01.2013
13/01555/NMA Non material amendments to planning permission 11/01777/FUL (allowed on appeal ref APP/Y0435/A/12/2168157/NWF) for changes to roofing on Plot 1; repositioning of and addition of obscure glass windows on flank of houses Plots 1, 2, 3, 4; additional velux windows in roof plots 1, 2, 3 and 4. Permitted 15.08.2013
13/01720/DISCON Details submitted pursuant to discharge of conditions 3 (Material Samples), 4 (Details , windows, doors plots 1 _ 4), 8 (Site Investigation), 9 (Details of windows, bathroom/ensuite plots 1, 2,3 ) 10 (Finished Floor Level), 11 (Ground Surface Area), 13 (Construction Method Statement) and 14 (Wheel Cleaning) attached to planning permission 11/01777/FUL (allowed on appeal ref. APP/YO435/A/11/2168157). Split Decision 02.10.2013
A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS
(Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)
A2.1 None.
(89)
A3.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS (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
A3.1 Environmental Health Manager
No comments received
MKC Urban Design
No comments received
Conservation And Archaeology
Whilst I accept that there is a lack of consistency of Noted. approach in the appearance of the line of existing Late C20th properties overlooking Long Street they are, nevertheless, all relatively modest in terms their height and have an unassuming, conventional presence overall. I therefore take the view that the presence of these developments does not draw the eye unduly away from older and more characterful buildings that stand nearby.
Any scheme granted planning permission should not be so Noted. conspicuous in its context as to disrupt views into the conservation area or distract the eye away from those elements that individually or cumulatively contribute to the character of the conservation area.
(90) I note that the proposed scale of the two properties that Noted. However, whilst the gable is a new feature for plot 4, overlook Long Street Road has increased significantly and the roof gable was part of the design for plot 1 in the existing that this increase has been created by the addition of a roof permission. gable. The overall effect is to add visual weight to the upper parts of the compositions and exacerbate the inconsistency of the proposed houses with other dwellings, particularly the older ones, that stand hereabouts.
No rationale is provided for the design approach and so I The applicant is not required by planning legislation to justify conclude that these therefore arbitrary modifications are the modification. unwarranted and inappropriate for use on the key roadside frontage of the development.
In the form now being proposed the dwellings (also Noted. questionable by virtue of scale and through the nondescript nature of their design) would be distorted to create an oddly proportioned and particularly uncharismatic version of standardised latter-day construction. The proposals would thus cause conspicuous visual harm by intruding on and corroding the otherwise generally consistent, low key cumulative character of other properties in the vicinity, instead drawing the eye to a contrived and unbalanced pairing of dwellings.
The degree of likely harm to local character at a point Noted. See para 5.15 adjacent to the conservation area combined with a lack of any pressing argument in support of the revisions leads me to conclude that on balance the proposals should resisted.
The proposed modifications should be refused.
(91) Senior Landscape Architect
No comments received
Highways Development Control
No objections Noted
Parish – Hanslope
The Council objects to this application as it is felt that a full Noted. See para 5.16-17 application would be more suitable due to the amount of amendments requested
Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application: 2 – 6 (evens) Eastfield Drive Hanslope 16,17 and 19 Mauduit Road Hanslope 1 Gold Street Hanslope 1 High Street Hanslope Watts Arms Public House Castlethorpe Road Hanslope 5 Rhymer Close Hanslope 1 Burrow Ash Close Hanslope 2A Long Street Road Hanslope
One letter of objection has been received from the occupiers of 2A Long Street Road who object on the grounds:
1. Plot 1 will move closer to their boundary resulting in a Noted. See para 5.2 slight increase in the overshadowing of their house.
(92) 2. The additional window to the ground floor in the north Noted. The application must be considered on the basis of wall of the proposed house on plot 1 would be below the current situation. the height of the existing wooden fence and about one metre away from the fence. However, if the future owner of the house decided to lower the fence to improve the view and the light inlet afforded by the window it would then look directly into the south facing windows of their house.
(93) APP 06
Application Number: 13/00388/FUL Other
Change of use of two areas of car park to farmers market on the fourth Friday of each month and to a farmers and artisan market on the second Sunday of each month
AT Car Park, Market Square, Stony Stratford
FOR Stony Stratford Town Council
Target: 2nd May 2013
Ward: Stony Stratford Parish: Stony Stratford Town Council
Report Author/Case Officer: Katy Lycett Contact Details: 01908 252313 [email protected]
Team Leader: Alex Harrison Contact Details: 01908 252608 [email protected]
1.0 INTRODUCTION (A brief explanation of what the application is about)
1.1 The Site The application site is the Market Square car park off Silver Street in Stony Stratford conservation area. Surrounding the car park are a mix of shops, local facilities (medical centre etc) and residential. Details of the location of the site and its relationship to surrounding properties can be seen in the plans attached to this report.
1.2 The Proposal Planning permission is sought to change the use of part of the car park to a Farmers Market on the fourth Friday of each month (0900 – 1400) and a Farmers and Artisans Market on the second Sunday of each month (1000 – 1400). Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.
2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application)
2.1 National Policy National Planning Policy Framework sections: 2, 8, 12
2.2 Local Policy
Core Strategy
(94) CS11 A well connected Milton Keynes CS12 Developing successful neighbourhoods CS13 Ensuring high quality, well designed places CS16 Supporting small businesses CS18 Healthier and safer communities CS19 The historic and natural environment
Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 T10 Traffic T15 Parking provision TC3 Stony Stratford Town Centre TC4 Stony Stratford Town Centre D1 Impact of development on proposals on locality
Supplementary Planning Guidance Parking Standards and addendum
3.0 MAIN ISSUES (The issues which have the greatest bearing on the decision)
3.1 The main issues in this case are the impact on the locality and parking provision. It is considered that the change of use twice a month for the short period of time proposed would not significantly impact on the amenity of nearby facilities and residents. There is further parking opportunities near to the site and the markets are proposed to be well signed. It is not considered that the markets would detrimentally harm parking provision or highway safety that would warrant refusal of this application.
