Development Control Panel

Democratic Services

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL

21 JULY 2011 7.00 PM

ROOM 2 CIVIC OFFICES CENTRAL MILTON KEYNES

THE DEADLINE FOR REQUESTS TO SPEAK REGARDING PLANNING APPLICATIONS LISTED ON THIS AGENDA IS:

12 NOON ON MONDAY 18 JULY 2011

Should you have any enquires about this meeting or wish to speak in objection to any applications on this agenda, please contact Lesley Sung (Senior Committee Manager) on Tel: (01908) 252325 or E-mail: Lesley.Sung@milton- keynes.gov.uk

http://cmis.milton-keynes.gov.uk/CmisWebPublic

Membership: Councillor Williams (Chair) Councillors: Edwards, Exon, A Morris and 1 Conservative Group vacancy.

(1) Milton Keynes Council Strategy and Partnerships, Civic Offices 1 Saxon Gate East Milton Keynes MK9 3EJ Tel: Milton Keynes (01908) 691691 Fax: (01908) 252456 Hays DX 31406 Milton Keynes 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. 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/ or is obtainable at the meeting from the Committee Manager. ------Meeting Attended: Development Control Panel Date of Meeting: 21 July 2011 Comments:……………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………. ………………………………………………………………………………………………….

...... Contact details:…..…………………………………………………………………………… (2) AGENDA 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Apologies 3. Disclosure of Interests Members to disclose any personal or prejudicial interests they may have in the business to be transacted and Officers to disclose any interests they may have in any contract. 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. Members of the public may speak in objection to any of the applications on the agenda and Ward Councillors may speak in objection or in favour of an application. The deadline for requests to speak will be 12.00 noon on Monday 18 July 2011.

(i) Schedule Two – Minor Applications (Pages 14 to 114): Minor applications are proposed residential developments 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.

(ii) Schedule Three – Other Applications (Pages 115 to 166)

Other applications include most changes of use, all householder development, Listed Buildings and Conservations Area Consent applications and a variety of other types of generally small-scale development proposals.

5. Tree Preservation Order - Land Off, Lucas Place, Woughton On The Green To Consider Item 5 (Pages 167 to 174)

A LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING IS OVERLEAF

(3)

PLANNING APPLICATIONS BE CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING

MINOR APPLICATIONS

Item Reference Address Ward Town/Parish Report Plan Page Page MIN 11/00270/FUL Land to the Rear of Bletchley & West Bletchley 15 23 01 20A and 20B Fenny Council St Georges Road Stratford Bletchley

MIN 11/00773/FUL 139 Simpson Bletchley & Simpson 26 41 02 Simpson Fenny Stratford Parish Council

MIN 11/00809/FUL 8 Wilford Close Campbell Park Campbell Park 46 54 03 Woolstone Parish Council

MIN 11/00921/FUL 8 Wilford Close Campbell Park Campbell Park 63 69 04 Woolstone Parish Council

MIN 11/01122/FUL The Byre Sherington North Crawley 73 79 05 East End Parish Council North Crawley

MIN 11/01167/FUL Land at the Junction Middleton Broughton & 83 99 06 of Milton Keynes Tanfield Land and Parish Council Bewdley Grove, Broughton

OTH 11/00486/FUL The Countryman Bradwell Bradwell 109 113 01 127 Bradwell parish Council Common Boulevard Bradwell Common

OTHER APPLICATIONS

Item Reference Address Ward Town/Parish Report Plan Page Page OTH 11/00544/FUL 31 Farthing Grove Woughton Woughton 116 122 01 Netherfield Community Centre

OTH 11/00601/FUL 60 – 62 Staplehall Bletchley & Bletchley & 124 129 02 Road Fenny Fenny Bletchley Stratford Stratford Town Council OTH 11/00880/FUL 3 Mordaunts Court Campbell park Campbell Park 133 137 03 Woolstone Parish Council

Applications cont……………..

Milton Keynes Council (4) Strategy, Governance and Performance Directorate, Civic Offices 1 Saxon Gate East Milton Keynes MK9 3EJ Tel: Milton Keynes (01908) 691691 Fax: (01908) 252456 Hays DX 31406 Milton Keynes 1

Item Reference Address Ward Town/Parish Report Plan Page Page OTH 11/00917/FUL 21 Bernay Gardens Linford North Great Linford 142 147 04 Bolbeck Park Parish Council OTH 11/00973/FUL 24 Thomas Drive Newport Newport 150 157 05 Newport Pagnell Pagnell North Pagnell Town Council

OTH 11/01046/FUL 20 Vicarage Walk Stony Stony 160 164 06 Stony Stratford Stratford Stratford Town Council

TREE PRESERVATION ORDER

Item Reference Address Ward Town/Parish Report Plan Page Page TPO 11/01195/TPO Land off Lucas Place Middleton Woughton 167 172 01 Woughton on the Community Green Council

Agenda can be accessed at: http://cmis.milton-keynes.gov.uk/cmiswebpublic/

Milton Keynes Council (5) Strategy, Governance and Performance Directorate, Civic Offices 1 Saxon Gate East Milton Keynes MK9 3EJ Tel: Milton Keynes (01908) 691691 Fax: (01908) 252456 Hays DX 31406 Milton Keynes 1

ITEM 4

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL

21 JULY 2011

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

SCHEDULES 2 AND 3

(6)

A Guide to Application Reports

Introduction

The following reports have been prepared by case officers from the Development Control Section of the Council’s Planning 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, Regional 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.

The importance of planning policy

The most important factor that the Committee must consider is the relevant planning policies. Firstly there are the Council's own planning policies, particularly the policies

(7) in the Adopted Local Plan, but including other policy documents such as Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG). Relevant Government policy documents, such as Planning Policy Statements (PPS) or Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) and Circulars also need to be considered. Planning legislation requires that all planning decisions should be in line with the relevant policies.

The Milton Keynes Core Strategy is a key document in the emerging Local Development Framework which will eventually replace some of the existing saved policies of the Milton Keynes Local Plan. On 14th September 2010 a refreshed version of the Core Strategy was approved by Full Council for pre submission consultation. The Core Strategy has been refreshed and updated to reflect the abolition of the Regional Spatial Strategies on 6 July 2010. Now that the Core Strategy is adopted by the Council for consultation under a Local Development Scheme it becomes an ‘emerging policy’ that needs to be taken into account in planning decision making. It will not, however, supersede the Saved Policies from Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 until it is formally adopted after the Council has considered the Inspector’s Report following an Examination in Public (EIP) the date for which is yet to be confirmed.

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-policy.

You can find national planning legislation, guidance and advice at www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding.

(8) 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) (9) 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) (10) DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE CODE OF GOOD PRACTICE FOR PLANNING MATTERS - GUIDANCE SUMMARY

This code of conduct 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

C:\DOCUME~1\LSUNG\LOCALS~1\Temp\Guidance Summary.doc (11)

11 DCC members should normally only meet applicants and objectors with a Council officer present.

12 All such contacts must be reported to the Head of Planning and Transportation.

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 They must not speak or vote on any planning matter in which they have a prejudicial interest.

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.

Notes A Personal interest is a registerable interest OR something which affects a member's financial position or well-being - or that of their family, friends, job, business or other body(s) in which they have a registerable interest - more than it would affect other people in the Council's area. A Prejudicial interest is a personal interest that might reasonably be perceived by others as so significant that it is likely to prejudice a member's judgement on the relevant application. Even if members believe that this is not the case, they must give over-riding weight to the perception that others will have of their actions.

REVISED VERSION ADOPTED BY COUNCIL - 14 JANUARY 2005

C:\DOCUME~1\LSUNG\LOCALS~1\Temp\Guidance Summary.doc (12) 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. The number of requests to speak in objection to any application will be limited to five per application (not including any right of reply), although this may be extended at the Chair’s discretion. 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. Ward Councillors may speak in favour of any application and applicants will also 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.

(c) Any request to speak must be received in writing by the Head of Democratic Services by noon, two clear working days before the meeting, briefly outlining the statement to be made and the nature of the objection. (d) Any affected parties will be informed that the request has been received and will be invited to exercise a right of reply either in writing or orally at the meeting. (e) When there is one objector and an applicant, there will be a presumption that speeches should last no longer than 3 minutes each. In the case of multiple objectors, the applicant will be directed to be brief though not necessarily limited to 3 minutes, as the applicant must be given sufficient time to respond to the points raised. (f) Speakers will be limited to a maximum of 3 minutes each, although this may be extended at the Chair’s discretion. (g) Depending on the volume of representations and whether there are any particularly contentious items on the Agenda, 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 (iii) take all representations at the commencement of the meeting and then follow the order of the agenda. (h) 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.

(13)

SCHEDULE TWO

MINOR APPLICATIONS

Schedule Two: Minor Applications - Minor applications are proposed residential developments 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.

(14)

APPLICATION NUMBER: 11/00270/FUL

ERECTION OF DETACHED ONE-BEDROOM DWELLING

AT Land To The Rear of 20A and 20B St Georges Road, Bletchley

FOR Thomas, Mark And Paul Kirkwood

Target: 7th April 2011

Ward: Bletchley And Fenny Stratford Parish: West Bletchley Council

Report Author/Case Officer: James Kirkham Contact Details: 01908 252039 [email protected]

Head of Team: Andrew Horner Contact Details: 01908 252609 [email protected]

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY (A brief explanation of what the application is about, what the main issues are and the officer's Recommendation to the Committee)

1.1 The Site

The application site is an area of disused land located to the rear of 20A and 20B St Georges Road. The site is currently fenced off and overgrown. It was previously used as garden land. Full 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 current application seeks consent to erect a one bedroom property on the site. The proposal would provide ground floor accommodation and also a bedroom and en-suite in the roof space. A parking space and turning area would be provided on site. Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.

1.3 Main Issues

The main issues with this application are: • The principle of housing development. • The impact on the character and appearance of the area. • Impact on neighbouring residential amenity. • Parking and access

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of this report.

(15) 2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application)

2.1 National and Regional Policy

PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3: Housing

2.2 Local Policy

Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 H7 Housing Areas H8 Housing Density H9 Housing Mix T15 Parking Provision D1 Impact of Development Proposals on the Locality D2A Design of New Development D2 Design of New Buildings

Supplementary Planning Guidance Adopted Parking Standards and Addendum

Core Strategy CS10 Housing CS12 Developing successful neighbourhoods

3.0 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)

3.1 The most relevant planning history of the site is as follows:

MK/1103/90 – Erection of two self contained flats and construction of vehicular access - Permission (not implemented)

01/00880/OUT – Erection of one dwelling house and new access (outline) – Permission (not implemented)

01/01377/FUL – Erection of two flats – Permission (implemented)

4.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS (Who has been consulted on the application and the responses received)

4.1 Parish - West Bletchley Object as the Council does not agree to the development of back or front gardens to provide additional accommodation, considers the proposal an overdevelopment of the site, and considers the proposed access and parking arrangements are inadequate and would result in an increase of on road parking and traffic.

(16) 4.2 Highways Development Control The plans include a parking and turning area to serve the one bedroom house. The tracking diagrams have been checked and are suitable to serve the development so that a car would be able to enter and leave the site in a forward gear. No objection subject to conditions.

4.3 Environmental Health In accordance with PPS 23, as the proposed use is particularly vulnerable to the presence of contamination, it is recommended that a ground investigation condition is attached to any permission.

4.4 Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application:

20A. 20B, 20, 22, 24, 67 St Georges Road, Bletchley Little Chestnuts Day Nursery and Chestnuts Primary School, St Georges Road 1 and 3 St Clements Drive, Bletchley

A site notice was also placed at the site on 22nd February 2011.

4.5 Letters of objection have been received from 5 properties. These have raised the following issues: - The proposal will not enhance the landscape and will spoil the neighbourhood. It will be surrounded by gardens and destroy wildlife which currently lives there. - New house will overshadow the apartments to the front of the site. - A number of doors are accessed immediately from the drive. The access is very narrow and dangerous. Additional traffic and construction vehicles using this access will exacerbate this. The access is too narrow and children use these accesses. - The footpath and road is very busy with the adjacent school and further use of the access will put pedestrians at risk. - It is difficult to turn into the access of the site due to the congested nature of the road. How will construction traffic access the site - The access is only single car width and cars often have to reverse out due to meeting on coming vehicles leaving the parking area. - Parking on St Georges Road and the local area is already very heavy and the current application will exacerbate it. - Vehicles parked in St Georges Road have blocked the way for emergency vehicles. - Flat conversions have already been permitted at 61 and 20A-20B St Georges Road. Although parking is provided for these buildings it is never enough for the amount of cars. For example the conversion at 61 was permitted with 2 spaces but has 4 cars. - Allocated parking for the flats is not always used and occupiers park on the road. Parking serving 20A and 20B is inadequate and should have more spaces. It is difficult to park now and reverse out of spaces. - No visitor parking is provided. - The proposal will impact on the parking serving 20A and 20B. - More cars park on road when whether is bad as cars can not access

(17) rear parking. - The volume of traffic increases at school time and this raises concerns for the safety of children. - The road cannot cope with the volume of traffic which already exisits and it is increasingly dangerous for residents. - Noise and disturbance during construction including dust and odour affecting health of residents. How will working hours be restricted during construction? - People using residents parking during construction. - Overlooking to the school buildings and play areas. Reduction in light into the school building and areas accessed for the outdoor curriculum - This application should be refused as it is garden grabbing. It is no longer brown field land and the Council would be going against government advice if they allow it. - Is a further property going to be built in the future? - The land would be better used for gardens or parking for existing residents. - How will they connect services to the new dwelling? Surely it should have been built before the maisonettes.

5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (The analysis of the issues which are critical, material, considerations and/or of greatest concern to objectors for the Committee to weigh up before making a decision)

5.1 Principle of residential development The application site is located in a Housing Area on the Local Plan Proposals Map. It is situated within an established residential area and is compatible with the surrounding uses which are also residential. The site is currently fenced off and does not form part of the flats’ amenity space. Bin stores, drying areas and parking are provided to the rear of the flats between the building and the application site. The previous use of the site was garden land associated with 20 St Georges Street. Although gardens are no longer classified as previously developed land in the revised Planning Policy Statement 3, the site is within the development boundaries and the principle of housing development on the site is considered to be acceptable, subject to it not harming the character and appearance of the area and it being acceptable in terms of other constraints relating to the site.

5.2 The revised PPS3 does not state that garden land should not be developed and Policy H7 of the Local Plan states that housing development on sites within the limits of development will be assessed against a number of criteria. It does not state that all criteria must be met to permit new housing. With regards to water supply, sewerage and drainage the developer would be required to apply to the relevant water company for connection to the sewers; the relevant water company would then be obliged to make the necessary connections.

5.3 Impact on character and appearance of area The immediate area around the application property is characterised by a mix of semi-detached and terrace properties which are varied in appearance. The front of the site consists of two flats within a two storey building. Immediately

(18) to the east of the site is Chestnuts Primary School which has a variety of building styles on the site. The school buildings on the adjacent site and a row of properties to the west of the site which are set back from the frontage results in there not being a consistent pattern of development in this immediate area. The proposed dwelling would be located to the rear of the site and views in the street scene would largely be shielded by existing buildings. Some views would be available from the access point and across other properties’ gardens however these are not considered to significantly impact on the character and appearance of the area and the proposed building is not considered to appear overly intrusive from these vantage points. Therefore on balance it is considered that the impact on the character and appearance of the area is acceptable.

5.4 Impact on neighbouring properties amenity The proposed dwelling is located in excess of 15 metres from the properties to the front of the site and given its overall scale is not considered to significantly overshadow or appear visually intrusive from these properties. The ground floor window facing these properties is also considered to be a sufficient distance not to result in a significant level of overlooking to these properties. There is a first floor window in the front elevation of the proposal serving an en-suite facing these properties however this is proposed to be high level and therefore views will not be available out of it. It is recommended this be conditioned.

5.5 The property to the rear of the site has a garden in excess of 30 metres. The proposal includes roof lights in the rear elevation of the proposal relatively close to this boundary however given the overall length of this garden and the distance to any habitable windows this is not considered to lead to such a significant loss of privacy to this property to justify refusal of the application.

5.6 Chestnuts Primary School exists to the east of the site. They have raised concerns relating to overlooking to their grounds and also loss of light and outlook. The proposed dwelling is considered to be a sufficient distance from the windows on the elevation of the school facing the application site not to unduly impact on their outlook given the use of the building. The window in the side elevation of the application property facing the school is high level and will therefore not provide views across the site. The windows in the rear elevation will offer some views across parts of the grounds however this is not considered to significantly impact on the privacy of the school. The windows on the rear of the existing flats at 20A and 20B already provide some views over the play areas to the side of the property.

5.7 A number of residents have also raised concerns regarding disturbance during construction. These include concerns relating to noise, odour, dust, access and parking. Due to the temporary nature of construction works these issues are not normally given significant weight in planning decisions. All building works, whether they require planning permission or not, create some level of disturbance. However other environmental legislation exists to protect properties from unacceptable levels of disturbance during construction and it is not the role of the planning system to duplicate this.

(19)

5.8 Parking and Access The proposal provides 1 off street parking space and turning area for the dwelling to allow the car to enter and leave the site in a forward gear. This would utilise the existing access which serves the parking area for 20, 20A and 20B St Georges Road.

5.9 The highway engineer has been consulted and has raised no objections subject to conditions relating to the parking and turning area being retained. The provision of 1 parking space is in accordance with the adopted parking standards for a 1 bedroom dwelling. The plans have been amended during the course of the application so that the proposal does not impact on the existing parking spaces serving the flats to the front of the site.

5.10 A number of residents have stated that there is an existing parking issue in the local area. The current application has to be assessed in the light of this however it is not the role of the currently application to resolve existing parking issues. The proposal provides 1 on plot parking space in accordance with the adopted parking standards. Although the proposal does not include any visitor space, 0.25 space is required by the parking standards, it is not considered that this would significantly further impact on on-street parking to justify refusal of the application.

5.11 Residents have also raised concerns over the use of the proposed access for an additional dwelling. There concerns relate to the width of the access and also the fact that the entrances to the two flats and a side door serving 20 St Georges Road are accessed directly from this access. The highway engineer has raised no objection to this and it is considered that the access is a sufficient width to serve the additional dwelling. The access already serves 3 parking spaces to the rear of the site and it is not considered that the provision of one additional 1 bedroom dwelling would significantly increase risk of accidents or conflicts with pedestrians to justify refusal of the application.

6.1 The principle of the proposed development is considered to be acceptable. When the mixed character of this part of St Georges Road is taken into account the proposal is considered to be acceptable in regards to the impact on the character and appearance of the area. Given the scale of the proposal and the relationship with neighbouring properties the property is not considered to significantly impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

6.2 The proposal provides one off-street parking spaces which is in accordance the adopted parking standards. The small shortfall in visitor parking is not considered to significantly exacerbate on street parking issues which residents have raised and is not considered to justify refusal of the

(20) application. The existing access is considered to be adequate to serve the additional 1 bedroom dwelling. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

7.0 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 the Local Planning Authority before any work is commenced.(M03)

Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality.

3. The scheme for parking and turning indicated on the submitted plans shall be laid out prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted and that area shall not thereafter 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. Prior to any development taking place, the developer shall carry out an assessment of ground conditions to determine the likelihood of any ground, groundwater or gas contamination of the site. The results of this survey detailing the nature and extent of any contamination, together with a strategy for any remedial action deemed necessary to bring the site to a condition suitable for its intended use, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before construction works commence. Any remedial works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved strategy and validated by submission of an appropriate verification report prior to first occupation of the development. Should any unforeseen contamination be encountered the Local Planning Authority shall be informed immediately. Any additional site investigation and remedial work that is required as a result of unforeseen contamination will also be carried out to the written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the site is fit for its proposed purposed and any potential risks to human health, property, and the natural and historical environment, are appropriately investigated and minimised in accordance with PPS 23.

(21) 5. Before the development is occupied the ground surface areas around the building(s) including roads, drives, parking areas, kerbs, footways, patios, terraces and other amenity surfaces, including areas for earth moulding and contouring, shall be constructed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.(G08)

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory layout in keeping with the general amenity of the area and to provide a satisfactory setting for the development.

6. Details of the proposed boundary treatment of the site (including the type and height of any walls or fences) shall be first submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the boundaries of the site shall be enclosed in accordance with the approved details before the . The approved fence, hedge or wall shall subsequently be retained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. (G05)

Reason: To protect the amenities of the locality and safeguard the privacy of neighbour.

7. Details of the proposed finished floor levels of all buildings and the finished ground levels of the site, in relation to existing site levels of surrounding property, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any work commences. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved levels. (G03)

Reason: To ensure that construction is carried out at suitable levels having regard to drainage, access, the appearance of the development and the amenities of neighbouring properties.

8. The first floor roof light in the southern roof slope of the dwelling and the first floor window in the eastern elevation serving the bedroom of the dwelling hereby permitted shall have a cill height of no lower than 1.8 metres high above the finished floor level of the room in which it is installed. It shall not be altered from this specification without the prior written consent of the local planning authority.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

9. Pursuant to the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 or any Statutory Instrument revoking or re-enacting that Order, the provisions of Article 3(1) and Classes A, B, C and E of part I of Schedule 2 to the said Order (relating to extensions, additions and alterations to the roof and outbuildings) shall not apply to any dwelling to which this permission relates and no such development shall be carried out without the permission of the Local Planning Authority being first obtained.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control any future development of the plot in the interests of the privacy and residential amenity of adjacent residential occupiers and the visual amenity of the locality.

(22)

(23)

(24)

(25)

APPLICATION NUMBER: 11/00773/FUL

ERECTION OF FOUR DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND CARPORT

AT 139 Simpson, Simpson, Milton Keynes

FOR MAW Developments Ltd

Target: 30th May 2011

Ward: Bletchley And Fenny Stratford Parish: Simpson Parish Council

Report Author/Case Officer: Anna Holloway Contact Details: 01908 252271 [email protected]

Head of Team: Andrew Horner Contact Details: 01908 252609 [email protected]

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY (A brief explanation of what the application is about, what the main issues are and the officer's Recommendation to the Committee)

1.1 The Site

Details of the location of the site and its relationship to surrounding properties can be seen in the plans attached to this report. The bungalow which previously stood on the site has been demolished.

1.2 The Proposal

The erection of four dwellings with associated parking and carport with access off Walden Croft. Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.

1.3 Main Issues

The main issues are whether the proposal is in keeping with the character and appearance of Simpson Village, whether redevelopment of No.139 is an appropriate infill site for development and whether the proposal would have an adverse impact upon the amenities of adjoining residential occupiers. In addition consideration should be given to the weight which should be applied to the lapsed 2007 planning permission for the site for a similar development.

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of this report.

(26) 2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application)

2.1 National and Regional Policy PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3: Housing

2.2 Local Policy

Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011

The most relevant saved policies from Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011: D1: Impact of Development Proposals on Locality D2A: Urban Design Aspects of New Development D2: Design of Buildings T15: Parking Provision H7: Housing on Unidentified Sites H8: Housing Density

Supplementary Planning Guidance Parking Standards For Milton Keynes (2005) and Addendum (2009)

Core Strategy Emerging policy CS 1 Milton Keynes Development Strategy Emerging policy CS 10 Housing Emerging policy CS 13 Ensuring High Quality, Well Designed Places

3.1 Planning History for 139 Simpson (application site) 07/00374/FUL Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of four dwellings with associated garaging and car parking; permitted 27.04.2007

3.2 Planning History for existing development on Walden Croft

03/01576/OUT Residential development of 13 dwellings and construction of new vehicular access road (Outline); permitted18.05.2004

04/01230/OUT Residential development of 10 dwellings and construction of new vehicular access road (Outline); refused 27.08.2004

04/01862/FUL Application for partial approval of reserved landscaping of outline permission 03/01576/OUT for residential development; approval of reserved matters 10.02.2005

(27) 05/01187/REM Application for partial approval of reserved landscaping of outline permission 03/01576/out for residential development (plots 1-7 only); approval of reserved matters 13.10.2005

3.3 Planning History for 394 Simpson 08/00250/FUL Demolition of existing bungalow and construction of four dwellings and creation of new accesses; permitted 28.04.2008

4.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS (Who has been consulted on the application and the responses received)

4.1 Highways Development Control Since the previous planning application in 2007 was granted permission the council has adopted new parking standards.

4.2 The parking requirement in 2007 was a minimum of 7 parking spaces and a maximum of 8 (with one parking space being in an on-street parking bay for visitors). The officer’s report for the 2007 application stated that the provision of an on street parking bay would cause the loss of an area for landscaping and to provide a space for parking would have a more significant impact. The site was therefore permitted with just on-plot parking spaces (of which there was space for 8 cars).

4.3 For the current application the parking requirement is: Allocated parking: 8 spaces (4 x 2) Unallocated parking: 1.5 spaces (2 x 0.5; 2 x 0.25) Total: 10 spaces (when rounded up).

4.4 The proposals include space for 2 cars to park on plot (plots 3 and 4) and with plots 1 and 2 now showing car ports instead of garages then 3 spaces for these two units would be possible. However, the plans remain without any provision for un-allocated parking and it is my recommendation that 2 spaces are provided in order to meet current parking standards. A condition could be attached to submit details for such spaces.

4.5 Senior Landscape Architect I have a number of landscape points to make and the proposals may result in a number of issues for the adjacent property along the north boundary: - The height of the proposed dwellings plots 1 and 2 and their southern aspect will reduce natural light to the adjacent garden along the north boundary. - The proposed side elevations for plots 1 and 2 facing the north boundary are entirely brick and thus visually very ‘hard’ - An existing Eucalyptus tree within the adjacent garden area to the north, could be impacted upon from the proximity of the carport for plot 2, so I request the trees root protection area (RPA) (following guidance from BS 5837 2005 ‘Trees in relation to construction’) is established and not breached.

(28) 4.6 Access for plots 3 and 4 will result in the removal of an area of established planting, which I accept, however the southern boundary of the site does abut a very good maturing hedge (Portuguese Laurel) and the proposed dwellings for plots 3 and 4 appear to directly abut this hedge. The drawing (7853/14. Site Location Plan, Site Plan) states that existing planting will remain where appropriate, thus indicating planting will be lost, especially close to the front elevation and windows. I am concerned regarding the loss of planting associated with Walden Croft, however the planting I assume is privately owned and maintained; it is not open space and the road is not adopted, so the planting is not part of the public highway. I would like to see the planting associated with Walden Croft retained and the proposed plots 3 and 4 provide a minimum of 2m between the planting and the front elevations. Planting removed for access, as stated earlier I would accept.

4.7 There is a good large existing conifer on site which could be retained within the front garden of the proposed plot 2. The tree must be shown to ascertain suitability for retention.

4.8 New planting on site I’m happy to condition. Tree RPA shown with garden area to the north and tree protection fencing following BS 5837 2005 for the retained trees.

4.9 Environmental Health In accordance with PPS 23, as the proposed use is particularly vulnerable to the presence of contamination I recommend that a condition be applied to any grant of planning permission for this site for an assessment of ground conditions to determine the likelihood of any ground, groundwater or gas contamination of the site. The reason: to ensure that the site is fit for its proposed purposed and any potential risks to human health, property, and the natural and historical environment, are appropriately investigated and minimised.

4.10 Neighbourhood Manager There is some confusion over the status of Walden Croft; it has not been officially adopted by MKC. Can this be ironed out as part of the planning process? I know it is a concern to the residents of the Croft as well as the parish council.

4.11 British Waterways After due consideration of the application details, British Waterways has no objections to the proposed development.

4.12 Buckingham and River Ouzel Internal Drainage Board The Board notes that the proposed method of storm water disposal is by way of soakaways. It is essential that ground conditions are investigated and if found satisfactory the soakaways constructed in accordance with the latest Building Research Establishment Digest 365. In the event that ground conditions are found not to be suitable for soakaway drainage any direct discharge to the nearby watercourse will require Board’s prior consent. Please include a suitably worded condition in any planning permission that

(29) may be granted.

4.13 Simpson Parish Council Simpson and Ashland Parish Council (S&APC) wishes to object to the plans for the erection of four dwellings on the site of the former 139 Simpson and with access on to Walden Croft. At the same time as stating our own concerns in this report we also support the objections that are being made by owners of neighbouring properties and the team drawing up the Parish Plan.

4.14 We are aware that the present application is, in significant respects, a resubmission of an application first made in April 2007 which was approved by the then Development Control Committee. That approval was given despite the objections of the Parish Council and at least seven neighbouring properties. There were no letters in support of the plans.

4.15 S&APC contends that in the intervening four years there have been a number of factors that the present Development Control Committee should take into account and act upon. The committee should not merely nod through the resubmission on the basis of what was authorised in April 2007. A notable change since 2007 is the growing emphasis on ‘localism’, prompted by the central government’s agenda. If this is to have any meaning then the expressed wishes and priorities of the Simpson community should carry far greater weight in the decision-making process than they have previously.

4.16 Two other significant developments since 2007 have been: - The construction of four properties on the Simpson Road, immediately facing Walden Croft where there was previously one dwelling. This has further increased the housing density in this part of the village and the impact on the infrastructure (see below); - The publication in 2010 of the New Residential Development Design Guide.

4.17 A brief history The area of land now occupied by Walden Croft was formerly an orchard and prior to that a brickfield. In the 1980s a large detached house was constructed with a spacious garden to front and rear; this family home became 137 Simpson. In early 2004 plans were put forward to demolish the house and to build 17 dwellings on the land. The Parish Council, together with neighbouring properties, fiercely contested this application on a number of grounds including that the proposed development was out of keeping with the village character of Simpson.

4.18 Our presentations at the Development Control Committee meeting on 10 March 2004 led to the committee voting to defer a decision for the second time (there were no votes in favour of the application). A revised plan was deferred for a third time at the meeting on 21 April 2004 to enable the submission of further amendments ‘to diminish the impact of the development on neighbouring properties’. Eventually, a proposal for 12 properties (rather than the initial 17) was approved. This sequence of events illustrates that the history of the whole development of Walden Croft has been contested from

(30) the outset.

4.19 At the same time that these negotiations were going on the developer was attempting to acquire the adjacent property, 139 Simpson. The owner, Mrs Cooper, did not wish to sell so these ambitions were frustrated. However, when she died soon afterwards the property was duly purchased. The plans for this plot, initially submitted in 2007, entailed the demolition of the bungalow and the construction of four further dwellings fronting the Walden Croft road. Simpson Parish Council, together with the owners of neighbouring properties, objected to these plans but despite this they were approved by the committee. The bungalow was demolished but no further action was taken on the new build during the three years for which the consent was valid.

4.20 As a community we are not opposed to change and development in itself. In recent years a mix of new properties has been built at The Mount, Millholm Rise and Poplar Close which are in keeping with the character of Simpson, enabling the village to expand with minimal loss of amenity to neighbouring properties. This has been achieved through consultation and thoughtful design and by retaining reasonably sized gardens to maintain a character in keeping with a village setting. These properties have proved to be highly desirable commanding good market prices.

4.21 By contrast, it should be noted that only two out of the twelve dwellings constructed in Walden Croft have been owner occupied. The remaining ten have been let to tenants (though one appears to have been sold very recently).

4.22 Specific objections and conditions We recognise that since this application is, in effect a resubmission of already approved plans the parish council and local residents are not in a strong position in objecting. However, there are three matters on which we request the Development Control Committee to act:

4.23 1. The adoption of Walden Croft road. Since the construction of Walden Croft in 2005/6 the road has never been adopted by MKC. The Parish Council only became aware of this in January 2010 when Michael Watkins, one of the two owner occupiers in the road, informed us because he was having unsatisfactory communications with the landowner over responsibilities for maintenance. It appears that the developer never had any intention of applying to have the road adopted; something that we contend is unacceptable in a contemporary development of this size and nature in Milton Keynes. The present and future residents of Walden Croft are disadvantaged as a consequence since they are not getting full value for their Council Tax payments and the community as a whole, for which the S&APC has responsibility, lacks the assurance that a part of the village will be maintained to appropriate standards. This issue has been taken up with MKC and, most recently, with Iain Stewart MP. This planning request provides an opportunity that should not be missed for Milton Keynes Council to fulfil its responsibilities in ways that were overlooked in 2004. We demand that a condition of any approval of the current plan is that the developer brings the Walden Croft

(31) road to the standard required for adoption (if it doesn’t already) and that the road is adopted by MKC.

4.24 2. Parking. When the original plans for Walden Croft were discussed the PC and residents raised concerns about the availability of parking spaces given the likely occupancy. Those concerns were justified and the road is often to be seen lined with vehicles in addition to those parked on designated spaces. We contend that the proposed new development will only serve to exacerbate this problem and we ask that this aspect of the plans be reviewed in the light of any changes in legislation and standards since the initial approval in 2004.

4.25 3. Sewerage. A further concern at the time of the 2004 plans related to the capacity of the main sewer which runs under the Simpson Road. These concerns have also proved to be well founded since there have been blockages at the bottom of the hill by The Plough Inn which have required attention from Anglian Water. There has to be a restriction on any further development to the south of the Plough Inn corner of Simpson Road until major work has been carried out to upgrade the sewer.

4.26 Further action The Parish Council wishes to give notice that when this proposal is put on the agenda for the Development Control Committee we will wish to speak. We will also be briefing our Borough Councillors and requesting them to exercise their right to address the meeting. We also request a site visit with officers from the Planning Department and other interested parties. Such a visit was arranged during the lengthy discussions around the 2004 application and was instrumental in a modified proposal being put forward.

4.27 Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties in Simpson were notified of the application: Mount Pleasant Simpson Village 141, Hillside' 143, 396 and 398 and 400 Simpson Brook View, Hedgerow, and Hillview Mount Pleasant 1 to 13 Walden Croft

4.28 Four public representations have been received on the application. These include three letters of objection from the occupiers of neighbouring properties including Hedgerow and Hillview on Mount Pleasant and from the co-ordinator of the development of a parish management plan for Simpson and Ashland, and a letter commenting on the application from the occupier of 1 Walden Croft. The representations received can be summarised as follows:

1. Overlooking of houses and bungalows in the surrounding area. The pair of very large three storey houses will completely overlook Hedgerow on Mount Pleasant after 43 years of complete privacy.

2. Impact on highway safety of increased traffic on the brow of a hill. Concern about the safety of elderly residents living very close by.

(32) 3. Impact of more cars on parking in the area and difficulties for service vehicles to collect/deliver etc.

4. It will put more strain on the sewage system.

5. Request for the hedge on Walden Croft to be protected as it is now mature and well established and enhances the appearance of Walden Croft as well as acting as a haven for nesting birds.

6. If it must be built on, why not four bungalows as they would not interfere with anyone and would be more in keeping with the area.

7. Since the application in 2007 the Council has revised its concepts for new build and the Coalition Government has placed local decision-making high on the agenda with the Localism Bill.

8. The parish management plan, and eventually Neighbourhood Plan, will stipulate that: - The main Simpson village area and through road should remain ‘village like’. - There should be a mix of housing which maintains a density similar to the present one. - New development near listed buildings should be avoided. - Development should not exacerbate current parking problems on the through road.

9. The replacement of one house with four with insufficient parking and such a new-build development towards the older and listed buildings in the village is unacceptable.

10. On behalf of the many residents who have contributed to the draft parish management plan to date, I would argue that both planning and political considerations have changed since planning consent was given in 2007.