4.0 RECOMMENDATION (The decision that officers recommend to the Committee)
4.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of this report.
5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have lead to the officer Recommendation)
5.1 Stony Stratford is an historic market and coaching town with a conservation area in which this application site lies within. It is defined as a Town Centre meeting the daily shopping needs of the local population. The Friday Farmers Market has been operating for a long period of time under permitted development (to change the use of the land for not more than 14 days in total in any calendar year for the holding of a market) but now the applicant would like to introduce a second market on the second Sunday of each month. It is likely that historically this area of the town was used as a market given the name of the application site, ‘Market Square’ which its main use is now a car park.
5.2 It is not considered that the change of use to the car park would cause an unacceptable visual intrusion or loss of privacy, sunlight or daylight to nearby properties. Furthermore no objection is raised with regard to the impact on the
(95) conservation area given the temporary nature of the use.
5.3 The main issue in this case is the impact of the use on the highway network and highway safety. The market is currently managed by the Town Council as the Friday Farmers Market has been taking place for some time now. However parking provision in Stony Stratford as in most towns is a sensitive balance to manage to ensure the continuing viability of the town for residents and customers to the existing shopping and public facilities such as the medical centre located in this area as well as encouraging new uses and opportunities for the Town.
5.4 The Market Square car park has space for 49 vehicles and there is a larger car park within walking distance of the Market Square (Cofferidge Close) that has 128 public spaces. The Sunday market would extend the market area into the main section of car park off Silver Street and the impact on residents and businesses in the area needs careful consideration in terms of alternative parking arrangements as when the markets are in use this parking is not. The Town Council has undertaken that there would be no restriction of access to any nearby premises as a result of this application and they intend to manage and organise the events in the same way as previous markets.
5.5 A plan has been provided to show where the market stalls are located and event day advertising and directional signage will be provided to aid visitors to the Town Centre. This should also include signage to direct drivers to alternative car parks to avoid confusion near the Market Square entrance. The plans show that the access to parking alongside the library is to be maintained. It is recommended that an informative be added to any permission regarding the additional signage. It is considered that there may be some congestion and minor parking issues whilst the first few markets take place, then once it has become established these will reduce as residents and visitors can make alternative parking arrangements once they are used to the situation.
5.6 To conclude, it is considered that the vitality of the Market Square is an important part of the Stony Stratford Town Centre. Consideration has been given to the balance between the additional markets and highway impacts. However, given the existing management and organisation of the Friday Market and the alternative parking areas in walking distance from the site, it is not considered that the immediate area of the Market Square will be significantly disrupted during the Markets.
6.0 CONDITIONS (The conditions that need to be imposed on any planning permission for this development to ensure that the development is satisfactory. To meet legal requirements all conditions must be Necessary, Relevant, Enforceable, Precise and Reasonable )
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To prevent the accumulation of planning permissions; to enable the Local Planning Authority to review the suitability of the development in the light of altered circumstances; and to comply with section 51 of the Planning
(96) and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. (D11)
2. The farmers market area as indicated on the 'Friday Site Plan' hereby permitted shall operate on the fourth Friday of each calendar month between the hours of 09:00 and 1400 only.
Reason: To ensure that the development does not prejudice the enjoyment by neighbouring occupiers of their property.
3. The farmers and artisans market area as indicated on the 'Sunday Site Plan' hereby permitted shall operate on the second Sunday of each calendar month between the hours of 10:00 and 1400 only.
Reason: To ensure that the development does not prejudice the enjoyment by neighbouring occupiers of their property.
(97)
(98)
(99)
(100)
Appendix to 13/00388/FUL
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 None.
A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS
(Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)
A2.1 None.
(101)
A3.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS (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
A3.1 Conservation And Archaeology No comments. Noted.
A3.2 Highways Development Control Following the submission of additional requested information, the Highway Discussed in section 5 of this report. Engineer has no objection to the change of use.
A3.3 Local Residents
The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application: 1, 1A, 2, 7 - 14, 16, 17, 19 - 21, 26, 33 Market Square, Stony Stratford, Milton Keynes 5 - 7 Church Street, Stony Stratford, Milton Keynes Stony Stratford Health Centre, Market Square, Stony Stratford 1 Old Bakehouse Yard, Horn Lane, Stony Stratford 1 Church Mews, Stony Stratford, Milton Keynes
A site notice was erected adjacent the application site.
3 letters of objection have been received and the planning concerns raised are: Discussed in pars. 5.1 – 5.2 of this - Impact on access and use to other nearby properties report.
A3.4 - Impact on parking provision Discussed in pars. 5.3 – 5.6 of this report.
A3.5 - Highway safety Discussed in pars. 5.3 – 5.6 of this report.
(102) APP 07
Application Number: 13/02413/FUL Other Erection of a 4 horse stable block and construction of a service track on existing grazing land
AT Lodge Farm, Purse Lane, Stoke Goldington
FOR Mr S Singh
Target: 10th January 2014
Ward: Sherington Parish: Stoke Goldington Parish Council
Report Author/Case Officer: Katy Lycett Contact Details: 01908 252313 [email protected]
Team Leader: Alex Harrison Contact Details: 01908 252608 [email protected]
1.0 INTRODUCTION (A brief explanation of what the application is about)
1.1 The Site The application site is a dwelling with associated gardens and fields located within the open countryside. The location of the proposed stables would be adjacent to the south east boundary of the application site field, set back from the highway, with the service track from the north (the dwelling) and out towards the east 9the road). Details of the location of the site and its relationship to surrounding properties can be seen in the plans attached to this report.