5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (The analysis of the issues which are critical, material, considerations and/or of greatest concern to objectors for the Committee to weigh up before making a decision)

5.1 The 2007 permission (07/00374/FUL) for the application site is substantially similar to the current proposal. The 2007 permission was granted for three years on the 27th April 2007 and therefore has now lapsed. However, the local plan policies which it was considered under are still relevant and therefore the 2007 permission is a material consideration for the current application. The key issues are therefore the impact of the proposed changes from the previous 2007 permission and any material considerations which have changed.

5.2 Planning History In 2004 outline permission (03/01576/OUT), with landscaping reserved, was granted for a residential development comprising of 13 dwellings and the construction of a new vehicular access road on land adjacent to the south of

(33) the application property at The Orchard, 137 Simpson. This permission was granted after amendment to the original proposal reducing the number of dwellings from 18 to 13. The proposal included a terrace of 7 dwellings including three 3-bed houses, two 2-bed flats and two 1-bed flats; also, the proposal included to the rear of the plot three pairs of semi-detached 3-bed houses with the third bedroom contained within the roof space. Dormer windows were omitted from the northernmost pair of semi-detached houses to protect the amenity of neighbouring properties. In 2005 approval of the reserved matters was granted (04/01862/FUL and 05/01187/REM) and the dwellings have now been erected, representing a density of 33.3 dwellings per hectare.

5.3 In 2004 outline permission (04/01230/OUT) was refused for a residential development at 137 Simpson comprising 10 dwellings. There were three reasons for refusal including inadequate parking provision and an adverse impact on the character and setting of the site and surrounding area. Also, the proposal had a density of no more than 25.6 dwellings per hectare, which was below the minimum density of 30 dwellings to the hectare recommended by PPG3 Housing and contrary to policy H8 that requires a density of 35 dwellings per hectare in zone 3.

5.4 The consideration of the 2008 permission for 394 Simpson (08/00250/FUL) took into account the 2007 permission for the application site.

5.5 Principle of development and density Local Plan policy H7 sets out criteria for where planning permission will normally be granted for new housing on non-allocated sites in addition to sites allocated on the proposals map. The proposal is to be located on an existing residential site surrounded by other residential properties. Therefore, there would not be a conflict of land uses.

5.6 Local Plan policy H8 Housing Density recognises the unique character of the Borough, particularly its diverse character, and seeks realistic increases in density in the most appropriate locations. The policy states that well designed development can facilitate higher densities and will be critical in ensuring the new development is successfully integrated into the Borough. The development falls within zone 3; therefore, policy H8 states that the council will seek average net densities of 35 dwellings per hectare.

5.7 The site of the proposed development covers an area of approximately 0.093 hectares. Therefore, the proposed development would have a density of 42.9 dwellings per hectare. However, to calculate the density the area is usually calculated including access roads. As the proposal is linked to the previous development at Walden Croft and would be accessed from Walden Croft it is appropriate to calculate the density based on the area of the entire development including the existing development at Walden Croft and the current application. Based on this the combined total area would be approximately 0.483 hectares and a total of 17 dwellings would have a revised density of 35.2 dwellings per hectare. Therefore, the proposal is considered to be inline with policy H8 of the local plan.

(34)

5.8 Since the 2007 permission a revised edition of PPS3 has been issued. PPS3 states that in deciding planning applications regard should be given to: - Achieving high quality housing. - Ensuring developments achieve a good mix of housing reflecting the accommodation requirements of specific groups, in particular, families and older people. - The suitability of a site for housing, including its environmental sustainability. - Using land effectively and efficiently. - Ensuring the proposed development is in line with planning for housing objectives, reflecting the need and demand for housing in, and the spatial vision for, the area and does not undermine wider policy objectives e.g. addressing housing market renewal issues. (PPS3, paragraph 69) Taking into account that the saved Housing Density policy H8 includes the requirement for the density to be well related to the character and appearance of development in the surrounding area and the 2007 permission was considered to be acceptable with regards to the character and appearance of the area it is considered that the proposed development would not be contrary to PPS3 in terms of density and the efficient use of land.

5.9 Character and appearance of the area The nearest listed building within Simpson is the grade II listed The Old Bakehouse at Nos.420 and 422 Simpson Road. Between the application site and The Old Bakehouse are a number of 20th century bungalows and modern structures. The proposed dwellings at the rear of the development would continue the form of those already built to the rear of Walden Croft and the properties to the front would provide a transition between the properties on Walden Croft and the bungalows to the north of the site. In addition the retention of the existing hedgerow along Simpson Road would retain existing green frontage. Therefore, the design of the proposed development is considered acceptable in terms of the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

5.10 Amenity of neighbouring residential occupiers The proposed dwellings on plots 1 and 2 would be a minimum of 22m from the rear of No.141 Simpson Road and a minimum of 16m to the rear of ‘Hedgerow’ on Mount Pleasant. The dwellings at plots 1 and 2 would not be directly to the rear of No.141 and a distance of 22m would be retained between the nearest front corner of the dwelling at plot 2 and the rear corner of No.141. This relationship is considered acceptable in terms of the impact on the outlook, setting, daylight and privacy.

5.11 Also, due to the orientation of the properties the relationship between plots 1 and 2 and the properties on Mount Pleasant is considered acceptable in terms of the impact on privacy. The dwellings on plots 1 and 2 and the properties on Mount Pleasant would be at right angles to one another with no windows directly overlooking the rear of the properties on Mount Pleasant. Also, the use of velux windows within the rear roof slope set 1.8m above the floor level would prevent overlooking into neighbouring properties from these

(35) windows.

5.12 In regards to the impact of the dwellings at plots 3 and 4 on the neighbouring property at 141 Simpson Road it is considered that there would not be a significant impact on amenity due to the scale and form of the proposed buildings. The proposed dwellings include windows serving rooms within the roof space that would face onto the side of No.141; however, these windows would serve en-suite bathrooms. Therefore, a condition requiring the windows to be obscurely glazed would protect the privacy of No.141.

5.13 The relationship between the proposed dwellings and the existing properties on Simpson Road, Mount Pleasant and Walden Croft are considered to be acceptable in terms of the impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

5.14 Highways and Parking The application site is located within zone 3 of the Council’s adopted parking standards. The four-bedroom dwellings on plots 1 and 2 have a parking requirement of two allocated parking spaces per dwelling and an unallocated parking requirement per dwelling of 0.50 spaces. The total parking requirement for plots 1 and 2 is therefore four allocated and one unallocated parking spaces. The proposed layout would allow for three allocated parking spaces per dwelling (with one within the car port). The proposed parking provision for plots 1 and 2 therefore exceeds the parking standards by two in terms of allocated parking spaces and falls short of the parking standards for unallocated space by one. The proposed two-bedroom dwellings on plots 3 and 4 have a parking requirement of two allocated parking spaces per dwelling and an unallocated parking requirement per dwelling of 0.25. The total parking requirement for plots 3 and 4 is therefore four allocated and one (rounded up from 0.5) unallocated parking spaces. The proposed parking provision for plots 3 and 4 is therefore in accordance with the parking standards for allocated parking spaces but falls short of one unallocated parking space.

5.15 The proposed development would therefore exceed the allocated parking space standard by two parking spaces and fall short of the unallocated parking space standard by two parking spaces. Whilst it would be beneficial for the development to provide unallocated parking spaces rather than an over provision of allocated parking spaces it is considered that the impact would not be significant enough to warrant a refusal.

5.16 The 2007 permission required one unallocated parking space; however, the provision of on-street parking within a lay-by would require the loss of an area of landscaping within the street scene which would have a significant adverse impact on the character of the area which is considered to outweigh the impact on the parking provision given the over-provision of on-plot parking for plots 3 and 4.

5.17 The proposal would result in an additional three dwellings on the application site. This would not have a significant impact in terms of traffic generation

(36) and the proposed layout is considered acceptable with regards to highway safety. During the consideration of the 2007 application it was stated that the Highways Adoption Engineer has received correspondence regarding the adoption of Walden Croft which has been constructed to an adoptable standard. An email has been received stating that Walden Croft is still owned by the applicant and was constructed to an adoptable standard and that the owner would be willing to offer the road for adoption if required. In the determination of the current application for four additional dwellings accessed off Walden Croft the key issue is the standard of the road and whether it is capable of safely serving the proposed development; the adoption of the road would fall under s38 of the Highways Act and could not be required as part of the planning process.

5.18 Drainage Objections have been raised with regards to the ability of the sewage system to cope with additional demand; however, the developer would be required to apply to the relevant water company for connection to the sewers. The relevant water company would then be obliged to make the necessary improvements; the charge for such works would be a matter for the relevant water company and the developer. The proposal includes the use of soakaways for the disposal of surface water. An informative should be included on a grant of any consent notifying the applicant that in the event that ground conditions are found not to be suitable for soakaway drainage any direct discharge to the nearby watercourse will require the prior consent of the Internal Drainage Board and that it is contrary to the Highways Act 1980 for surface water from private development to drain onto the highway or discharge into the highway drainage system.

6.0 CONCLUSIONS (The officer advice to the Development Control Committee on the appropriate decision, based on the policies of the Development Plan, taking into account the issues detailed in the report) 6.1 The proposal is considered acceptable with regards to the proposed changes from the previous 2007 permission and there are no material considerations which have changed significantly that would now warrant a refusal of permission. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to a condition listing the approved plans and the conditions listed below.

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

(37) 2. Prior to any development taking place, the developer shall carry out an assessment of ground conditions to determine the likelihood of any ground, groundwater or gas contamination of the site. The results of this survey detailing the nature and extent of any contamination, together with a strategy for any remedial action deemed necessary to bring the site to a condition suitable for its intended use, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before construction works commence.

Any remedial works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved strategy and validated by submission of an appropriate verification report prior to first occupation of the development.

Should any unforeseen contamination be encountered the Local Planning Authority shall be informed immediately. Any additional site investigation and remedial work that is required as a result of unforeseen contamination shall be carried out to the written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

3. The external materials to be used in the development shall be in accordance with samples to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any work is commenced.(M03)

Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality.

4. Prior to the commencement of development, details of root protection areas (RPA) and the location of protective fencing for the conifer trees within the development site, overhanging trees of neighbouring properties and the hedges adjacent to Simpson Road and Walden Croft shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The protective fencing shall be put in place prior to any other work commencing on the site and retained for the duration of construction of the development. The fencing shall be of the same specification as that depicted in figure 2, page 13 of BS 5837 2005 'Trees in relation to construction - Recommendations'. The RPA within the protective fencing shall be kept free of all construction, construction plant, machinery, personnel, digging and scraping, water-logging, changes in level, building materials and all other operations, personnel, structures, tools, storage and materials, for the duration of the construction phase. No fire shall be lit such that it is closer than 20 metres to any tree or that flames would come within 5 metres of any part of any tree.

Reason: To protect the trees and hedge during the construction phase of the development hereby permitted.

5. The existing hedge adjacent to Simpson Road on the eastern boundary of the site shall not be cut back or removed.

(38) Reason: To protect the appearance and character of the area and to minimise the effect of the development on the area.

6. A scheme showing the proposed boundary treatment of the plots shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any part of the development is commenced. The scheme shall show the type and height of fences, hedges, walls or other means of enclosure, and these shall be provided in accordance with the approved scheme before the adjacent dwellings are first occupied. The approved fence, hedge or wall shall subsequently be retained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.(G06)

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance for the development in the interests of visual amenity, a reasonable degree of privacy for occupiers of the proposed dwellings, and to safeguard the privacy and amenities of the occupiers of existing neighbouring dwellings.

7. A landscaping scheme, which shall include provision for the planting of trees and shrubs, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any part of the development is commenced. The scheme shall include the retention of the existing conifer trees and the hedge on the Simpson Road frontage and also the retention of the existing hedge on Walden Croft apart from the locations of the new access points, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall show the numbers, types and sizes of trees and shrubs to be planted and their location in relation to proposed buildings, roads, footpaths and drains. 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.

Reason: To protect the appearance and character of the area and to minimise the effect of development on the area.

8. The finished floor levels of the buildings on Plots 1 and 2 shall be 600mm lower than the finished floor levels of the adjacent property at 13 Walden Croft.

Reason: To ensure that construction is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and at suitable levels having regard to drainage, access, the appearance of development and the amenities of neighbouring properties.

9. The scheme for parking and manoeuvring shown on the approved plans shall be laid out prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted and that area shall not thereafter 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.

(39) 10. The car port for Plots 1 and 2 shall be retained for use for the parking of vehicles and shall not be further enclosed

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.

11. The roof lights within the rear roof slope of the buildings on plots 1 and 2 shall have a minimum cill level of 1.8m above the floor level of the rooms within the roof space. The cill level of these windows shall not be altered in height.

Reason: To preserve the amenity and privacy of the adjoining residential occupiers.

12. The first floor windows within the northern rear elevations of the dwellings on Plots 3 and 4 shall be obscurely glazed to a level of obscurity of level 3 within the Pilkington range of Textured Glass or equivalent and shall be top hung. They shall not be altered to clear glazing or side hung.

Reason: To preserve the amenity and privacy of the adjoining residential occupiers. 13. Pursuant to the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 or any Statutory Instrument revoking or re-enacting that Order, the provisions of Article 3(1) and Classes A, B, C and E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the said Order (relating to the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse, the enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof, any other alteration to the roof of a dwellinghouse, and the provision within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse of any building or enclosure) shall not apply to any dwelling to which this permission relates.

Reason: To preserve the character and appearance of the development and to protect the amenities of those dwellings permitted and adjoining occupiers.

14. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Statutory Instrument revoking or re-enacting that Order) the area of land on the Walden Croft frontage to the south of the 1.8m high post and panel fence at Plots 3 and 4, as shown on the approved site plan (drawing number 7853/14), shall be permanently retained as an open area of landscaping and shall not be enclosed.

Reason: To retain an area of open landscaping on the Walden Croft frontage to preserve the character and appearance of the area.

(40)

(41)

(42)

(43)

(44)

(45)

APPLICATION NUMBER: 11/00809/FUL

CONVERSION OF A SINGLE DWELLING INTO TWO SELF-CONTAINED APARTMENTS INCLUDING EXTENSIONS AND ALTERATIONS

AT 8 Wilford Close, Woolstone, Milton Keynes

FOR Mrs Lydia Roberts

Target: 23rd June 2011

Ward: Campbell Park Parish: Campbell Park Parish Council

Report Author/Case Officer: James Kirkham Contact Details: 01908 252039 [email protected]

Head of Team: Andrew Horner Contact Details: 01908 252609 [email protected]

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY (A brief explanation of what the application is about, what the main issues are and the officer's Recommendation to the Committee)

1.1 The Site The application site is a detached house and garage accessed from Wilford Close. It is located in a residential area which consists of larger properties. Full 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 current application seeks consent to convert the existing dwelling into two apartments. The proposal includes a number of external alterations including the erection of a two storey front extension and a first floor balcony to the rear of the property. The ground floor apartment would have 2 bedrooms and the apartment on the uppers floors would have 3 bedrooms. Full details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.

1.3 Another planning application on the site (11/00921/FUL) for the conversion of the detached garage into a separate 2 bedroom dwelling is currently pending consideration. This application is also on the Panel Agenda.

1.4 Main Issues The main issues in this case are: - Impact on character and appearance of area - Impact on neighbouring properties - Parking and access

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of this report.

(46) 2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application)

2.1 National and Regional Policy PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 – Housing

2.2 Local Policy

Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 H7 Housing Areas H8 Housing Density H10 Subdivision of dwellings and houses in multiple occupation T15 Parking Provision D1 Impact of Development Proposals on the Locality D2A Design of New Development D2 Design of New Buildings

Supplementary Planning Guidance Adopted Parking Standards and Addendum

Core Strategy CS10 Housing CS12 Developing successful neighbourhoods

3.1 00/01866/FUL – Rear conservation – Permitted

02/01151/FUL – Erection of 1.75 metre high boundary wall – Permitted

11/00921/FUL – Conversion of existing double garage and workshop to self- contained two bedroom dwelling – Pending consideration

4.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS (Who has been consulted on the application and the responses received)

4.1 Parish - Campbell Park The Committee raised the following concerns:

i. If both applications were approved there would be inadequate parking by Milton Keynes standards for both the residents and visitors;

ii. Concerned that the approval of both applications would contravene Milton Keynes Council Policy H10 in that it would have an adverse effect on the character of the area.

However the Committee felt that the approval of one of the applications dividing the house into 2 apartments would be acceptable.

(47)

4.2 Highways Development Control The site as a whole with the two applications has a parking requirement of 7 spaces:

Allocated Unallocated Ground floor flat 1 0.5 3 bed flat 2 0.5 2 bed house 2 0.25

Total 5 1.25 Grand total rounded up 7

4.3 The revised layout shows 7 parking spaces. Space marked as number one is slightly awkward to use as it is close to the access. However, the central manoeuvring area between the rows on both sides of the parking area exceeds our normal 6m requirement so it is consider that the layout is acceptable.

4.4 The width of Wilford Close is a standard residential road width of 4.8m and is suitable to serve the dwellings including the proposed dwellings. Therefore raised no objections to planning permission being granted subject to condition.

4.5 Environmental Health No objections.

4.6 Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application:

6, 7 and 9 Wilford Close, Woolstone

4.7 12 letters of objection have been received including 1 letter signed by the occupiers of 5 properties. These include comments from residents on Pattison Lane and Wilford Close. These have raised the following issues:

- The application property is currently a substantial executive property in a quiet road with relatively few neighbours. It is secluded and peaceful. The proposal is out of character with this and will alter the balance of the area. Many of the properties in the local area could be converted to apartments. The application could set a precedent. It is inappropriate to turn the area into a 'bed sit Close'. - The character of the area is currently one of single family dwelling units in a village setting. - Flats and houses in multiple occupation are not in character with the area. - There are no apartments in Woolstone and this is a benefit to the area. - Whilst the cosmetic changes may be in character with the existing properties, the use is not. - Substantial increase in additional vehicle movements compared to the existing situation causing noise and disturbance to neighbours. The proposal could almost double the vehicle movements in the road.