1.2 The Proposal Planning permission is sought to erect new stables with store. The building would measure approx. 13.9 metres in length by 3.9 metres in width and would be of a timber construction with a tiled roof (tiles to match main dwelling). The service track would be 3.5 metres in width and topped with crushed rock. Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.
2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application)
2.1 National Policy National Planning Policy Framework: Section 7 Section 11
(103) 2.2 Local Policy
Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 S10: Open Countryside D1: Impact of Development Proposals on Locality D2: Design of Buildings L6: Proposals for Horse Related Development (including Appendix L6)
3.0 MAIN ISSUES (The issues which have the greatest bearing on the decision)
3.1 The impact of the proposal on the local area. It is not considered that the size and siting of the proposed development would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area.
4.0 RECOMMENDATION (The decision that officers recommend to the Committee)
4.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of this report.
5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have led to the officer Recommendation)
5.1 The Principle of Horse Related Development in the Open Countryside The starting point for assessing the planning application is the present land allocation in the Local Plan, which is open countryside. Here planning permission will normally be refused for development unless it is essential for agriculture, forestry or countryside recreation.
5.2 Policy L6 of the Local Plan states that planning permission will be granted for horse-related development in the open countryside provided it is compatible with the policy guidance in Appendix L6. It is considered that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact upon the rural landscape and open countryside and that there would not be an unacceptable cumulative impact of horse-related development in this case. In this instance the stables and stores would be used for the private recreational need of an individual and associated services will not be provided. Permission for livery or associated services will be restricted to locations and sites suitable for commercial riding stables. A planning condition ensuring the building is for private use only will be attached to the planning permission. Accordingly, it is considered that the current proposal is not contrary to Policies S10 and Policy L6 of the Local Plan.
5.3 Highway Matters The Council’s Highway Engineer was consulted with the proposal and raised no objection to any part of the development as it is unlikely to have a harmful impact on the highway network.
(104) 6.0 CONDITIONS (The conditions that need to be imposed on any planning permission for this development to ensure that the development is satisfactory. To meet legal requirements all conditions must be Necessary, Relevant, Enforceable, Precise and Reasonable )
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To prevent the accumulation of planning permissions; to enable the Local Planning Authority to review the suitability of the development in the light of altered circumstances; and to comply with section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. (D11)
2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted a landscaping scheme, which shall include details of both soft and hard landscaping shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall show the numbers, types and sizes of trees, shrubs and plants to be planted and their location in relation to proposed buildings, roads, footpaths, hard surfacing and services (including those underground). All planting in accordance with the scheme shall be carried out within twelve months of commencement of development. Any trees or shrubs removed, dying, severely damaged or diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with trees or shrubs of such size and species as may be agreed by the Local Planning Authority. All other landscaping, including hard landscaping, shown in the approved scheme shall be laid out prior to the occupation of the development and be retained thereafter.
Reason: To protect the appearance and character of the area and to minimise the effect of development on the area.
3. The stable block/agricultural building shall not be used for any purpose other than those incidental to Lodge Farm, Purse Lane, Stoke Goldington and no trade or business shall be carried on therefrom.
Reason: To minimise disturbance to adjoining residential occupiers and to comply with Policy L6 of the Milton Keynes local Plan 2001 - 2011
(105)
(106)
(107)
(108)
(109)
(110)
(111) Appendix to 13/02413/FUL
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 10/00438/FUL Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of new detached dwelling PER 07.05.2010
10/01512/FUL Erection of new detached dwelling (amendment of 10/00438/FUL) PER 18.02.2011
11/00324/FUL Erection of new detached dwelling (amendment to application 10/00438/FUL) to enclose the first floor balcony (Resubmission of 10/02210/MMAM) PER 01.07.2011
11/01879/FUL Erection of front boundary wall and gates REF 04.11.2011
11/01885/MMAM Minor material amendment of condition 1attached to 10/00438/FUL for retrospective changes to approved design PER 20.10.2011
12/00585/FUL Front boundary wall (retrospective) PER 05.10.2012
A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS
(Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)
A2.1 Impact on Residential Amenities The proposed building would be sited a significant distance away from the road (approx. 35 metres) and neighbouring properties are beyond this. The closest property to the application building is The Bungalow. A distance of approx. 95 metres would remain to this property from the building. It is not considered that the proposal would have a harmful impact on neighbouring amenity and the addition of a landscaping scheme would help to soften the impact of the proposal in this location.
(112) A3.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS (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
A3.1 Parish - Stoke Goldington No objections. Noted.
A3.2 Ward - Sherington - Cllr Mclean Request that this application be heard at Development Noted. Control Panel in light of the planning application history and the neighbour concerns.
A3.4 Highways Development Control No objections. Noted.
A3.5 Local Residents
The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application: Woodland Lodge Purse Lane Stoke Goldington The Bungalow Purse Lane Stoke Goldington Priors Wood House Purse Lane Stoke Goldington
3 letters of objection were received. The planning concerns raised are regarding: -
A3.6 - The impact of the development on the character and Discussed in paras. 5.1 – 5.2 of this report. appearance of the area
A3.7 - Highway safety Discussed in para. 5.3 of this report.
(113) APP 08
Application Number: 13/02516/FUL Other
Change of use from opticians (use class A1) to mixed use to include opticians (use class A1), consultants room (use class A2) and office (use class B1) (retrospective)
AT 58 High Street, Olney, Bucks
FOR Mr John Durden And Mrs Kim Durden
Target: 29th January 2014
Ward: Olney Parish: Olney Town Council
Report Author/Case Officer: Katy Lycett Contact Details: 01908 252313 [email protected]
Team Leader: Alex Harrison Contact Details: 01908 252608 [email protected]
1.0 INTRODUCTION (A brief explanation of what the application is about)
1.1 The Site The application site is a premises located on the High Street in Olney. The building fronts onto the highway. The site falls within the Conservation Area. Details of the location of the site and its relationship to surrounding properties can be seen in the plans attached to this report.
1.2 The Proposal The proposal seeks retrospective consent for a change of use of the premises from sole use as an opticians to a mixed use over two floors which includes opticians (use class A1), consultants room (use class A2) and office (use class B1). The change of use has been in operation for some years prior to the submission of this application. Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.
2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application)
2.1 National Policy National Planning Policy Framework paragraph: 14 - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development 64 – Impact of Character and Appearance of the Area
(114) 2.2 Local Policy
Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 D1 – Impact of Development Proposals on Locality D2 – Design of Buildings T15 – Parking Provision S10 – Development in the Open Countryside E5 – Re-Use of Rural Buildings TC1 – Non-Retail Uses on Ground Floors in Town Centres
Supplementary Planning Guidance Parking Standards for Milton Keynes 2005 (amended 2009)
3.0 MAIN ISSUES (The issues which have the greatest bearing on the decision)
3.1 1. Impact of the change of use on the character of the town centre and retail activity. The use is deemed to still generate activity with the High Street and would maintain footfall.
2. Impact of the change of use on nearby properties and occupiers. The uses of the building are low key and not expected to cause harm to the amenity or enjoyment of residents close by.
3. Impact of the change of use on parking and access. The site has no dedicated parking available however the Town Centre benefits from substantial free short-term parking which would be suitable for visitors.
4.0 RECOMMENDATION (The decision that officers recommend to the Committee)
4.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of this report.
5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have led to the officer Recommendation)
5.1 Town Centre Retail Activity Under the criteria of Table TC1 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 within the Primary Area there are restrictions relating to the loss of A1 retail units. However this site falls outside the Primary Area and as a result within the remainder of the Town Centre there are no restrictions on the proportion of units in non-retail use.
5.2 The uses which are being operated from this location are considered to still contribute to the vitality and viability of the commercial aspects of the town by generating footfall and interaction with the High Street. This is deemed to be a positive element of the long-term success of Olney’s commercial area.
5.3 Traffic and Parking The application site is located fronting onto the High Street which has
(115) dedicated free short-term parking available throughout the day and is well used by visitors and shoppers to the town. The site has no permanent customer parking available and as a result visitors to any part of the premise will be required to make use of local public transport or any one of the nearby public parking areas including the Market Place.
5.4 The premise, in comparison to other non-retail uses nearby has no dedicated parking facilities. The town centre location benefit from dedicated short-term free parking in various nearby locations and therefore the application is deemed to be an exception to the current T15 Local Plan Policy.
5.5 The proposal states that visitors to the A2 use Consultants and the B1 use as office are by appointment and it is important that staff and customers are advised that there is no on-plot parking provided and that access to the business is off the High Street in an attempt to avoid any problems experienced by residents on East Street.
5.6 Although out of the primary retail area, the property is in a sustainable location on the High Street for walking, cycling and public transport for staff and customers using the businesses and there are disabled parking bays on the High Street in close proximity of the property. Therefore it is concluded that the site would be able to benefit from nearby parking facilities which will limit the detrimental impact on the local area.
5.7 Impact on Nearby Residents This application will not significantly alter the current operation, it will only regularise activity which has been taking place for some time. There are nearby properties along the High Street and to the rear along East Street however the nature of the activities is low-key and not expected to generate any significant disturbance. The uses are office based and do not involve any activities or processes which generate noise beyond what is expected for a business use. It is considered pertinent to add a restrictive hours of operation condition in order to limit any noise and disturbance to nearby residential properties.
6.0 CONDITIONS (The conditions that need to be imposed on any planning permission for this development to ensure that the development is satisfactory. To meet legal requirements all conditions must be Necessary, Relevant, Enforceable, Precise and Reasonable )
No business shall be carried out beyond the hours as listed: Monday to Friday 09:00 to 18:00 hrs Saturday 09:00 to 17:00 hrs Not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
Reason: To ensure that the operation does not cause any disruption or disturbance to nearby residential properties and occupiers.
(116)
(117)
(118)
(119) (120) Appendix to 13/02516/FUL
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 02/01093/FUL Change Of Use From Dwellinghouse To Health And Beauty Salon Per 23.09.2002
03/01750/FUL Change Of Use From Dwellinghouse To Health And Beauty Salon Per 03.12.2003
13/01935/FUL Change of use from opticians (use class A1) to opticians (use class A1), consultants room (use class A2) and office (use class B1) (retrospective) WDN 28.10.2013
A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS
(Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)
A2.1 None.
(121)
A3.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS (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
A3.1 Olney Parish Council Raised no objections to the application. Noted.
A3.2 Development Management Highways Application 13/02516/FUL is a retrospective application for a Noted and see paragraph 5.3 to 5.6 change of use of 58, High Street, Olney from opticians to opticians on the ground floor with a financial consultant’s office and general office above. High Street, Olney has extensive free public car parking along the street although there is a Bus Stop close to 58 High Street which does limit parking in the direct vicinity of the property. At the rear of the building along East Street there is parking available alongside the Sports Ground with a long stay car park within easy walking distance of the property for longer stay vehicle parking.
A3.3 The Milton Keynes Parking Standards in Zone 3 for an A1 Noted and see paragraph 5.3 to 5.6 non-food use of 182 m2 Gross floor area requires up to a maximum of 9 spaces. The application for the change of use to a reduced A1 optician of 86 m2 Gross floor area with A2 financial consultant’s use of 30 m2 and B1 office use of 66 m2 reduces the overall requirement to a maximum of 7 spaces. The proposed change of use therefore reduces the parking demand in the area by 2 spaces.