(48) - Increase in noise associated with more intensive use of garden and plot. - Car parking may be required for 12 cars. There is not enough parking to serve the proposal. The proposal could lead to on street parking in a narrow close creating inevitable danger to other residents. The area is a cycle route to a number of schools. - Danger to local residents, children and cyclists as a result of additional car movements. - The flats are likely to be occupied by residents with two cars. - The statement claims the garage will be used for parking however this is to be converted to a dwelling. - The roadways and housing in the Close were not designed for higher density living such as this application. The narrow roadway and housing layout is likely to result in disputes over parking. - The house did not sell on the open market and the applicant is trying to optimise the value of the site. - The proposal will alter the character and dynamic of the close. The proposal could lead to a mix of owner occupied and tenanted dwellings. The owner has no way of guaranteeing the future tenants. - The application could set a dangerous precedent for future applications. - The proposals are misleading as there are two applications which fails to provide proper planning. They do not demonstrate how they comply with the Development Plan and other material considerations. - The proposal does not accord with Policies D1, H7 and H10 as they do not demonstrate how private amenity spaces will be provided or how the plot will be subdivided. - The plots on Wilford Close were sold on the basis to allow one dwelling per plot. This was a covenant by MKDC. - Comments have been made in regard to the applicants' motives for the application. These are not material planning considerations. - Change in character of area from premier homes to flats could affect value of surrounding properties. If this happened would the Council be liable for damages to surrounding properties.

5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (The analysis of the issues which are critical, material, considerations and/or of greatest concern to objectors for the Committee to weigh up before making a decision)

5.1 Proposed extensions to the building The proposed two storey front extension to the property would be constructed of matching materials to the main dwelling. The extension is designed to be in keeping with the main dwelling and is considered to be acceptable in terms of scale. There is a mix of dwelling types in the local area and it is therefore not considered to detrimentally impact on the street scene. The proposed front extension is also considered to be a sufficient distance from the neighbouring properties not to significantly impact on their residential amenity.

5.2 The proposed balcony to the rear of the site is considered to be acceptable in terms of design. An open field exists to the rear of the site and the side boundaries of the site are currently enclosed with tall hedges. The proposed balcony would lead to some increase in overlooking to neighbouring properties if the hedges to the side boundaries of the site were lowered,

(49) particularly the rear part of the gardens. However it is considered that if the western side of the balcony were screened to prevent some overlooking, given the distance to the neighbouring properties’ dwellings and the relationship with these properties, the level of overlooking would not be significant to justify refusal and views from the balcony would be directed to the open space to the rear of the site. It is recommended that the provision of the screen be conditioned if the development is considered acceptable in all other regards.

5.3 Principle of sub-division into flats The immediate area around the application property is characterised by mainly large detached properties in generously sized plots. As outlined above the proposed alterations to the dwelling are not considered to detrimentally impact on the character or appearance of the area. The applicant has confirmed that it is proposed to use the garden as a shared garden and there will therefore be no subdivision of the plot. Therefore the impact of the built alterations on the character and appearance of the area is considered to be acceptable.

5.4 The application property will remain as residential accommodation and will be contained largely within the footprint of the existing dwelling. The main impact on the character of the area as a result of the sub-division of the dwelling into flats will be the more intensive use of the site. However the additional comings and goings to the site and additional activity associated with more dwellings is not considered to significantly impact on the character of the area given the relatively minor increase in amount of dwellings. The proposals are also not considered to significantly impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties in terms of noise and disturbance given the relatively generous separation distances to neighbouring properties. Planning Policy Statement 3 seeks to encourage mixed communities with a mix of dwelling types. In regard to saved Policy H10 of the local plan the proposal is not considered to lead to an unacceptable concentration of flats in the area given there are no other flats in the immediate area. Therefore overall the proposals are not considered to unacceptably impact on the character of the area.

5.5 The applicant has submitted plans showing the proposed location of the bin stores. Although these are located to the front of the site they would be screened by the existing wall and fence on the front boundary so are not considered to significantly impact on the appearance of the area. The applicant has confirmed the garden will be shared between residents and this will be used for outdoor amenity space and drying space for residents. This is considered to be adequate for future residents. The Environmental Health Officer has been consulted and has raised no objection to the proposals in regard to noise transmission between the units. The applicant would have to comply with Building Regulations in regard to the noise between the flats. No other properties share party walls with the application property. The proposals are therefore considered to comply with these elements of Policy H10.

(50) 5.6 Living conditions of future occupiers The proposal is considered to provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers. The garden areas around the site will be shared between the residents and there are no proposals to subdivide the plots. Due to the horizontal divide between the two flats they are not considered to unacceptability impact on one another's residential amenity in regard to internal spaces. Subdivided properties and flats often have shared amenity spaces and this is considered to be an acceptable arrangements. There are concerns relating to the inter relationship with the proposed ground floor flat and the garage conversion which is pending consideration however these would be overcome if the garage conversion (planning reference 11/00921/FUL) were to be refused.

5.7 Parking and access A number of residents have raised concerns regarding the amount of parking serving the site and potential problems from on-street parking. Saved policies H10 and T15 both detail the approach the Council would expect towards parking requirements when dealing with proposal such as this. Parking requirement for development proposals are outlined in the adopted parking standards and addendum. Based on this the proposal has a parking requirement of 3 spaces and 0.75 visitor spaces. The applicant has submitted a plan which shows the parking for this planning application and the associated planning application for the conversion of the garage into a dwelling which is also being considered. The two developments together have a parking requirement of 7 spaces. The parking plan submitted with the application shows 7 parking spaces in accordance with the standards. The highway engineer has raised no objection to the proposal and considers that all the spaces are accessible given the layout of the parking area. The level of parking provision serving the site is therefore considered to be acceptable.

5.8 The parking would be provided in an area which is currently hard standing to the front of the property and used for parking by the existing dwelling. This area is therefore already hard standing for parking and is not considered to detrimentally impact on the appearance of the area. Furthermore the parking area is partially screened from the road by the wall and fence to the front of the site.

5.9 The highway engineer has assessed the width of the road leading to the site following concerns raised by residents. The highway engineer is satisfied that the width of Wilford Avenue is suitable to serve the additional dwellings.

5.10 Other matters A number of other matters have been raised by residents objecting to the scheme. Any restrictive covenants which exist on the plot are not material planning considerations and are civil matters. Some of the objectors have also questioned the motives of the applicant in providing additional dwellings on the site however these are not a material planning consideration neither is the potential impact on neighbouring house prices.

(51) 6.0 CONCLUSIONS (The officer advice to the Development Control Committee on the appropriate decision, based on the policies of the Development Plan, taking into account the issues detailed in the report)

6.1 The proposed physical alterations to the property are considered to be acceptable. The more intensive use of the site will have some impact on the character of the area however it is not considered to lead to any significant harm to the character of the area or the amenity of neighbouring properties. The application provides parking in accordance with adopted parking standards and the width of Wilford Close is considered to be acceptable to accommodate the additional new dwellings. It is therefore considered that the development complies with planning policy and permission should be granted subject to conditions.

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

2. 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.

3. The scheme for parking shown on the approved plans shall be sited and permanently marked out on site prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted and that area shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose.

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

4. Prior to the commencement of development, full details showing where household refuse and recyclables are to be stored and the full appearance of the bin store facilities shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved facilities shall be installed prior to occupation of the accommodation hereby permitted and shall thereafter be retained as a permanent ancillary to the development.

(52) Reason: To ensure satisfactory facilities are permanently available to the occupants of the dwelling, and to prevent harm to the residential amenities of the area in accordance with Policy D1 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001- 2011.

5. Prior to the commencement of development, full details of a screen to the western side of the balcony shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The screen shall extend at least 1.8 metres above the finished floor level of the balcony. The screen shall be erected in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted and shall thereafter be permanently retained.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the neighbouring properties in accordance with Saved Policy D1 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan.

(53)

(54)

(55)

(56)

(57)

(58)

(59)

(60)

(61)

(62)

APPLICATION NUMBER: 11/00921/FUL

CONVERSION OF EXISTING DOUBLE GARAGE AND WORKSHOP TO SELF- CONTAINED TWO BEDROOM DWELLING

AT 8 Wilford Close, Woolstone, Milton Keynes

FOR Mrs Lydia Roberts

Target: 22nd June 2011

Ward: Campbell Park Parish: Campbell Park Parish Council

Report Author/Case Officer: James Kirkham Contact Details: 01908 252039 [email protected]

Head of Team: Andrew Horner Contact Details: 01908 252609 [email protected]

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY (A brief explanation of what the application is about, what the main issues are and the officer's Recommendation to the Committee)

1.1 The Site The application site is a detached house and garage located in a residential area. Full 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 current application seeks permission to convert the detached garage to the front of the property into a separate two bedroom dwelling. The overall footprint of the building would not be altered however there would be a number of new windows and doors inserted into the building. Full details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.

1.3 Another planning application on the site (11/00809/FUL) for the sub-division of the main house to two apartments is currently pending consideration. This application is also on the Panel Agenda.

1.4 Main Issues The main issues in this case are: - Impact on character and appearance of area - Impact on neighbouring properties - Parking and access

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out at the end of this report.

(63) 2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application)

2.1 National and Regional Policy PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 – Housing

2.2 Local Policy

Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 H7 Housing Areas H8 Housing Density T15 Parking Provision D1 Impact of Development Proposals on the Locality D2A Design of New Development D2 Design of New Buildings

Supplementary Planning Guidance Adopted Parking Standards and Addendum

Core Strategy CS10 Housing CS12 Developing successful neighbourhoods

00/01866/FUL – Rear conservation – Permitted

02/01151/FUL – Erection of 1.75 metre high boundary wall – Permitted

11/00809/FUL – Conversion of a single dwelling into two self-contained apartments including extensions and alterations – Pending consideration

4.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS (Who has been consulted on the application and the responses received)

4.1 Parish - Campbell Park The Committee raised the following concerns:

i. If both applications were approved there would be inadequate parking by Milton Keynes standards for both the residents and visitors;

ii. Concerned that the approval of both applications would contravene Milton Keynes Council Policy H10 in that it would have an adverse effect on the character of the area.

However the Committee felt that the approval of one of the applications dividing the house into 2 apartments would be acceptable.

(64) 4.2 Highways Development Control Site as a whole with the two applications has a parking requirement of 7 spaces:

Allocated Unallocated Ground floor flat 1 0.5 3 bed flat 2 0.5 2 bed house 2 0.25

Total 5 1.25 Grand total rounded up 7

4.4 The width of Wilford Close is a standard residential road width of 4.8m and is suitable to serve the dwellings including the proposed dwellings. Therefore raises no objections subject to condition.

4.5 Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application:

6, 7 and 9 Wilford Close, Woolstone

4.6 12 letters of objection have been received. These have raised the following issues:

- The proposal is a substantial executive property in a quiet close with relatively few neighbours. It is secluded and peaceful. The proposal is out of character with this and will alter the balance of the close. Many of the properties in the local area could be converted to apartments. It is inappropriate to turn the close into a bed sit close. - There are no apartments in Woolstone and this is a benefit to the area. - Whilst the cosmetic changes may be in character with the existing properties, the use is not. - Substantial increase in additional vehicle movements compared to the existing situation causing noise and disturbance to neighbours. The proposal could almost double the vehicle movements in the close. - Increase in noise associated with more intensive use of garden and plot. - Car parking may be required for 12 cars. There is not enough parking to serve the proposal. The proposal could lead to on street parking in a narrow close creating inevitable danger to other residents. The area is a cycle route to a number of schools. - Danger to local residents and children as a result of additional car movements. - The flats are likely to be occupied by residents with two cars. - The statement claims the garage will be used for parking however this is to

(65) be converted to a dwelling. - The roadways and housing in the Close were not designed for higher density living such as this application. The narrow roadway and housing layout is likely to result in disputes over parking. - The application could set a dangerous precedent for future applications. - There are also proposals to convert the house into apartments. - The house did not sell on the open market and the applicant is trying to optimise the value of the site. - The proposal will alter the character and dynamic of the close. The proposal could lead to a mix of owner occupied and tenanted dwellings. The owner has no way of guaranteeing the future tenants. - The proposals are misleading as they are done in two applications and fail to provide proper planning. They do not demonstrate how they comply with the Development Plan and other material considerations. - The proposal does not accord with Policies D1, H7 and H10 as they do not demonstrate how private amenity spaces will be provided or how the plot will be subdivided. - Milton Keynes requires centrally located executive properties. - The plots on Wilford Close were sold on the basis to allow one dwelling per plot. This was a covenant by MKDC. - Comments have been made in regard to the applicants' motives for the application. These are not material planning considerations. - Change in character of area from premier homes to flats could affect value of surrounding properties. If this happened would the Council be liable for damages to surrounding properties.

5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (The analysis of the issues which are critical, material, considerations and/or of greatest concern to objectors for the Committee to weigh up before making a decision)

5.1 Principle of development Policy H7 of the local plan outlines the criteria for providing new housing on unallocated sites. The application property is located within an established housing area on the local plan proposals map and is in an accessible location. The site is already in residential use however the proposal would result in the existing garage having a fundamentally different use as a new independent dwelling. This use of the building as a separate dwelling would impact on the character of the area.

5.2 The pattern of development in the vicinity is primarily large detached dwellings located in generous plots with ancillary outbuildings. The proposal would introduce an independent dwelling into the front of the site which is not considered to be in keeping with the characteristic pattern of residential development in the area. It is considered to result in a cramped arrangement of dwellings on the site when compared to other properties in the local area. On balance this is considered to be unacceptable in terms of impact on the character of the area and is considered contrary to D2A and D2 of the Local Plan as it would fail to relate well to the prevailing character and pattern of development in the area and would result in the formation of a cramped dwelling in relation to the surroundings.

(66) 5.3 Notwithstanding the above concerns the main form of the building is already in situ and the appearance of the alterations to the building to allow the conversion to a dwelling are not considered to significantly impact on the appearance of the area. The more intensive use of the site will have some impact on the character of the area through additional movements associated with the use and additional activity in the garden; however, given the separation to neighbouring properties this is not considered to cause significant harm to the neighbouring properties in terms of noise and disturbance. This does not however overcome the principle character concern relating to the application.

5.4 The proposed new windows and doors are located at ground floor level and are not considered to significantly impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties. To ensure that any future alterations would not significantly impact on the neighbouring properties’ amenity it would be recommended that the permitted development rights of this property be removed if the development was considered to be acceptable in all other regards.

5.5 Living conditions of future occupiers Much of the front of the proposed dwelling would have parking situated immediately in front of it. This would lead to a reduction of amenity to the future occupiers of the new dwelling due to noise and disturbance from other residents using the shared parking area.

5.6 The proposed building would also be overlooked by the main dwelling on the site and users of the parking area. The windows on the front of the building would be overlooked by both ground and first floor windows within the front elevation of the main property and the window within the southern elevation of the building is considered to have an unacceptable relationship with openings in the side of the main property due to their proximity and relationship. This is considered to lead to inadequate levels of privacy and unacceptable levels of overlooking to the new dwelling. The application has to be considered on the basis of creating a new independent dwelling. Although the applicant has stated the garden area would be shared it is considered that the internal living accommodation to the dwelling should have a sufficient level of privacy and amenity. Overall, on balance, due to the noise and disturbance from the parking area to the front of the dwelling and the inadequate level of privacy resulting from the use of the parking area and relationship with the main property, it is considered that the proposed dwelling would provide an unacceptable level of amenity and privacy to future residents of the dwelling.

5.7 Parking and access Parking requirements for development proposals are outlined in the adopted parking standards and addendum. Based on the parking standards the proposed converted garage has a parking requirement of 2 spaces and 0.25 visitor spaces and the existing dwelling has a parking requirement of 2 spaces and 0.5 visitor spaces. The applicant has submitted a plan which shows the parking for this planning application and other current application on the site for the subdivision of the main dwelling into 2 apartments. The two developments together have a parking requirement of 7 spaces. The parking

(67) plan submitted with the application shows 7 parking spaces in accordance with the standards. The highway engineer has raised no objection to the proposal and considers that all the spaces are accessible given the layout of the parking area. The level of parking provision serving the site is therefore considered to be acceptable and is unlikely to result in on-street parking to the detriment of highway safety.

5.8 The parking area would be provided to the front of the site. The area is already hard standing and views of this are partly screened from the wider area by the wall and fence on the front boundary of the site. The proposals for parking are therefore not considered to significantly impact on the appearance of the area in this respect.

6.0 CONCLUSIONS (The officer advice to the Development Control Committee on the appropriate decision, based on the policies of the Development Plan, taking into account the issues detailed in the report) 6.1 The current application is finely balanced. The impact of the development on the appearance of the area will be limited however the use of the garage as a new dwelling will introduce a new separate dwelling to the front of the site. The proposed creation of a separate dwelling to the front of the site is considered to be out of character with the prevailing pattern of development and character of the area. Furthermore the proposed new dwelling is not considered to have a sufficient level of amenity for a new independent dwelling due to the relationship with the parking area and the existing property on the site. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be refused.

7.0 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 would lead to the creation of a dwelling which has a poor and cramped relationship with the pattern of development and character of the area. The proposed dwelling would fail to provide a sufficient level of amenity to future residents by virtue of its relationship with the communal parking area and existing property on site. The proposed development is therefore contrary to saved policies D2A, D2, H7 and D1 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

(68)

(69)

(70)

(71)

(72) APPLICATION NUMBER: 11/01122/FUL

CHANGE OF USE FROM AGRICULTURAL BUILDING TO SINGLE RESIDENTIAL UNIT (RETROSPECTIVE)

AT The Byre, East End, North Crawley

FOR North Crawley Estate Ltd

Target: 13th July 2011

Ward: Sherington Parish: North Crawley Parish Council

Report Author/Case Officer: Alex Harrison Contact Details: 01908 252608 [email protected]

Head of Team: Andrew Horner Contact Details: 01908 252609 [email protected]

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY (A brief explanation of what the application is about, what the main issues are and the officer's Recommendation to the Committee)

1.1 The Site The application site is a former agricultural building that has been converted for residential purposes. It sits in a courtyard of buildings with the eastern elevation immediately backing onto the open countryside. 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 Retrospective planning permission is sought to convert the building to a residential unit. At the time of visiting the site the building appeared unoccupied but works had been carried out to bring the building up to a residential standard. There are no elevation changes to the unit and internally the building remains largely open. A hardstanding area has been included in the courtyard as curtilage for the unit but there is no landscaped area. Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.