(122) A3.4 The current approved business of an A1 optician does not Noted and see paragraph 5.3 to 5.6 meet the MK Parking Standards for the number of on plot spaces to be provided. The application in fact reduces the parking shortfall by 2 x number spaces but does not meet the standard for disabled parking or cycle parking. Access to the property is shown via the front door off the High Street.
A3.5 The application site is well located on the High Street with Noted and see paragraph 5.3 to 5.6 ample free public car parking within the Town Centre for customers and visitors. There is a long stay car park off East Street which is within easy walking distance of the premises.
A3.6 Local Residents Noted. The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application: 49, 56, 59 and 60 High Street Olney MK46 4EB 22 Bridge Street Olney Olney Centre High Street Olney Suzuki Gb Plc Steinbeck Crescent Snelshall West 58 Carters Close Sherington Newport Pagnell 1 to 6 Lace Mews Olney MK46 4JS Meadow Rise East Street Olney Santander House 201 Grafton Gate H5 To H6 Central Milton Keynes
A3.7 A total of seven public representations were received Noted. regarding this application. These letters raise the following issues of concern and objections to the submission:
A3.8 - Loss of privacy to dwellings to the rear along East Noted. Street.
(123)
A3.9 - Lack of control over where customers and staff will Noted and see paragraph 5.3 to 5.6 park.
A3.10 - Safety concerns regarding additional traffic along Noted and see paragraph 5.3 to 5.6 East Street and threat to safety of children.
A3.11 - Impact on the recreation ground along East Street. Noted.
A3.12 - Impact on security along East Street. Noted.
A3.13 - The use is already taking place and is currently Noted. unauthorised.
A3.14 - The premises continue to use a private driveway via Noted and see paragraph 5.3 to 5.6 East Street for customer parking.
A3.15 - Additional noise and disturbance to nearby dwellings Noted and see relevant condition.
(124)
APP 09
Application Number: 13/02609/FUL Other
Part single storey, part two storey rear extension
AT 9 Maidenhead Avenue, Bradwell Common, Milton Keynes
FOR Mr Tarlok Juttla
Target: 6th February 2014
Ward: Bradwell Parish: Bradwell Parish Council
Report Author/Case Officer: Kanchan Sharma Contact Details: [email protected]
Team Leader: Alex Harrison Contact Details: 01908 252608 [email protected]
1.0 INTRODUCTION (A brief explanation of what the application is about)
1.1 The Site The application site is a detached dwelling on Maidenhead Avenue. The house is surrounded by residential units on both sides and on the rear. Details of the location of the site and its relationship to surrounding properties can be seen in the plans attached to this report.
1.2 The Proposal The application seeks permission for a part single storey, part two storey rear extension. The ridge height for the extension is subservient to the main building and matches the original style of the house. The extension has been proposed in matching material and detailing to the main building. Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.
2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application)
2.1 National Policy National Planning Policy Framework Paragraph 7 – Requiring good design
2.2 Local Policy
Core Strategy CS 13 Ensuring High Quality, Well Designed Places
(125) Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 D1: Impact of Development Proposals on Locality D2: Design of Buildings T15: Parking Provision
Supplementary Planning Guidance Parking Standards For Milton Keynes (2005) and Addendum (2009) Residential Design Guide 2012
3.0 MAIN ISSUES (The issues which have the greatest bearing on the decision)
3.1 1. Impact on the character and appearance of the area. The proposed extension is considered to sit comfortably in the character of the area.
2. Impact on neighbouring amenity. The scale of extension and the similar material used would not have a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity to the nearby residents.
3. Impact on parking provision. The site is considered to be able to accommodate the parking requirements.
4.0 RECOMMENDATION (The decision that officers recommend to the Committee)
4.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of this report.
5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have lead to the officer Recommendation)
5.1 Impact on the character and appearance of the area The proposed extension is to the rear of the property and it would have a minimal impact from the front of the house. The extension is part single storey and part double storey extension with the ground floor extension is 4M by 12M and the part first floor extension is 2.85M by 6.4 M. The proposed extension follows the form and detailing of the existing building and is to be constructed in materials to match; therefore ensuring that it would integrate satisfactorily with the existing dwelling and surrounding area. The extension is not considered as the overdevelopment of site because it retains the existing parking requirements and appropriate garden areas. The design and scale of the proposed extension are considered acceptable with regards to the impact on the character and appearance of the area.
5.2 Impact on neighbouring amenity The extension would be sited to the rear of the dwelling and there are neighbours to either side. The proposed rear elevation has two windows on the first floor but there is appropriate separation distance from the neighbouring properties to restrict the loss of privacy for them. The dwelling unit is a detached dwelling and proposed extension would be non-intrusive and is acceptable in principal. The proposed development is not considered to cause
(126) detrimental harm to neighbouring amenity.
6.0 CONDITIONS (The conditions that need to be imposed on any planning permission for this development to ensure that the development is satisfactory. To meet legal requirements all conditions must be Necessary, Relevant, Enforceable, Precise and Reasonable )
1. The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed only of materials of a type and colour which match exactly those of the existing building unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.(M01)
Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To prevent the accumulation of planning permissions; to enable the Local Planning Authority to review the suitability of the development in the light of altered circumstances; and to comply with section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. (D11)
3. The windows on the first floor bedroom overlooking the rear garden of the neighbouring properties shall be obscurely glazed to a level of obscurity of level 3 within the Pilkington range of Textured Glass or equivalent. It shall not be altered to clear glazing without the prior approval, in writing of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To preserve the amenity and privacy of the adjoining residential occupiers.