1.3 Main Issues The main issues with this application are: • The principle of development • The impact on the character of the area • The impact on the highway • Any neighbouring amenity concerns.

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of this report.

(73) 2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application)

2.1 National and Regional Policy

PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas.

2.2 Local Policy

Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 S10 – Open Countryside D1 – Impact of development proposals on locality T10 – Traffic T15 – Parking Provision E5 – Reuse of rural buildings

Supplementary Planning Guidance Adopted Parking Standards

07/01086/FUL Change of Use from Agricultural to Business Use (Use Class B1) Application Withdrawn.

4.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS (Who has been consulted on the application and the responses received)

4.1 Development Plans Manager Policy S10 states that in the open countryside, planning permission will only be given for development that is essential for agriculture, forestry, countryside recreation or other development which is wholly appropriate to a rural area and cannot be located within a settlement. In which case, this application would be unacceptable.

However, Policy E5 of the Local Plan allows for exceptions to policy S10. It allows for the re-use of rural buildings for employment purposes providing an application meets the criteria listed in the policy. In this case, however, the application is for a change of use for residential purposes. The supporting text to policy E5 states that proposals for a non-employment re-use will only be permitted where it can be shown over a sustained period that all reasonable attempts to secure an employment re-use have failed. It goes on to state that any such proposals will be assessed against criteria (ii) to (v) of policy E5. On this basis, the application is contrary to policy.

However, in this case, it appears that an application was previously submitted for reuse of the building for employment purposes. However, Highways raised an objection to the application in relation to policies S1 and T10 and stated that the building may be “better served and more sustainable by conversion to a

(74) residential dwelling”. If it is the case that the Highways team would raise an objection to any form of employment use on this site then it is clear that permission for employment use is unlikely to be gained. Under these circumstances, providing criterions (ii) to (v) of policy E5 were satisfied, residential use would be considered an acceptable alternative on the basis that there is nothing that the applicants could do in order to attain permission for employment use.

In conclusion, there is a policy objection to the principle of this application on the basis that it does not comply with policy E5 of the Local Plan. However, if it is the case that the Highways team would raise an objection to any application for any form of employment use on this site, then there would be no policy objection to this application on the basis that employment use would not be acceptable under Local Plan transport policies. The Highways team should be consulted to establish whether or not there is any form of employment use that would be acceptable in transport terms, in order to determine whether or not there would be a policy objection.

4.2 Highways Development Control As this a re-use of an agricultural building into a residential unit, I have no objections to the planning application.

The plans show an area in front of the unit which I take it is for parking. I would recommend that a condition is attached that this area is retained for parking and not used for any other purpose.

4.3 Councils Archaeologists Made no comment

4.4 Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application:

• East End Farmhouse East End • Quakers House East End • Front Quarter Quakers Barn East End • Quakers Barn East End • Wood View East End • East Dene East End • 2 East End Cottage East End Lane • 3 East End • Rose Cottages East End

2 letters have been received raising the following objections: • Concern over the number of retrospective applications at the site. • Increased traffic at East End • Vehicles travel too fast at East end which is a danger and the speed limit should be reduced.

(75) 5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (The analysis of the issues which are critical, material, considerations and/or of greatest concern to objectors for the Committee to weigh up before making a decision)

5.1 Principle of development. The policy principle as been assessed by the Development Plans Team and they have stated that a residential conversion would be acceptable subject to no objection being raised by Highways. Policy E5 does state that rural buildings should be reused for employment uses however a previous application on the site, 07/01086/FUL, resulted in objection being raised from Highways due to the vehicle numbers using East End. The advice from Highways effectively concludes that an employment use would be unacceptable in this location and therefore it has allowed alternative uses to be considered.

5.2 The supporting text to policy E5 states that proposals for a non-employment re- use will only be permitted where it can be shown over a sustained period that all reasonable attempts to secure an employment re-use have failed. No such evidence has been provided however it would not be possible to try to secure an employment user due to the previous highway objection and their continuing concerns. The proposal can argue therefore that it cannot adhere to this requirement. It is also felt that there would be no grounds to object on this basis as employment use in principle raises concerns.

5.3 It is therefore felt that, due to the highway concerns, a residential reuse of this building would be more appropriate in this instance and therefore be acceptable in principle. The approach can be considered appropriate in light of central Government Guidance in PPS7 which states in paragraph 17:

‘Re-use for economic development purposes will usually be preferable, but residential conversions may be more appropriate in some locations, and for some types of building.’

5.4 The impact of the proposal will be looked at in detail below in light of policies D1, T10 and T15 but in terms of principle it is acknowledged that E5 is not complied with, but also considered that it would not be an appropriate location for employment use and therefore, in this instance, a residential conversion may be more appropriate.

5.5 Character of the area There are no external alterations to the building and therefore there is no change to the character of the building. The hardstanding area will form a parking area for the unit but this will not be out of character with the area. Consideration therefore lies with the activities associated with residential use. The unit is an open plan building and therefore it is assumed it would provide a single bed property. The vehicle and people movements associated with a single dwelling are relatively low and therefore there would be no intensification of activity in this area which would be contrary to the existing character. As a result the impact is considered to be acceptable in light of Local Plan policy D1.

(76) 5.6 The application does not include a landscaped garden for the unit. This is the correct approach in this instance. It is likely that a garden area would encroach further into the open countryside. A consideration with barn conversions is that they are restrictive in their scope and this is particularly true with establishing curtilages. There is a courtyard which provides an outdoor area but the lack of garden provision is appropriate in this context.

5.7 Highway issues The proposed use is considered appropriate by Highways as it will create minimal traffic using East End. Therefore there is not the previous concern that resulted from the proposed B1 employment use. In terms of parking the hardstanding area at the front will provide suitable parking and although not marked out will accommodate the use. A condition will be required ensuring its retention and on this basis the proposal is considered to be acceptable in light of policies T10 and T15 of the Local Plan.

5.8 Neighbouring amenity. There are no immediately adjacent neighbours to the unit and therefore there are no concerns over neighbouring amenity.

5.9 Other issues Objection has been raised on the grounds of the retrospective nature of the proposal. It should be made clear that the same impartial approach is taken on retrospective applications as is done on developments that are not. In terms of considering applications there is no advantage to applying retrospectively, more it is a case that the applicant takes larger risk in doing so.

6.1 In this instance the residential conversion of the unit is considered to be acceptable as there have been concerns over employment use proposed in the past and these remain. As a result the residential conversion is considered acceptable in spite of policies S10 and E5 and the impact of this proposed use is regarded as negligible.

6.2 It is therefore recommended that planning permission is granted subject to the conditions set out below.

1. The area of the application site immediately adjacent the west side of the building shall be used as a parking area and shall be maintained as a permanent ancillary to the development and shall be used for no other purpose at any time.(P01)

(77) Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision at all times so that the development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or the conditions of general safety along the neighbouring highway.

2. Pursuant to the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 or any Statutory Instrument revoking or re-enacting that Order, the provisions of Article 3(1) and Class A, B, C, D or E; of part I of Schedule 2 to the said Order (relating to householder development) shall not apply to any dwelling to which this permission relates.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate future development on the site in the interests of the character of the open countryside in accordance with policies D1 and D2 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 - 2011.

(78)

(79)

(80)

(81)

(82) APPLICATION NUMBER: 11/01167/FUL

ERECTION OF 7 DWELLINGS WITH VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS (RE- SUBMISSION OF 10/02675/FUL)

AT Land At The Junction of Tanfield Lane And Bewdley Grove, Bewdley Grove, Broughton

FOR Lodge Park Limited

Target: 22nd July 2011

Ward: Middleton Parish: Broughton & Milton Keynes Parish Council

Report Author/Case Officer: Nicola McTeer Contact Details: 01908 252932 [email protected]

Head of Team: Andrew Horner Contact Details: 01908 252609 [email protected]

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY (A brief explanation of what the application is about, what the main issues are and the officer's Recommendation to the Committee)

1.1 The Site The application site is located within the Broughton grid square, close to the existing Local Centre and at a focal point at the junction with Tanfield Lane and Bewdley Grove. The site is currently an area of grassland and parking having been the previous parking area associated with the sales office for Lodge Park. This forms a focal parcel of land when passing the bridge over the Broughton Brook and currently has planning permission for use as a Public House with community meeting room and associated parking.

1.2 The falls within a Flood Risk Zone 3. Details of the location of the site and its relationship to surrounding properties can be seen in the plans attached to this report.

1.3 The Proposal The proposed development consists of four detached dwellings and three terraced properties, varying in height from two to three storeys and is proposed to take features from both the existing Lodge Park and Paul Newman developments and create a focal housing development in a prominent position within the Broughton grid square.

1.4 Parking is typically provided either to the side of the units or via car-ports. Two visitor car parking spaces are proposed opposite the site along Bewdley Grove. A detailed statement in support of ‘saved’ Policy D4 of the adopted Local Plan has been submitted. Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.

(83) 1.3 Main Issues 1. Change of Use of Land/Principle of Housing; 2. Impact of Development Proposals on Neighbouring Properties; 3. Impact of Development Proposals on Street Scene; 4. Highway Safety/Parking Provision; 5. Principle and/or Provision of Affordable Housing; 6. Compliance with Policy D4.

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out at the end of this report.

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

2.1 National and Regional Policy PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development; PPS3 – Housing.

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 Aspects of New Development; T1 - The Transport User Hierarchy; T3 - Pedestrians and Cyclists; T15 - Parking Provision; LC1 - Local Centres; LC2 - Local Centres; LC3 - Local Centres; C2 - Protection of Community Facilities; D4 - Sustainable Construction; H4 - Affordable Housing; H7 - Housing on Unidentified Sites; H8 - Housing Density; H9 - Housing Mix.

The site is allocated for commercial facilities on the adopted Local Plan Proposals Map.

Supplementary Planning Guidance 'Parking Standards for Milton Keynes' 2005 and Addendum 2009 Redway Design Manual

Core Strategy CS10 – Housing CS12 – Developing Successful Neighbourhoods CS13 – Ensuring High Quality, Well Designed Places CS14 – Sustainable Construction

(84) 3.0 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)

3.1 Site A Broughton, Milton Keynes – 7(2) ref. 72.MK.745 Developer Lodge Park Approved 15.02.2005

10/02675/FUL Erection of 7 dwellings with vehicle and pedestrian access. Refused 08.03.2011

4.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS (Who has been consulted on the application and the responses received)

4.1 British Waterways No comments received.

4.2 Environment Agency No further comments to add to previous letter and state that these comments remain pertinent. Previous comments note that soakaways must not be located in contaminated areas. Request ground contamination report.

4.3 Environmental Health Manager Requests ground contamination condition.

4.4 Councillor White Requests application is decided at committee.

4.5 Internal Drainage Board No further comments to add to those made in their previous comments.

Previous comments recommended that finished floor levels are set no lower than either 500mm above the 1:100 year modelled level +20% for climate change or 600mm above the 1:100 year modelled level, the Board has no objection to the proposed development. In addition, the Board notes that the proposed method of storm water disposal is by way of soakaways and that it is essential that ground conditions are investigated.

4.6 Development Plans Manager A very similar proposal was refused planning permission under the planning ref 10/02675/FUL in March 2011. One of the reasons for refusing the application was that there has been insufficient evidence (including financial documents/reports/substantitative statements) supplied to the LPA to demonstrate that the application site has been marketed at an appropriate land value for a community facility such as a nursery/day care facility or such similar use for a prolonged period of at least 6-12 months. No further evidence has been submitted to the LPA to demonstrate insufficient demand from the local catchment area of Broughton and surrounding area to provide such uses including a nursery/day care facility. In the absence of such information, the loss of a community facility is considered unacceptable and the principle of a residential form of development has not been established.

(85)

I note that two marketing reports from Bidwells and Patrick Punch & Co are included within the submitted Design and Access Statement. These reports suggest that the site has been a subject of extensive marketing activities. Both of the reports also suggest that the site has proved to be unsuitable for a pub use due to its insufficient size for a modern pub development and the proximity to the Broughton Hotel. The reports also confirm that alternative uses were also explored as part of the marketing of the site. The Bidwells report states that “while interest was received from McCarthy & Stone (Developments) Limited and a number of private nursery operator’s, discussions did not proceed due to the site not being financially feasible”. Also Patrick Punch & Co confirm in their statement that some enquires from businesses looking to open a child care nursery/crèche were registered but not taken any further on the basis that it was not financially feasible. The Patrick Punch & Co report concludes that “The site is entirely unsuitable for development as a day care nursery/crèche facility because the site is too small, the Broughton area is already oversupplied and the development of a day care nursery/crèche unit is accordingly not financially feasible”.

Firstly, it should be noted that the marketing reports appear to suggest that it is not financially feasible to enable its development of the site for a day care nursery (or any other alternative use accepted by the LPA). The site is still being actively marketed via a website www.punch.org.uk with the asking price of circa £400,000 which equates to circa £3,077,000 per ha of land. This appears to be an unreasonably high price for land that is not allocated for a residential use. It is worth noticing that a larger site with existing buildings allocated for D1 use in Bletchley Town Centre is currently on the market for approximately £400,000. It is reasonable to argue that if the application site was marketed at an appropriate price for the proposed use then the development of e.g. a day care nursery might have been financially feasible.

Secondly, the applicants argue that “the site is entirely unsuitable for development as a day care nursery/crèche facility because the site is too small”. However, there are a number of nurseries within Milton Keynes located on smaller sites e.g. Wolverton Mill Day Nursery run by a major operator Asquith Day Nurseries (site’s area excluding car parking circa 1100sqm), Bridges Sure Start Childrens Centre at Kingston District Centre (sites area excluding car parking circa 730 sqm).

Finally, the applicants claim that the Broughton area is already oversupplied when considering child care facilities. Again no evidence has been submitted to support this view and with the site falling within a developing expansion area, up-to-date evidence would be required to support this view. It is also worth noticing that, according to the council’s data, there is only one day care nursery within the Broughton area (Broughton Manor Preparatory School).

To conclude the principle of housing on the site is therefore not yet considered acceptable. Please note that our comments regarding affordable housing and sustainable construction made on the previous application 10/02675/FUL still stand’.

(86) Previous 10/02675/FUL comments read: The site has planning permission for a public house containing an 80m2 room for community use. The applicants have set out in an accompanying statement that they have been unable to successfully market the site for a pub use. They have demonstrated this through marketing details provided. In addition they state that the site is too small for a modern pub development and that the proximity to the Broughton Hotel concerns potential operators. Therefore, the principle of losing the pub development is acceptable as it was never likely to be realised.

Policy C2 of the Local Plan states that planning permission will be refused for developments that involve the loss of a site allocated for community facilities, unless: i) there is no longer a need for a for the facility for any type of community use; or ii) an acceptable alternative facility can be provided elsewhere.

The applicants have not stated that there is no longer a need for the community room. However, they have provided a supporting statement from MKP. They state that the proposed Broughton Pavilion will contain a community meeting room and the Hindu Elders centre can also be used for community purposes. I am awaiting confirmation from colleagues at MKP and MKCVO if this is acceptable.

The applicant’s statement makes reference to local centre policies in the local plan. However, it is not considered that these are relevant as this site is not part of the main local centre in the square in Tanfield Lane.

Affordable Housing If the site had come forward with the rest of the Broughton development then it would have been required to provide 30% affordable housing. However, the site was allocated for a public house, which was subsequently never developed. Now as the applicants are seeking housing on the site, it is only reasonable given the circumstances that they provide 30% affordable housing, despite being below the 15 dwelling threshold.

Sustainable Construction The applicants have submitted a sustainability statement that follows the SPD checklist. However, the statement lacks detail and makes no firm commitments to achieve the requirements set out in the SPD. I have set out the areas that need to be addressed below. Energy – The applicants need to provide details of how scheme will meet 25% improvement over building regulations 2006 part L. This should include TERs, DERs and detailed calculations for all dwelling types. The applicants should note that the 25% reduction in emissions should include the emissions from cooking and appliances.

Renewable energy – There is no firm commitment in the statement for the use of renewable technologies. It is suggested that solar thermal panels will be used and that they expect this will reduce emissions by 10%. However,

(87) there is no solid commitment and no calculations demonstrating how the panels will reduce emissions by 10%

Carbon – It is welcomed that the applicants are committed to pay into the carbon offset fund but they need provide detailed calculations on what the estimated total emissions will be (including cooking and appliances).

Water – 125 litres per day is above the SPD pass standard of 105 litres per day. Have they looked at installing more water efficient taps/showers? Can they provide details of the water usage in toilets, showers, washing machines, dishwashers and taps. The development will make use of water butts. The applicants need to confirm that the driveways will be permeable. Details of the proposed material are required.

Materials – The applicants have demonstrated that they will use A rated materials in 6 of the 7 elements. It is there intention for 15% of the materials used to be recycled. This is above the SPD requirement of 10% but it is just an intention, not a firm commitment. Therefore confirmation is required.

If the applicants do not wish to follow the checklist then they must achieve Code for Sustainable Homes level 4 certification. A pre-assessment estimator the predicted code score will be required at the application stage’.

Additional information for 11/01167/FUL was submitted and received from the applicant’s agent. The Policy Officer was re-consulted and further comments read:

1) ‘I note the agent’s comment about a number of pubs going out of business every week but consider this to be a general statement rather than a site specific comment reflecting specific market conditions within this area of the Borough. However, I accept that a pub use on the site, due to its proximity to the Broughton Hotel, may not be financially feasible.