4. The extension hereby permitted together with the existing house shall be used wholly as a single family dwelling house and for no other purpose whatsoever. (E07)
Reason: To ensure that the premises are not sub-divided without the permission of the Local Planning Authority.
(127)
(128) (129)
(130) (131) (132) (133)
(134) Appendix to 13/02609/FUL
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 None
A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS
(Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)
A2.1 Impact on parking provision The proposal does not result in the need for additional parking and no existing spaces are affected. No comments have been received from Development Control Highways regarding the parking spaces. So there is no impact on parking.
(135)
A3.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS (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
A3.1 Parish – Bradwell
Objection was received from the Parish Council for the double storey part of the Discussed in para 5.1 proposal. Parish council wanted that the case should be considered Development Committee Panel in response to the level of objection from the local residents for this proposed development.
A3.2 Highways Development Control Noted No objection raised
A3.3 Ward - Bradwell - Cllr Wallis Noted No comments received
A3.4 Ward - Bradwell - Cllr Bradburn Noted No comments received
A3.5 Ward - Bradwell - Cllr Exon Noted No comments received
A3.6 Local Residents
The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application:
10,8,6 Forrabury Avenue, Bradwell Common Milton Keynes
(136) 5,6,7,8,10 Maidenhead Avenue, Bradwell Common Milton Keynes
3 public representations were received regarding this application raising Objections on the grounds of:
A3.7 overlooking on to the neighbouring properties Discussed in para 5.1
A3.8 overdevelopment of site Discussed in para 5.2
(137) APP 10
Application Number: 13/02630/FUL Minor Single storey rear and side extension to existing club house (resubmission of withdrawn application 13/01880/FUL)
AT Bradwell Sports And Social Club, Abbey Road, Bradwell
FOR Bradwell Sports And Social Club
Target: 7th February 2014
Ward: Bradwell Parish: Bradwell Parish Council
Report Author/Case Officer: Sakina Dossaji Contact Details: 01908 252242 [email protected]
Team Leader: Alex Harrison Contact Details: 01908 252608 [email protected]
1.0 INTRODUCTION (A brief explanation of what the application is about)
1.1 The Site The application site is an existing sports and social club located in Bradwell. To the north of the site is a row of four Listed cottages, to the south and west is open space and to the east is the road. The site lies within an archaeological notification area. Details of the location of the site and its relationship to surrounding properties can be seen in the plans attached to this report.
1.2 The Proposal Planning permission is sought for the erection of a single storey side and rear extension to the club. This is to provide improved changing facilities to the venue. The rear extension would extend to the rear boundary of the site which has a maximum depth of approx. 2.8 metres. The extension proposes a flat roof with roof lanterns to match existing. Materials are also to match existing. Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.
1.3 It should be noted that the extent of land within the applicant’s ownership was questioned on the original application ref 13/01880/FUL. It became evident that the boundaries of the site were incorrect and therefore the current resubmission alters the north east corner of the club which results in an approximately 1.6m reduction in the overall length of the extension. There are no other material changes proposed under this resubmission.
(138) 2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application)
2.1 National Policy National Planning Policy Framework: 14. Presumption in favour of sustainable development
2.2 Local Policy
Core Strategy CS12 – Developing Successful Neighbourhoods
Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 D1 - Impact of Development Proposals on Locality D2 – Design of Buildings HE5 – Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building T15 – Parking Provision
Supplementary Planning Guidance Addendum to 'Parking Standards for Milton Keynes' 2005 April 2009
3.0 MAIN ISSUES (The issues which have the greatest bearing on the decision)
3.1 The main issues are whether the proposals would harm the amenities of surrounding residential properties and whether the proposed on plot parking arrangement is sufficient. It is considered that the proposed development would have some impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers but it would not be so detrimental to warrant refusal of this application. The proposal would increase the on plot parking from 8 to 10. A condition is recommended to address parking layout.
4.0 RECOMMENDATION (The decision that officers recommend to the Committee)
4.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of this report.
5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have lead to the officer Recommendation)
5.1 Impact on the amenities of residential properties There is currently a separation distance of approx. 21 metres between the rear of the closest properties (Brookfield Cottages) and the existing building. Concern has been raised regarding the proximity of the extension, in particular the toilets. The maximum depth of the rear extension is approx. 2.8 metres and there are no proposed openings to the rear elevation facing these properties. There are existing boundary structures to the rear of the application site and the proposed extension is single storey with a flat roof. It is therefore considered that the proposals would not give rise to any impact on residential amenity in terms of increased overlooking, loss of privacy or outlook
(139) and would not cause detrimental harm to the amenities of surrounding neighbouring properties that would warrant a refusal of this application.
5.2 Impact on parking provision and highway safety The proposal is for improved changing facilities. Concern has been raised that the extension would provide more space therefore resulting in more people attending the facility and increase the existing parking problem. The existing on site parking area is not marked out and has resulted in an inefficient use of the space. The Council’s Highway Engineer was consulted and commented that the proposals would result in an overall site requirement of 10 spaces, 1 of these should be a disabled parking space. He requested a plan showing the marked out parking spaces and this has not been received. However imposing a condition ensuring that the parking layout is set out as proposed and retained would secure the additional on plot parking spaces for both vehicles and cycles.
5.3 It is acknowledged that there are historic and current issues of overspill parking on Abbey Road often resulting in obstruction on the highway. The Council’s Highway Engineer has raised a concern that the management of parking on the site and surrounding local area could be addressed by the applicant. Whilst noted as a concern it is identified as a separate issue which is not considered to be a direct impact caused from the current application. Therefore it is considered that these issues would not amount to a sustainable reason for refusal on parking grounds.