2) The applicants will appreciate that although the site was granted planning permission for a public house containing an 80m2 room for community use, its actual allocation on the Local Plan Proposals Map is for commercial facilities. The site is located some 100 metres away from the main local centre in the square in Tanfield Lane and has the same local plan annotation. Policies LC1, LC2, LC3 are directly relevant to the use of local centres. Policy LC1 refers to the allocation of land at Broughton for a new Local Centre. Policy LC2 and LC3 have the objective of maintaining viability of Local Centres and reducing the number of empty units. The supporting text acknowledges that future success of Local Centres depends on providing a wider range of retail, service and community facilities to meet the needs of local residents. However, I accept that the Local Plan also states that in certain circumstances, appropriately designed residential development may be acceptable in local centres.

(88) 3) I accept that the site has been marketed for a number of years and I do not question that aspect of the conducted marketing campaign. However, in my previous comments I said that it appears that the application site has been marketed for an unreasonably high price for land that is not allocated for a residential use. I would reiterate my earlier suggestion that the conducted marketing campaign might have had a different outcome should the site being marketed at an appropriate price i.e. a price that is reasonable for a commercial use. It is for the applicants to prove that the asking price of £400,000 is reasonable for a commercial plot of 1,300sqm. Comparing house prices in Broughton versus Wolverton or Bletchley has no relevance to the current application as the application site is not allocated for a residential use.

4.7 Highways Development Control I have looked through the revised plans but these propose only minor changes to the previous scheme. The accesses across the Redway, in particular the lack of visibility from plot one would create significant risk of collision with cyclists, and is unacceptable. Plot 7’s access remains conflicting with the carriageway narrowing. Two visitor parking spaces are shown on the plan but these are not included within the red line and are only part within highway. The parking standard for unallocated parking spaces is 3.5 spaces (rounded to 4) for 7 dwellings. As the revised plans have not addressed my concerns, I maintain my objections to the proposals.

Previous 10/02675/FUL comments read:

Parking Under the council’s parking standards (zone 3) the requirements for this site are as follows:

Allocated parking: Units Standard Total 7 2 14 Unallocated parking:

7 0.5 3.5 Total 18

The plans show a parking layout consisting of open parking spaces and car ports but no provision in the layout has been made for unallocated parking spaces, which is unacceptable. The likely result of this is on-street parking on Bewdley Grove and Tanfield Lane (perhaps also close to the junction of the two) leading to danger and inconvenience to users of the highway.

Generally, parking spaces with a wall to both sides of the spaces should be 3 metres wide and 5 metres long per space. On the submitted plans the applicant has not taken account of the highway boundary which runs at the back edge of the footway (although I am aware that an unregistered plan has been submitted). This means that some of the parking space lengths are not

(89) 10 metres for two end to end spaces.

I am not convinced that the combination of some of the plots of open parking spaces and car ports is providing a suitable layout. The size of these properties would suggest that the owners are most likely in the future to want some form of secure storage for household goods (i.e. a garage). Plots 4-7 could all accommodate a garage by setting back the structure slightly further into the plot so that there would be 6 metres between the front of the structure and the boundary of the plot. Two open car parking spaces could then be situated in front of the garage. Plots 4, 5, 6 and 7 have two open parking spaces each so the car port layout is not really needed.

Access The proposed access arrangement for plots 1 – 3 will be across an existing Redway and this is unacceptable. The proposals will create an informal access arrangement across a previous uninterrupted section of Redway. Cyclists’ expectations will be for free flowing use whereas, as submitted, slowing to make adequate observations of cars leaving the plots will be needed. Furthermore, with cyclists and drivers failing to make adequate observations this will cause a significant danger to cyclists. This is particularly the case here because this Redway is a principle link to the shops close by. The danger and inconvenience to users of the Redway is exacerbated by the wall and planting (which is on highway) of plot 4. In positioning the wall and the building lines (which at the closest point is just 200mm from the Redway edge) causes a danger to cyclists.

Drivers exiting from Plot 1 would have almost no visibility of an approaching cyclist from the south west, not helped by the alignment of the Redway to the south west. As set out in the Redway design manual visibility requirements are 1.5 metres x 15 metres which is not achievable for the three accesses.

As a general policy within the Redway design manual interruptions in the form of driveways, estate roads etc. should be avoided. Also this arrangement is contrary to Local Plan policies T1 and T3. The lack of visibility would be contrary to policy D1.

Due to the safety concerns of three crossings of the Redway as set out above, it is my opinion that this site should take its access from Bewdley Grove only.

The access in front of the car port for plot 7 will conflict with the carriageway narrowing.

In conclusion I object to the planning application for the following reasons:

1. The applicant has not made adequate provision within the site for unallocated parking spaces. The development if permitted, would therefore be likely to lead to additional on-street parking and/or parking in inappropriate locations to the detriment of highway safety and convenience contrary to policy T15 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan

(90) 2001 – 2011 and Milton Keynes Council’s Addendum to “Parking Standards for Milton Keynes” 2005 (April 2009).

2. The proposed three new accesses onto Tanfield Lane will create conflicts, danger and inconvenience to users of the Redway contrary to policies T1, T3, and D1 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011 and the Redway Design Manual.

3. The proposed access for plot number 7 will conflict with the carriageway narrowing on Bewdley Grove contrary to policy D1 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011.

4. The proposed development includes building works within land designated as public highway causing a danger and inconvenience to users of the public highway and restricting the ability for the highway authority to carry its duties contrary to policies T1, T3 and D1 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011.

Amended plans were received for 11/01167/FUL. The Highway Engineer was re-consulted and further comments read:

The enclosed plans do not appear to have addressed my concerns. Cars exiting plot one would still have restricted visibility of cyclists. The splay as shown only provides adequate visibility of the Redway for pedestrians.

Plot 7 shows a tracking diagram. This however, confirms that vehicle would track part over the road narrowing and remains unacceptable.

Parking: If two visitor spaces are to be included within the plans then this will need to be included within a red line application boundary. However, the parking requirement for unallocated spaces is 0.5 spaces per unit. So for 7 dwellings 4 spaces would be required. I would point out that the addendum to parking standards is adopted policy - here is the extract from the council’s web site:

“The Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) document setting out the parking standards was adopted on 21 December 2004 and published in 2005. The addendum to the 2005 SPG, setting out revised residential standards and new standards for HiMO accommodation was adopted on 2 April 2009. The car parking standards for residential development contained in the addendum replace those in the 2005 SPG”.

Planning inspectors have confirmed the status of the addendum and as an example here is an extract from the final paragraph of the appeal at 58 Watercress Way:

“I conclude that the proposal would have a materially adverse impact on highway convenience and safety due to increased pressure for on-street and/or inappropriate parking. It would conflict with the Council’s adopted parking

(91) standards (2005 & addendum 2009), policy T15 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011 and the advice in Manual for Streets”.

And an extract from the Stanton Avenue appeal:

The Council has in accordance with PPS3 revised its own car parking standards based upon national car parking research to produce an addendum to its supplementary planning guidance ‘Parking Standards for Milton Keynes’ (SPG). As these amendments have been subject to public consultation and formally adopted I attach significant weight to them’.

Further amendments were received for 11/01167/FUL and the Highway Engineer commented: ‘The revised plan showing the red line around the proposed unallocated ‘visitor’ parking spaces is noted. The two on street parking bays are acceptable in layout terms. The provision of two spaces remains short of the parking standards by two spaces (the standard being 0.5 spaces per unit). Some of the plots have more than two spaces when the car ports are counted along with the open car parking spaces. This offers some mitigation for the shortfall against the unallocated provision and on balance I withdraw my objection on this point.

The three crossing points of the Redway, but in particular the crossing from plot 1, remains a concern. With severely restricted visibility from plot 1 there are significant dangers to cyclists who would be unsighted. There appears to be adequate land to accommodate three access points along this section while at the same time providing adequate visibility. Alterations would include moving the plot 1 access to a more central position on that frontage and therefore away from the edge of the site. As submitted I object to the layout but if the plans are altered as described and ensuring adequate visibility to the Redway is provided then my objection could be withdrawn.

The plot 7 layout has not been altered and the proposed access would conflict with the traffic calming feature. There would appear to be scope to reduce the width if the access and provide two open end to end spaces on the southern edge of the site. This would mean that the layout would not conflict the traffic calming feature. The dwelling design would need to change to remove the car port and perhaps some boundary treatment to prevent over running of the edges of the traffic calming feature. The applicant should ensure that adequate widths of open parking spaces are provided were a wall/fence either side of a parking space be suggested. We would normally expect a 3 metre width in such cases. If the layout is altered along these lines then my objection could be withdrawn.

4.8 Senior Landscape Architect No objection but recommends a landscape condition.

(92) 4.9 MKC Urban Design I’m relatively comfortable with this application my only concerns are listed below:

• The relationship in terms of scale to the existing context is not shown in any on the drawings should be provided? • The elevation on to Broughton Linear Park is positive. However, the elevation on to Tanfield Lane is sacrificed with the rear of plot 4 exposed and visible from the street, this needs to be considered when designing the rear and side elevation of this dwelling, for instance could the building be more L shaped? • Plot four is in a key location and needs to mark the corner of Tanfield Lane and Broughton Linear Park; more could be done in this regard. • The boundary treatment to the garden of plot 4 must be carefully considered in order to avoid a prominent blank wall.

I’d recommend these amendments are made to the application.

4.10 Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application: 2, 6 and 10 Cavan Way Broughton Milton Keynes 6 - 9 Goodrington Place Broughton Milton Keynes (inclusive) 4 Bewdley Grove Broughton Milton Keynes 1 – 31 Kemsley Crescent Broughton Milton Keynes (odd only) 103, 109, 111 and 115 Tanfield Lane Broughton Milton Keynes

Two site notices were put up adjacent the application site.

Three letters of objection have been received from neighbouring properties. The planning matters raised include overlooking to neighbouring properties, insufficient parking, increase in traffic, inadequate access to Plot 7, obstruction of a public highway, loss of neighbouring amenity in terms of parking, overshadowing as a result of the proposed development.

5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (The analysis of the issues which are critical, material, considerations and/or of greatest concern to objectors for the Committee to weigh up before making a decision)

5.1 This application is a re-submission of a previously refused scheme for 7 dwellings on the application site. The reasons for refusal included insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the land has been marketed at an appropriate land value for the proposed change of use, no evidence or justification for the lack of affordable housing, impact on neighbouring amenity in terms of privacy (relating to Plot 1), provision of unallocated parking spaces, new accesses onto Tanfield Lane and highway safety, Plot 7’s proposed access and highway safety and that some of the proposed development included works on land designated as public highway.

5.2 The scheme has since been amended to address the previous refusal reasons. In addition, information and evidence has been submitted regarding

(93) marketing, land values and affordable housing supply. The plans show that the windows in the side elevation of Plot 1 at first and second floor would now be opaque glass and non-opening, the accesses have been amended including removing a car port to serve Plot 2 and merging two accesses along Tanfield Lane together, some unallocated parking spaces provided and the works would no longer be on public highway land.

5.3 Loss of Community Facility/Principle of Housing Planning permission has been granted for a Public House (P.H.) on the application site, this was granted as part of the wider Lodge Park development proposal, noted as Site A for Broughton. The housing and Local Centre development within this permission has now been implemented with this site being the only current outstanding development plot forming part of the red line boundary of the site.

Marketing has since taken place over the viability of a Public House (P.H.) on the site by two separate agents, namely Bidwells and PUNCH, the marketing undertaken is noted below:

Bidwells In the Summer of 2005, the P.H. sector was specifically targeted through a mix of direct mail and direct contact, this included direct discussions with a number of operators including:

Hardy Hanson; Scottish and Newcastle; Tom Colbeigh; Whitbread; Modern British Taverns; Harrington Wyles Ltd.; McMullen and Sons.

Whilst responses were initially received, the response received was negative insofar as the site was too small and constrained by limited car parking. Further, concern was raised with regard to the proximity of the Hungry Horse P.H., located within 300 metres of the application site.

PUNCH In addition correspondence has also been received from Patrick Punch Co. dated May 2011 noting marketing of the site by themselves for use as a P.H. and also for a day care nursery and alternate uses. Details of the marketing for the P.H. use are noted below with other proposed uses discussed separately within this report.

Marketing included: (i) Targeted Mail Shots to all major national, regional and local P.H. and pub restaurant operators; (ii) Extensive Advertising including prominent blocks within the Milton Keynes Citizen Newspaper (no details supplied); (iii) Site Notice Boards – 5x4 ft. hoarding erected on the site in early

(94) 2007 advertising the site on a freehold basis for the development of a P.H., day nursery, health use; (iv) Web Marketing – Permanent listing on the Punch website together with regular e-mail marketing exercises; (v) Property Agent Distributions – Regular distribution of property particulars via local mailings to other commercial property agents within the Milton Keynes, Bedford and Northampton areas; (vi) Personal Contact between the agent and P.H. operators.

The site was noted to be rejected by all parties for similar grounds to those presented by Bidwell’s marketing.

On the basis of the above marketing, and the outright rejection of the principle of a P.H. use on the site by the key operators on balance the loss of such a use is therefore considered acceptable.

The applicant has therefore explored the potential of other uses on the site which would fall within a similar Use Class as a P.H. or Community Facility, namely day care nursery, retail and potential health uses.

Whilst it is noted that the potential of other uses on the site has been explored using the above strategies, no information has been supplied demonstrating the value at which the land was marketed for these uses. No evidence has therefore been supplied to demonstrate that the site was marketed at an appropriate price for the proposed use. Such evidence would be required to demonstrate that when marketed at a realistic price there was no demand for the plot. In the absence of such information, a suggested period of further marketing for 6-12 months at a land value to be agreed with the LPA is considered appropriate to overcome this concern and progress the principle of an alternative use on the site.

The council’s Policy Officer notes that the site is still being actively marketed via a website www.punch.org.uk with the asking price of circa £400,000 which equates to circa £3,077,000 per ha of land. This appears to be an unreasonably high price for land that is not allocated for a residential use. It is therefore reasonable to argue that the conducted marketing campaign might have had a different outcome should the site being marketed at an appropriate price, i.e. a price that is reasonable for a commercial use. It is for the applicants to prove that the asking price of £400,000 is reasonable for a commercial plot of 1,300 sqm.

The principle of housing on the site is therefore not yet considered acceptable.

5.4 Impact of Development Proposals on Neighbouring Properties A number of representations have been received from neighbouring properties raising concern over the proposed development in particular the height and proximity of Plot 1 to the flats at 6-9 Goodrington Place. It is noted when scaling from the submitted street scene drawing that the eaves height (at approximately 7.2 metres) of Plot 1 is proposed to be located 5 metres

(95) from the balconies associated with the flats and 5.6 metres from habitable windows.

5.5 Within the side elevation of Plot 1, facing toward the Goodrington flats there are proposed to be a number of windows serving halls/landings which would have an outlook into habitable rooms (living room and bedroom), in addition to obscurely glazed en-suite bathroom windows within No’s 6 - 9 Goodrington Place. These windows are now shown to be opaque glass and non-opening at first and second floor and therefore address refusal reason 2 of planning application 10/02675/FUL.

5.6 It is considered that and previous concerns regarding neighbouring amenity in terms of privacy have been overcome as part of this re-submission. Given that the habitable windows within the elevation of No’s 6 - 9 Goodrington Place with an outlook to Plot 1 are secondary windows with primary balconies to both the front and rear, the level of light afforded to each habitable room is considered acceptable.

5.7 Impact of Development Proposals on Street Scene The overall design of the proposal submitted is considered to be a good compromise between the existing developments within Broughton and Broughton Gate and take features from the existing Lodge Park development in addition to the neighbouring Paul Newman development. Parking is typically noted to be on plot rather than in a courtyard and is not considered to appear overly dominant within the street scene

5.8 In the previous application concern was raised with regard to the closeness of Plot 4 to the highway/redway with Tanfield Lane, particularly given the extent of the proposed brick wall connecting with the parking for Plot 3. In addition the proposed development would be on public highway land. This application has amended the layout by setting Plots 1 – 4 further into the site to ensure that development would no longer encroach onto public highway land and to allow a 1.2 metres wide service strip enhanced with planting and landscaping. The Landscape Architect raised no objection to the proposed scheme subject to a landscaping condition and it is considered that the siting of the development within the site and not on land designated as public highway overcomes refusal reason 6 of planning application 10/02675/FUL.

5.9 Highway Safety/Parking Provision The Highway Engineer's comments (reported above) raise significant valid concerns with the proposed development. Some of these concerns have been addressed throughout the course of the application, specifically the inclusion of the visitor (unallocated) parking spaces within the application boundary. The Highway Engineer comments that the two on street parking bays are acceptable in layout terms. He notes that the provision of two spaces remains short of the parking standards by two spaces (the standard being 0.5 spaces per unit). However, some of the plots have more than two spaces when the car ports are counted along with the open car parking spaces. This offers some mitigation for the shortfall against the unallocated provision and Highways withdraw their objection on these grounds.

(96)

5.10 It is considered that the amended plans showing provision for unallocated parking are on balance acceptable and that refusal reason 3 of planning application 10/02675/FUL has been addressed. However, with regard to the proposed three new accesses onto Tanfield Lane and the proposed access to Plot 7, a number of concerns still exist and these are noted as reasons for refusal within Section 8.0 of this report.

5.11 Principle and/or Provision of Affordable Housing No provision is made within the current application for affordable housing as it is the view of the applicant/agent that if the site were assessed in the context of the wider grid square as originally proposed and permitted, there would be no requirement for additional affordable housing provision from this site. Noted is the 1991 permission for the Broughton Grid Square and the subsequent detailed planning permissions.

5.12 The application site formed part of the Lodge Park site wide red-line boundary of the development parcel which included provision for 164 private residential properties, 70 affordable units (an affordable percentage of 29.92% - effectively the 30% threshold figure as noted within Policy H4). The proposal would reduce this to 29.04%. The applicant also the current application site is submitted in isolation (albeit by the same developer as the wider Site A site) and as such falls below the required threshold of 15 units for affordable housing. When the application is viewed within the wider Broughton estate there are pockets of sites with a greater level of affordable housing, namely Parcels D (Bellway) and E (Luminus) where the there is provision of 100% affordable housing provision which can be off-set against this slight shortfall. 5.13 Previously no detailed evidence or justification was submitted regarding affordable housing provision. However, with this re-submission a detailed justification to disregard the provision of affordable housing has been submitted. On reviewing the proposal and justification, Officers are convinced that no affordable housing provision is required on site.

5.14 Compliance with Policy D4 A detailed sustainability statement has been submitted and it is considered that the details are acceptable subject to a condition requiring code certification and a Section 106 setting out the carbon offset payment. No Section 106 is in place.

6.1 It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons noted within below.

(97) 7.0 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. Insufficient evidence (including financial documents/reports/substantitative statements) has been supplied to the LPA as part of the current application to demonstrate that the application site has been marketed at an appropriate land value for a community facility use for a prolonged period of at least 6-12 months. In the absence of such information, the change of use of the land is considered unacceptable and the principle of a residential form of development has not been established. It is therefore considered that the proposal does not comply with the requirements of `saved' Policy C2 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

2. The proposed access for Plot number 7 will conflict with the carriageway narrowing on Bewdley Grove leading to potential conflict, inconvenience for users of the highway and/or highway danger contrary to 'saved' policy D1 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

3. The proposed three new accesses onto Tanfield Lane will create conflicts, danger and inconvenience to pedestrian and cycle users of the Redway (dedicated pedestrian/cycle path) to the front of the site contrary to 'saved' policies T1, T3, and D1 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 and the Redway Design Manual.

(98)

(99)

(100)

(101) Plots 1 – 3 Elevations

(102) Plots 1 – 3 Floor Plans

(103)

Plot 4 Elevations

(104)

Plot 4 Floor Plans

(105)

Plot 5 Elevations and Floor Plans

(106)

Plot 6 and 7 Elevations and Floor Plans

(107)

(108) APPLICATION NUMBER: 11/00486/FUL

CHANGE OF USE FROM FUNCTION ROOM TO RETAIL SHOP (USE CLASS A1)

AT The Countryman, 127 Bradwell Common Boulevard, Bradwell Common

FOR Ms P Kwansakul

Target: 23rd June 2011

Ward: Bradwell Parish: Bradwell Parish Council

Report Author/Case Officer: Mark Turner Contact Details: 01908 252491 [email protected]

Head of Team: Alan Mills Contact Details: 01908 252412 [email protected]

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY (A brief explanation of what the application is about, what the main issues are and the officer's Recommendation to the Committee)

1.1 The Site The application site forms part of the Local Centre of Bradwell Common which is currently undergoing improvement works. The Local Centre also comprises a community centre and a convenience store. A car park associated with The Countryman public house (P.H.) is located to the rear of the site. The site does not lie within a 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 Retrospective planning permission is sought for the change of use of part of the function room to the rear of The Countryman public house to A1 (Retail), noted as being for a Thai food shop. The proposed area for the change of use is 63 sq. metres. During the site visit, access was noted as being through the main public house.

Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.

1.3 Main Issues 1. Impact of Development Proposals on Neighbouring Properties; 2. Impact of Development Proposals on Street Scene; 3. Parking Provision.

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of this report.

(109) 2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application)

2.1 Local Policy Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 The most relevant 'saved' policies within the adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 - 2011 are:

D1 - Impact of Development Proposals on Locality; T15 - Parking Provision.

Supplementary Planning Guidance 'Parking Standards for Milton Keynes 2005’

4.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS (Who has been consulted on the application and the responses received)

4.1 Ward Councillor. Exon Having been in contact with Bradwell Parish Council, who have expressed concerns it was felt that it might be appropriate for the application to come before the Development Control Panel.

Highways Development Control As the parking standard for an A1 shop (1 space per 14m²) is lower than for a drinking establishment (1 space per 10m²), it would be difficult to argue that there will be an impact on the highway from this change of use.

However there are concerns regarding the car park being unavailable to the public and this is causing an impact on the highway. In view of this, there would appear to be scope to attach a condition to ensure that the car park remains open during business hours and a sign installed indicating the car park for use by customers.

Bradwell Parish Council Objects to the planning application for the following reasons:

1. Parking – The management of the existing business has not helped restrict existing parking problems through the removal of the sign advertising the rear car park and the closure of this car parking area. This in turn has caused obstructive parking on-street and in residents parking areas; 2. Deliveries – The shop as proposed will result in further deliveries at the entrance to a school, causing safety issues, undue noise if delivered at un-neighbourly hours and damage to the highway; 3. Concern with regard to improvements to the neighbouring square; 4. No detail with regard to merchandise to be sold is noted.

(110) Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application:

Summerfield School, Downley Avenue, Bradwell Common 5 and 5A Coleshill Place, Bradwell Common 121, 123, 125, 129, 131, 133 Bradwell Common Boulevard, Bradwell Common

One representation has been received from a neighbouring unit noting that the car parking area to the rear of the site is solely used for the parking of the owners vehicles and that the sign advertising this as being for patrons of the PH has been removed. The resultant effect of this is cars parked along the street, blocking driveways.

5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (The analysis of the issues which are critical, material, considerations and/or of greatest concern to objectors for the Committee to weigh up before making a decision)

5.1 The proposed works are retrospective and the function room of the P.H. has been converted into a Thai food store.

A number of concerns have been raised by the Parish Council and a neighbouring occupier including parking, deliveries and details over the proposed change of use and what the retail unit would sell, this has since been clarified as Thai food which was verified by the Planning Officer on site.

5.2 Principle of Development The current application seeks the retention of the existing P.H. and the conversion of the function room to an ancillary specialist food store.

The P.H. is located within the Bradwell Common Local Centre which comprises a community centre and a convenience store, the siting of the proposed use is not therefore in isolation and is located in an area of Commercial Facilities on the Proposals Map. The proposed location is therefore considered appropriate.

Parking 5.3 The Highway Engineer has noted that the new Use Class would have a lower parking requirement than that for a drinking establishment, however it is also noted that there appears to be a number of parking problems caused as a result of the operators of the P.H. having closed the parking area to the rear of the site to patrons, which in turn has resulted in cars parking on neighbouring streets.

The Highway Engineer has recommended a condition be attached to any planning permission that allows access to the parking area to the rear of the site during business hours and also advertisement that there is a parking area to the rear of the site. It is considered that this would overcome the existing parking problems within the locality as the parking standard would be no worse than it was when the whole premises was used as a drinking establishment (a higher parking standard).

(111) Deliveries 5.4 The use of the function room as A1 - Retail, selling Thai food products is considered a specialist market, as such there is not considered to be the same demand for this service as may be the case for other A1 retail uses including a typical grocery supermarket. This view is also reinforced by the small floor area of the proposed retail use which would indicate that a limited number of products could be sold. As a result of this it is not anticipated that there would be a significant number of deliveries, nor would there be the same level of disturbance as there may be to a typical convenience store. No objection has been raised from the Highway Engineer in this respect. A condition is proposed limiting the floor area (including storage) to prevent a more intensive use and one that was not ancillary to the main use of the overall premises as a P.H.

Impact of Development Proposals on Street Scene No external alterations are proposed as part of the current application and no 5.5 advert consent application has been received. The entrance to the retail use is proposed via the main entrance to the P.H. No adverse impact to the street scene will result from the proposed development.

6.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions regarding specialist sale of products/floor area and parking area.

1. This permission for retail use of the unit shall be for the specialist sale of Thai food products only and be limited to a total area of 63 sq. metres (including all storage) and not for the benefit of and other use whatsoever.

Reason: A different business in the same use class could have a differing impact on the character of the area and neighbouring amenity and this restriction enables the Local Planning Authority to consider this impact in light of policies D1 and T15 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

2. The car park associated with the Public House and use hereby permitted shall remain open and available for public parking by customers during business hours and a sign shall be installed within 4 weeks of the date of this permission indicating the car park is available for use by customers. The car park and sign shall thereafter be retained for customer car parking purposes.

Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision to serve the proposed use, and to avoid on-street parking problems.

(112)

(113)

(114)

SCHEDULE THREE

OTHER APPLICATIONS

Schedule Three: Other Applications - Other applications include most changes of use, all householder development, Listed Buildings and Conservations Area Consent applications and a variety of other types of generally small-scale development proposals.

(115)

APPLICATION NUMBER: 11/00544/FUL

CHANGE OF USE FROM USE CLASS A2 (OFFICES) TO USE CLASS A5 (HOT FOOD TAKEAWAY)

AT 31 Farthing Grove, Netherfield, Milton Keynes

FOR Wildview Ltd

Target: 9th May 2011

Ward: Woughton Parish: Woughton Community Council

Report Author/Case Officer: Nicola McTeer Contact Details: 01908 252932 [email protected]

Head of Team: Andrew Horner Contact Details: 01908 252609 [email protected]

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY (A brief explanation of what the application is about, what the main issues are and the officer's Recommendation to the Committee)

1.1 The Site

The application site is an existing office unit within a Local Centre off Farthing Grove in Netherfield. The gross internal floor area of the unit is approximately 171 square metres. All car parking to serve the Takeaway is proposed to be provided by the existing shared public car park nearby. The wider area is predominantly residential in character. 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 is for a change of use from use class A2 (office) to use class A5 (hot food takeaway). There are no proposed external alterations. Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.

1.3 Main Issues

The key issues in determining this application are the impact of the proposed use on local residents and the character of the area and the impact on parking provision.

1.4 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of this report.

(116) 2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application)

2.1 National and Regional Policy PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development; Circular 03/05: Changes of use of Buildings and Land The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987

2.2 Local Policy Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011:

The most relevant saved policies are:

D1: Impact of Development Proposals on Locality D2: Design of Buildings T15: Parking Provision LC2: Non Retail Uses in Local Centres

Supplementary Planning Guidance Parking Standards For Milton Keynes (2005) and Addendum (2009)

Core Strategy CS4: Retail and Leisure Development

4.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS (Who has been consulted on the application and the responses received)

4.1 Highways Development Control No objections. ‘There is no parking standard for an A5 use. The closest relevant parking standard is the A3 (food and drink) standard of 1 space per 10m². The existing A2 use has a parking requirement of 1 space per 20m².

The unit is located within the Netherfield Local Centre. During my site visit I witnessed this to be a vibrant shopping area with the parking spaces that serve it having a fast turn over. Overall I counted that there were 18 spare car parking spaces. Usage of spaces was somewhat lighter closer to the southern end of the parking area.

In my opinion this is an appropriate location in highway terms for this type of use. Given the range of shops and local services available there is the likelihood for linked trips between the functions of the centre. The prominent location within Netherfield with good pedestrian links would suggest that many trips to the local centre are made on foot.

I did witness some on-street parking but as there were plenty of spare spaces

(117) within the local centre car park; I can only conclude that these vehicles were associated with the residential area rather than because of a parking shortfall in the local centre car park’.

4.2 Parish – Woughton Object. ‘Woughton Community Council has recently received notification of the proposed change of use and would wish to oppose this application. The main reason is that it would certainly erode any prospect of maintaining or enhancing the notion of community use of this part of the Centre and could set a precedent’.

4.3 Environmental Health Manager Comments. ‘I have reviewed the information contained in the above application and have the following comments:

The application as submitted contains no detail at all regarding the kitchen extraction system. It is essential that details of measures to mitigate both noise and cooking odours from the system are submitted; however in this instance a condition requiring the information to be submitted and approved prior to commencement of the development is sufficient. In addition a condition is required detailing the refuse storage facilities’.

4.4 Netherfield Residents Association Object. ‘I am writing to you in relation to lodging an objection on behalf of the Netherfield Residents Assoc for the change of use of the above premises.

The issues we list are real concerns from the residents of Netherfield who feel our shopping area on Netherfield is becoming a detriment to our estate; we would like you to note and take into account all of our issues.

There are far too many fast food outlets on the Netherfield estate already; currently these are the types of issues that residents have to contend with at present and remembering that this is a residential estate.

Late night and daily gatherings at the shopping precinct from the users of these shops who at times intimidate the public, users have also been known on several occasions to be urinating and defecating on the street and to the rear of the shops, I would like to point out that no public toilets in the area and most of the existing takeaways do not have public toilets.

There have been many cases of ASB and aspects of criminality such as drug dealing and violent assaults on people, most have been associated with the users of the existing takeaways and those who hang around outside, may I also add that the majority of the users reside on other estates. Many residents from the sheltered housing situated at the end of the shopping area will not use the shops because of the amount of people hanging around outside these takeaways.

(118) There is a constant noise from the fans and freezers seven days a week, strong unpleasant smells relating to food being cooked on the premises night and day; there is no respite for the residents that reside in close proximity to the front and to the rear of the shops, on a number of occasions environmental health and noise dept within MKC have been called regarding problems relating to existing takeaways.

There are severe parking issues in the shopping area, we have been told for the last 3 to 4 years that the owners of the shops are introducing parking restrictions, this has not happened, some users are now parking on the residential roads making it difficult for residents to park where they live.

There is no bus service onto the estate; it’s getting to the stage that residents with disabilities that need the use of their car to get to the shops are unable to park. With the increasing amount of cars coming and going of onto the estate there is also a concern of air pollution and the affect on air quality given the close proximity of residential family housing.

There is also an increasing significant amount of traffic coming on to the Netherfield estate to use the shops, an additional takeaway will only add to the current problems that already exist, at present the number of takeaways stands at 5, we are overwhelmed by takeaways on Netherfield, as regards employment of local residents with the arrival of these takeaways as we understand it amounts to nil.

We have a constant rubbish issue on the estate which has caused a rat problem; you only have to walk around on the estate and the outskirts of the estate to see food packaging of the existing takeaways strewn across the floor.

There is also the issue of a healthy lifestyle, as you are aware Netherfield is second on the list of the social index of deprivation and it has been shown that the life expectancy of a resident living on Netherfield is reduced. Money is spent on Netherfield by MKC and WCC on promoting healthy lifestyles by allowing more takeaways is hypocrisy.

31 Farthing Grove has always served as a community building helping residents. The resident’s assoc of Netherfield urge you to look at this application and reject it’.

4.5 Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application: 33 – 37, 39 Farthing Grove Netherfield Milton Keynes Site notices were erected adjacent the site. No neighbour comments have been received to date.

5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (The analysis of the issues which are critical, material, considerations and/or of greatest concern to objectors for the Committee to weigh up before making a decision)

5.1 The application seeks planning permission for a change of use of the unit from office (use class A2) to hot food takeaway (use class A5). The application

(119) property is located within the Netherfield Local Centre. Policy LC2 deals with non retail uses in local centres. The policy indicates that planning permission would be granted for non retail uses in local centres if at least one general convenience store would remain in the centre and that the proposed use would not adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring properties or the surrounding area. Within Netherfield Local Centre at least one general convenience store would remain and, given the location of the proposal within the local centre, it is considered that the proposed use would not adversely affect the surrounding area. The nearest residential properties are located in excess of 47 metres from the application site. It is noted within representations received that there is a fear that there would be increased waste and rodent problems associated with the Change of Use, however there is no evidence provided to back up this claim and if appropriate this matter can be dealt with by Environmental Health powers.

5.2 There are no proposed external alterations and no increase in floor area. The unit within Netherfied Local Centre would be occupied and it is considered that the vitality of the local centre would be maintained and that the scale and nature of the proposal is consistent with Netherfield Local Centre. It is considered that the main retail function of the centre would not be changed and the proposal is therefore considered to accord with saved Policy LC2 of the Adopted Local Plan.

5.3 Objectors have expressed concern that noise levels, odour and disturbance would increase as a result of the proposal. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer was consulted on the proposal and has no objections subject to conditions regarding extraction equipment and waste disposal facilities to safeguard the amenities of adjoining occupiers: the suggested conditions are included in the recommendation. The takeaway use could increase the amount of people visiting the unit, particularly in the evening. No proposed premises opening hours have been suggested by the applicant, therefore a condition (number 4) restricting the hours of use has been recommended. The proposed opening hours are considered reasonable given the location of the unit in a local centre setting. .

5.4 The applicant proposes to use existing Local Centre shared public car parking spaces to serve the site. The Highway Engineer has raised no objection to the proposed change of use and commented that this is an appropriate location for this type of use. In addition on his visits to the Local Centre he has not witnessed any significant parking problems with spare parking capacity available. The assessment is considered to be clear and robust and the proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of car parking.

6.1 The proposed use would be in accordance with the relevant Local Plan policy. It is considered that the existing communal car park has adequate capacity to cope with peak demand for the proposed use and there would be no

(120) significant adverse impact on amenity. It is recommended than planning permission is granted subject to conditions as noted within Section 7.0 of this report.

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

2. Before any work is commenced on the development hereby permitted full details of the proposed fume extract system including outlet point, appearance, mounting including details of mitigation measures to minimise noise and odour output shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details to be submitted shall include full details of noise output, and filtration system. The development shall thereafter be carried out and maintained in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual and residential amenity.

3. Before the use hereby permitted is commenced details of waste disposal facilities and waste collection shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the facilities so approved shall be installed before the use hereby permitted commences and shall thereafter retained.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining occupiers.

4. The use hereby permitted shall not be open to customers outside the following times 10:00 - 23:00 Monday to Friday, 10:00 - 23:30 on Saturdays and 12:00 - 22:30 on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not prejudice the enjoyment by neighbouring occupiers of their property in the interests of policy D1 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 - 2011.

(121)

(122)

(123) APPLICATION NUMBER: 11/00601/FUL

RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION FOR RETENTION OF BOUNDARY FENCING, ENTRANCE GATE TO SIDE OF NO 60 AND GARDEN SHED TO REAR.