6.0 CONDITIONS (The conditions that need to be imposed on any planning permission for this development to ensure that the development is satisfactory. To meet legal requirements all conditions must be Necessary, Relevant, Enforceable, Precise and Reasonable )
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To prevent the accumulation of planning permissions; to enable the Local Planning Authority to review the suitability of the development in the light of altered circumstances; and to comply with section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. (D11)
2. Prior to the commencement of any development on site, full details shall be submitted in writing showing an enclosed, secure cycle shelter for a minimum of 5 cycles. It is required that the cycle shelter is enclosed with gates.
Reason: In accordance with the Milton Keynes Parking Standards, Local Plan policies D1 and T15, to prevent criminal activity and to ensure that the site is secure.
3. Prior to the commencement of any development on site, details shall be submitted showing 10 on plot parking spaces including a minimum of 1 disabled parking space. The spaces shall all be laid out prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted and that area shall be
(140) retained and not be used for any other purpose.
Reason: To enable vehicles to draw off, park and turn clear of the highway to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway.
4. The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed only of materials of a type and colour which match exactly those of the existing building unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.(M01)
Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality.
(141)
(142)
(143) Appendix to 13/01880/FUL
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 13/01880/FUL Single storey rear and side extension Withdrawn 16.12.2013
A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS
(Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)
A2.1 Design The proposed extensions would be located to the rear and side of the existing building, set back from the road and would therefore not be highly visible from the street. The existing building and boundary structures would screen the development from many of the public vantage points. It is proposed to construct the extensions in materials that would match the main building and they would have similar features to the main building. It is not considered that the proposed extensions would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area, any residential setting or the setting of the nearby listed buildings.
A2.2 Noise Disturbance and Anti-Social Behaviour The proposed extensions would be to a building that is already in use as a sports and social club. The extensions are proposed to accommodate improved changing facilities. It is not considered that the proposed use of the extensions would give rise to additional noise and disturbance to nearby residential occupiers that would justify refusal of this application.
(144)
A3.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS (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
A3.1 Councils Archaeologists
‘Thanks for the consultation. I have assessed the site Noted. against the known archaeological resource as contained in the MK Historic Environment Record (HER). In conclusion I am pleased to state that although it is within a Heritage Interest Area the proposed development itself is not regarded as being of significant potential archaeological impact. As such it is, in my view, unnecessary to conduct any pre-determination archaeological investigation nor do I wish to recommend an archaeological condition in respect of the site’.
A3.2 Parish – Bradwell None received. Noted.
A3.3 Highways Development Management
‘Access: There is an existing access to the front car parking Noted. area which is unchanged by these proposals.
Parking: The current use class for the building is D2 and the building is in Zone 3 for the Milton Keynes Parking Standards. The proposal is to increase the gross floor area of the sports and social club from 168 m2 to 222m2. This
(145) increases the maximum number of parking spaces from 8 to 10 spaces for on- plot parking.
A minimum of 1 x space should be marked out for disabled Noted. parking.
The applicant has not submitted a car parking layout to Noted. This could be secured by condition and is included indicate how the parking is to be provided and this in the recommendation. information is required for the final assessment of the application to be made.
Cycle parking is required for a minimum of 5 cycles in Noted. This could be secured by condition and is included secure storage in accordance with the MK Parking in the recommendation. Standards’.
A3.4 Highways Development Management - Additional Noted. Comments
The section of Abbey Road serving the Sports and Social club together with a small number of dwellings is a cul-de- sac and there are no waiting restrictions on the highway in this area. Abbey Road generally is a narrow historic road and in the vicinity of the Sports Club reduces from 4m-3m approx. width.
Parking is available alongside the Sports fields on the west of Abbey Road; however local residents have raised concerns about the current level of parking that takes place at weekends with people using the sports facilities and obstructing the highway. The application is to improve and extend the changing rooms in the Sports Club which may also result in a step change of use of the sports fields and
(146) associated parking.
I consider that the applicant should provide details of how they are proposing to manage visitors to the Sports Club especially at weekends to alleviate the concerns of local residents about the impact and obstruction of the highway resulting from inconsiderate parking.
It is unlikely that the highway authority would introduce waiting restrictions because of the need to enforce these in less urban areas of the City and in this case it may be more productive for the Sports Club to take an active role in dealing with visitors to the club to avoid disputes with the neighbours.
Overall I do not object to the application in principle; however I am concerned that the applicant has not proposed any measures to mitigate the possible impacts of an increase in the use of the sporting facilities in future. This may result in more involvement and by the police and the highway authority if inconsiderate parking obstructs the highway.
A3.5 Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the Noted. application: 1 - 4 Brookfield Cottages, Abbey Road, Bradwell Bradwell Bowls Club, Abbey Road, Bradwell Stonebrook Cottage, 68 Abbey Road, Bradwell
A public notice was erected adjacent to the application site.
(147) 2 letters of objection have been received. The concerns raised are:
A3.6 The increase in size will increase the amount of people Noted. Para 5.2 refers using the facility.
A3.7 The extension would result in an increased parking problem. Noted. Para 5.2 and 5.3 refer
A3.8 There would be an increase in noise pollution. Noted. Para A2.2 refers
A3.9 It would result in an increase of vandalism and anti-social Noted. Para A2.2 refers behaviour. A3.10 Increase in disturbance to nearby properties. Noted. Para 5.1 and A2.2 refer
A3.11 The proximity of the extension to the neighbouring Noted. Para 5.1refers properties.
A3.12 Concern regarding advertising hoardings on the grounds. The application does not propose any advertising hoardings on the site.
(148) APP 11
Application Number: 14/00017/FUL Minor
Erection of a 1.8 metre high close-boarded fence (Retrospective)
AT 179 Selkirk Drive, Oakridge Park, Milton Keynes
FOR Mr Philip Walkington
Target: 3rd March 2014
Ward: Hanslope Park Parish: Stantonbury Parish Council
Report Author/Case Officer: Danika Hird Contact Details: [email protected]
Team Leader: Alex Harrison Contact Details: 01908 252608 [email protected]
1.0 INTRODUCTION (A brief explanation of what the application is about)
1.1 The Site The application site is a semi-detached dwelling located in the new residential estate of Oakridge Park on Selkirk Drive. Within the local area the majority of houses are constructed through matching designs and styles. Selkirk Drive is currently the main into Oakridge Park and out the front of the property is a bus route and stop. Details of the location of the site and its relationship to surrounding properties can be seen in the plans attached to this report.
1.2 The Proposal The application seeks retrospective consent for a 1.85m close-boarded fence which has been erected from the middle of the carport pier at the rear and extends to the garage. Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.
2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application)
2.1 National Policy National Planning Policy Framework 2012
2.2 Local Policy
Core Strategy Policy CS 13: Ensuring High Quality, Well Designed Places”. Policy CS 12: Developing Successful Neighbourhoods.
(149) Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 D1 Impact of development proposals on locality T15 Parking Provision
Supplementary Planning Guidance Addendum to ‘Parking Standards for Milton Keynes’ 2005 April 2009 Residential Development Design Guide April 2012
3.0 MAIN ISSUES (The issues which have the greatest bearing on the decision)
3.1 1. The impact of the fence on the character and appearance of the area. The retrospective development is hidden behind the structure of the carport and can only be slightly viewed from the highway creating a negligible impact overall.
2. Impact on neighbouring properties and amenity. The fence has been erected to mitigate concerns regarding existing overlooking and privacy.
3. In terms of the parking provision the fence will created results in a hard boundary which will potentially result in a reduction in space to open the door compared the previous arrangement
4.0 RECOMMENDATION (The decision that officers recommend to the Committee)
4.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of this report.
5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have lead to the officer Recommendation)
5.1 Impact on the Character and appearance of the local area The property is located within the new residential estate of Oakridge Park the majority of properties follow similar design and style with the majority of the dwellings being semi-detached through carports which have rooms constructed on a first floor level on top of the carport. The retrospective development of a 1.85m fence has been located in a position which limits the impact of the character and appearance of the wider street scene. The reason being the fence has been erected from the middle of the pier to the rear of the carport and extends (approximately 5.42m) to the middle of a brick wall where there are joint single garages owned by No.179 and No. 181 Selkirk Drive. With the fence being built in this location it can only be marginally viewed from the street scene as it will be largely shielded from the carport and vehicles when on the drive.
5.2 Impact on the Amenity of Neighbouring Properties In terms of the amenity to neighbouring properties this impact is considered limited due to the location of the fence which appears to only affect No.179 and No.181 Selkirk Drive. The properties to the rear of the dwelling will not be affected as the fence does not form boundary treatment to the rear garden, the
(150) retrospective fence is only located between the carport and garage which is why in terms of neighbouring amenity only the location site and its adjoining neighbour will be affected. The fence has been erected to resolve an existing issue regarding privacy, overlooking and sunlight. Previously the area was open between the two properties and the proposal has resulted in a defined boundary and the distance to neighbouring windows is such that it will not cause harm to the neighbouring amenity.
5.3 Impact on Parking Provision The proposed scheme will alter the existing parking provision as it will reduce the amount of space available for accessing the vehicles on the drive. Even though this is the case the proposal does not reduce the amount of off-street parking spaces available at either property’s affected by the scheme. The fence results in a hard boundary which will potentially result in a reduction in space to open the door compared the previous arrangement. The parking space which remains in wider than the area available in the carport and is therefore considered acceptable.
6.0 CONDITIONS (The conditions that need to be imposed on any planning permission for this development to ensure that the development is satisfactory. To meet legal requirements all conditions must be Necessary, Relevant, Enforceable, Precise and Reasonable ) None
(151)
(152)
(153)
(154)
(155) Appendix to 14/00017/FUL
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 14/00015/FUL Installation of electrically operated roller shutter door to car port entrance (retrospective)
At the time of drafting this report the application was pending consideration.
A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS
(Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)
A2.1 None.
(156)
A3.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS (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
A3.1 Parish - Stantonbury ‘Stantonbury Parish Council strongly object as this Noted and see paragraph 5.1 to 5.3 compromises the space between adjacent properties and is in breach of the restricted permitted development on this estate.’
A3.2 Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application: 177, 181 & 218 Selkirk Drive Oakridge Park Milton Keynes 17 Portland Court Oakridge Park Milton Keynes 30 Kerry Hill Oakridge Park Milton Keynes 2 Vendeen Oakridge Park Milton Keynes
One neighbour letter of support has been received.
Three Neighbour objections have been received:
A3.3 The comments received can be summarised as follows:
1. The height of the fence will enable shading into the Noted and see paragraph 5.2 garden and restrict the sunlight, leading to drainage concerns.
(157) A3.4 2. If permission is to be granted there are concerns As a condition was placed on the estate when its original surrounding the fence ‘semi-permanent’ being application was approved, the erection of a brick wall would replaced by a brick wall. require planning permission as a result.
A3.5 3. Concerns regarding the fence being maintained to a This is not considered to be a planning consideration. It satisfactory standard of maintenance. would be the responsibility of the applicant to maintain the fence.
A3.6 4. Issues raised that this application should be The council currently has two applications on the site and combined with application 14/00015/FUL (at the they have to be considered on their own merits. same application site) as the two applications complement each other.
A3.7 5. The fence will increase on-street parking as it will Noted and see paragraph 5.3 reduce the space available for off-street parking leading to congestion on the highway and setting precedence.
(158)