AT 60 - 62 Staplehall Road, Bletchley, Milton Keynes

FOR Mr Jason Bone

Target: 20th May 2011

Ward: Bletchley And Fenny Stratford Parish: Bletchley & Fenny Stratford Town Council

Report Author/Case Officer: James Kirkham Contact Details: 01908 252039 [email protected]

Head of Team: Andrew Horner Contact Details: 01908 252609 [email protected]

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY (A brief explanation of what the application is about, what the main issues are and the officer's Recommendation to the Committee)

1.1 The Site The application property is a pair of semi-detached dwellings located on Staplehall Road in Bletchley which is a residential area. The Design and Access Statement states it is the applicants intention to convert the semi- detached properties into 1 single dwelling. This does not require planning permission. Full 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 current application seeks retrospective consent for the erection of a new entrance gate to the side of number 60, railings on the front side boundary of number 60, a new garden fencing around the rear garden of the site (60 & 62), and the erection of a large garden shed in the rear garden. Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.

1.3 Main Issues The main issues in this case are: - Impact on character and appearance of area - Impact on neighbouring properties - Impact on parking

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions set out at the end of this report.

(124) 2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application)

2.1 National and Regional Policy PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development

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 Aspects T15 – Parking Provision

Supplementary Planning Guidance Parking Standards For Milton Keynes (2005) and Addendum (2009)

Core Strategy CS 13 – Ensuring High Quality, Well Designed Places

4.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS (Who has been consulted on the application and the responses received)

4.1 Parish - Bletchley & Fenny Stratford Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council objects to the application on the following grounds:

a) the design and appearance is completely out of character with the local area b) The fencing appears to be more appropriate for a boundary for a business, perhaps where large equipment was being stored. If the address is to be used for business, not residential use, there would be change of use issues and, also there may be additional noise (eg deliveries, etc).

4.2 Highways Development Control Ideally high fencing adjacent to the back of the footway to be lower than 1m so that pedestrian visibility splays of 1m x 1m can be maintained. However, as the fencing is an open bar system, no objections in this instance.

4.3 Crime Prevention Design Advisor No objection to the application however:

2M High Post and Rail Metal Railing – This extends the fence line from the gateway out to the footpath. This undermines the security of the rear garden. This piece of fencing provides an ideal climbing aid for anyone wishing to get over the driveway gate.

(125)

2M – 2.2M High Concrete Post and Timber Close Boarded Fence – While this does provide a barrier around the garden, it will not deter or prevent an intruder. The scale of the fence also highlights that there may be something of value within the rear garden worth stealing. Such a fence should ideally have been 1.8m in height close boarded fence topped by an additional 300mm of trellis. The trellis helps to dissuade most potential intruders from attempting to climb over the fence. It is also far less visually intrusive.

4.4 Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application:

55, 57, 58 and 62 Staplehall Road, Bletchley 1 Rhondda Close, Bletchley

A site notice was also placed at the site on 7/04/2011. No neighbour comments have been received.

5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (The analysis of the issues which are critical, material, considerations and/or of greatest concern to objectors for the Committee to weigh up before making a decision)

5.1 Impact on character and appearance of area The proposed outbuilding is located in the rear garden of the property and is not visible in the wider street scene. The design of the outbuilding is unconventional with dormer style roof lights however given the limited visual impact on the wider area it is considered acceptable. The timber fencing around the rear garden is also considered to be acceptable in regards the impact on the character and appearance of the area and would have a limited impact on the wider street scene by virtue of its siting.

5.2 The gates and railing to the front of the property are visible in the street scene and do impact on the character and appearance of the area. The properties in this part of Staplehall Road are generally set back from the road with relatively green and open frontages. It should be noted that 2 metre high railing could be located in this position without planning permission. The railings that have been erected are only slightly higher than this. The design of the railing allow for visibility through them as they are not solid. On balance it is considered that the impact on the wider street scene would not justify refusal of the application especially given that 2 metre high railings could be erected without planning permission

5.3 The gate to the side of the property is set back from the main frontage and is situated just in front of the main dwelling. Given the position of this gate, adjacent to the dwelling and the overall size of the gate it is considered to be acceptable in terms of impact on the street scene.

5.4 Impact on neighbouring properties The proposed new boundary treatments are not considered to significantly impact on the neighbouring properties. The fencing around the garden is slightly in excess of the 2 metre high fence which could be constructed without

(126) planning permission however the immediately adjacent properties on Staplehall Road have outbuildings located on the boundary which screen the fence. These properties also have relatively generous gardens. Given these facts the proposal is not considered to significantly impact on the outlook or light to these properties. The fence around the rear of the garden is also not considered to significantly impact on the amenity of the properties to the rear of the site given its overall height.

5.5 The outbuilding is located to the rear of the site. A commercial storage yard exists beyond the rear boundary of the site and the proposals are not considered to significantly impact on this. The properties which would be most significantly impacted by the proposal are the bungalows in Rhonda Close which face onto the side elevation of the outbuilding. The proposed outbuilding is in excess of 15 metres from the rear of these properties and so is not considered to significantly impact on the outlook and light to these properties. No openings exist in the side elevation of the outbuilding and so the proposal is not considered to lead to a significant loss of privacy to these properties

5.6 The proposed outbuilding does include dormer windows to provide light to the building. These are to serve the ground floor accommodation. It is recommended that it be conditioned that no first floor accommodation should be provided in the proposed outbuilding to ensure unacceptable levels of overlooking do not occur to neighbouring properties.

5.7 Use of outbuilding Some concern has been raised regarding the use of the outbuilding for business purposes. The application submitted relates to householder development and the application has determined on the basis. The applicants agent has been advised that any storage would need to be ancillary to the use of the main dwelling and any business use of the building would require a separate planning application which would need to be assessed on its own merits. If acceptable in all other regards it is considered that the use of the outbuilding should be conditioned to be ancillary to the main dwelling.

6.1 The proposed new fencing and railings are slightly in excess of the height that could be constructed without the need for planning permission. Although the railings and gates will have some impact on the character and appearance of the area this is not considered to be so significant to justify refusal. The impact of the proposals on the neighbouring properties residential amenity is considered to be acceptable. The outbuilding in the rear garden is of an unconventional design however given the limited visual impact is considered to be acceptable. The use of this outbuilding should be conditioned to be ancillary to the use of the main dwelling. Overall it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

(127) 7.0 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. No first floor accommodation shall be provided within the outbuilding hereby permitted at anytime. The windows in the front roof slope shall have a cill level of no lower than 2 metres above the finished floor level of the building hereby permitted.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

2. The outbuilding hereby permitted shall be used solely for purposes ancillary to the main dwelling and for no other purposes at any time.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

(128)

(129)

(130)

(131)

(132) APPLICATION NUMBER: 11/00880/FUL

FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION OVER EXISTING GARAGE AND UTILITY ROOM (RESUBMISSION OF 10/02313/FUL)

AT 3 Mordaunts Court, Woolstone, Milton Keynes

FOR Mr And Mrs Rutter

Target: 13th June 2011

Ward: Campbell Park Parish: Campbell Park Parish Council

Report Author/Case Officer: James Kirkham Contact Details: 01908 252039 [email protected]

Head of Team: Andrew Horner Contact Details: 01908 252609 [email protected]

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY (A brief explanation of what the application is about, what the main issues are and the officer's Recommendation to the Committee)

1.1 The Site The application property is a detached dwelling located at the end of a cul-de- sac. 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 current application seeks consent for a first floor side extension to the western side elevation of the dwelling. The extension would be located above the existing garage and utility room. It would be set back slightly from the front elevation of the house and extend approximately 1.3 metres beyond the existing main two storey rear elevation of the house. A single storey canopy is also proposed to the front of the garage. Full details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.

1.3 The current application is a resubmission of an earlier scheme which was refused at Development Control Panel on 27.01.2011. The only difference between the current application and the previous refusal is the inclusion of a soldier course of brick on the west side elevation and the omission of a roof light in this elevation. A soldier course is a row of bricks laid on their ends to that only their long sides are visible. The reason for refusal of the previous scheme was:

'The proposed first floor side extension would appear overbearing and dominant from the rear and garden space of 2 Mordaunts Court due to the relationship between the application property and 2 Mordaunts Court. The proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on the outlook, setting and amenity of this property. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy D1(iii) of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.'

(133)

1.4 Main Issues The main issue in this case is whether the proposal has overcome the previous reason for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out at the end of this report.

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

2.1 National and Regional Policy PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development

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 Aspects T15 – Parking Provision

Supplementary Planning Guidance Parking Standards For Milton Keynes (2005) and Addendum (2009)

Core Strategy CS 13 – Ensuring High Quality, Well Designed Places

10/02313/FUL - Proposed first floor extension over existing garage and utility room and canopy to front of garage - Refused

4.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS (Who has been consulted on the application and the responses received)

4.1 Ward - Campbell Park - Cllr Tallack Requests the application be reported to committee to allow the applicant an opportunity to present their case.

4.2 British Waterways No objections

4.3 Parish - Campbell Park The parish can see no material difference between the previous application and the new one.

4.4 Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application:

(134) 2, 4 and 5 Mordaunts Court, Woolstone 31 and 33 Pattison Lane, Woolstone

No letters of objection have been received.

5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (The analysis of the issues which are critical, material, considerations and/or of greatest concern to objectors for the Committee to weigh up before making a decision)

5.1 Planning History The current application only varies slightly from the application which was previously refused at the site. The inclusion of the soldier course in the west elevation does provide detail to this elevation but is not considered to overcome the previous reason for refusal. The size and bulk of the side elevation remains as previously refused. Full analysis of the proposal is outlined below.

5.2 Impact on character and appearance of the area The area around the application property is characterised by a mix of modern property styles. The proposed development has been designed with a hipped roof to match that of the main dwelling and has also been designed with reduced eaves and ridge height compared to the main dwelling. This results in the extension being subservient to the main house. The extension would be constructed of matching materials and overall the design and scale is considered to be acceptable. The proposal will lead to the infilling of much of the gap which exists at first floor level between the application property and 2 Mordaunts Court, however a small gap would still exist between the properties and the front elevation of application property is set back from the front of number 2 which provides a break in the frontage. The proposal is therefore not considered to be harmful to the area in terms of the impact on the character and appearance of the area and is considered to be acceptable in regard to policies D2 and D2A of the Local Plan.

5.3 Impact on neighbouring properties As can be seen on the plans the application property is set back from the position of 2 Mordaunts Courts. This means the existing single storey side elevation of the application property's garage runs along a substantial proportion of number 2’s eastern rear garden boundary. This reduces outlook from number 2 and its garden. The existing two storey side elevation of the application property is set away from the boundary but due to the relationship between these properties also reduces the outlook to number 2 and the garden space serving this property.

5.3 The design and scale of the extension is the same as the previous refusal with the exception of the soldier course in the site elevation. As with the previous application the current proposal would result in the increase in height and massing of the side elevation of the application property immediately on the boundary with number 2. The soldier course of bricks in the side elevation would help to break up the expanse of brickwork on this boundary however it is not considered to overcome the previous concerns regarding the impact on the outlook and setting of 2 Mordaunts Court.

(135) 5.4 It is acknowledged that the existing garage and two storey side elevation of the application property already impact on the outlook and residential amenity of 2 Mordaunts Court. However the current proposal is considered to result in the application property appearing significantly more dominant and overbearing from the rear and garden of 2 Mordaunt Court. This is as a result of the increase in height and massing of the side elevation of the application property immediately on the boundary with number 2 and the overall projection of the extension along the boundary behind the rear elevation of number 2. The proposal is therefore still considered to be contrary to D1(iii) of the Local Plan which states that planning permission will be refused for proposals which would lead to an unacceptable visual intrusion to neighbouring properties.

5.6 The impact on the amenity of the other neighbours was considered acceptable in the previous application. The small alterations to the scheme are not considered to alter this assessment.

5.7 Parking The application property will retain two off-street parking spaces. This is in accordance with the adopted parking standards and is considered to be acceptable.

6.1 The current application only provides minor alterations from the previous refusal. The reason for refusal in relation to the impact to 2 Mordaunts Court is not considered to be overcome and the proposal is still considered to appear overbearing and significantly impact on the outlook to this property. It is therefore recommended planning permission be refused.

1. The proposed first floor side extension would appear overbearing and dominant from the rear and garden space of 2 Mordaunts Court due to the relationship between the application property and 2 Mordaunts Court. The proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on the outlook, setting and amenity of this property. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy D1(iii) of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

(136)

(137)

(138) Existing elevations

(139) Proposed elevations

(140) Previously refused elevation plans

(141)

APPLICATION NUMBER: 11/00917/FUL

SINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSION (RE-SUBMISSION OF 11/00043/FUL)

AT 21 Bernay Gardens, Bolbeck Park, Milton Keynes

FOR Mr Graham Argent

Target: 14th June 2011

Ward: Linford North Parish: Great Linford Parish Council

Report Author/Case Officer: Nicola McTeer Contact Details: 01908 252932 [email protected]

Head of Team: Andrew Horner Contact Details: 01908 252609 [email protected]

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY (A brief explanation of what the application is about, what the main issues are and the officer's Recommendation to the Committee)

1.1 The Site The application property is a detached dwelling located to the corner of a cul- de-sac within Bernay Gardens. The application property is one of a matching pair of properties at the entrance into the cul-de-sac. The site does not fall within a conservation area. Parking is maintained as existing. 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 planning permission for a single storey side extension to the existing property. It would have a depth of 3.3 metres and a length of 8.3 metres. There would be four roof lights in the north east elevation and one window in the north west elevation. The proposed materials are to match existing. All the proposed works are noted as falling within the existing low- level boundary wall. Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.

1.3 Main Issues 1. Impact of Development Proposals on Neighbouring Properties; 2. Impact of Development Proposals on Street Scene.

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of this report.

(142) 2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application)

2.1 National and Regional Policy PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development

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

Supplementary Planning Guidance Parking Standards For Milton Keynes (2005) and Addendum (2009)

Core Strategy CS 13 – Ensuring High Quality, Well Designed Places

3.1 11/00043/FUL Side ground and first floor extension REF 08.03.2011

4.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS (Who has been consulted on the application and the responses received)

4.1 British Waterways No objections.

4.2 Parish - Great Linford Object.

‘Great Linford Parish Council [GLPC] considered this application at the Council meeting on the 17th May 2011.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Number 21 is one of a pair of identical dwellings which form a ‘mirror’ entrance feature to a cul-de-sac. The proposed side/front extension comprises a kitchen and family room 8.3 metres wide by 3.3 metres deep with a mono pitch roof and one small window facing the cul-de-sac.

The extension occupies nearly the whole of the side/front garden on a corner plot. The site is enclosed by a low brick boundary wall behind the footpath on two sides. The new kitchen and family room is approximately between 1.7 metres and 0.5 metres from the boundary wall and footpath facing the street and only 0.3 metres from the wall at the side wall and footpath facing the cul- de-sac.

(143) THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION, REASONS FOR REFUSAL MK Council Officer’s Planning report. “The proposed extensions by virtue of their size, scale and massing is considered to be a bulky and incongruous feature to one of a matching pair of properties at the entrance to a side road off Bernay Gardens. The proposal would result in a very prominent and contrived extension and an imbalance in the street scene at a prominent junction to the detriment of the character setting and appearance of Bernay Gardens. The proposal would therefore be contrary to 'saved' Policy D2 (i), (ii) and (iv) of the Adopted Milton Keynes.”

CONSIDERATIONS 1. The ground floor plan area of the proposed extension occupies almost the entire side/front garden and the depth is only 0.5 metres less than the footprint of the previous planned development. 2. The size, massing and position of the development is similar to the previous plan but omits the two storey ‘tower’. 3. Is the extension in scale with adjacent properties? 4. Will it be sympathetic to adjacent properties, in particular the ‘mirror’ property on the opposite side of the street? 5. Is the building visually interesting and complimentary to the character of the area? There is only one small window to the side on the ground family room and non to the kitchen. Presently there are two windows to the front elevation.

CONCLUSIONS - 1. This extension would not be permitted development because the enlarged part of the dwelling would be within 1.7 to 0.5 metres of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwelling. [Class A 1 (g)] 2. The impact of development proposals on the locality remains an unacceptable visual intrusion. Policy D1 (iii) 3. The extension is not in scale with other buildings in the immediate vicinity in terms of the height and massing, the development’s function and importance. D2 (i) 4. It does not relate well to the ‘mirror’ property on the opposite corner or enhance the surrounding environment. D2 (ii) 5. The elevations are a mass of brickwork without articulation, which does not provide sufficient visual interest or compliment the character of the area. D2 (iv).

GLPC RECOMMENDS REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION The location, size, height and massing of the kitchen extension is visually inappropriate and would be contrary to policies D1 (iii) and D2 (i) (ii) and (iv) of Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011’.

4.3 Ward Councillor - Linford North No objections.

4.4 Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application: 20, 22, 26 and 36 Bernay Gardens Bolbeck Park Milton Keynes

(144) There have been no neighbour comments received.

5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (The analysis of the issues which are critical, material, considerations and/or of greatest concern to objectors for the Committee to weigh up before making a decision)

5.1 This application is a re-submission of a previously refused application for a side ground and first floor extension. The refusal reason was that the extensions by virtue of their size, scale and massing were considered to be a bulky and incongruous feature to one of a matching pair of properties at the entrance to a side road off Bernay Gardens. As a result it was considered that the proposal would result in a very prominent and contrived extension and an imbalance in the street scene at a prominent junction to the detriment of the character setting and appearance of Bernay Gardens. Therefore the proposal would be contrary to 'saved' Policy D2 (i), (ii) and (iv) of the Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

5.2 This revised proposal has reduced the scheme to a single storey side extension and has omitted the two storey element. The proposed extensions although on the side of the property, would front onto the main highway of Bernay Gardens. The development site is bound by an existing perimeter wall. To the opposite side of the road, at the entrance to the cul-de-sac is an identical property. The two properties together create a balanced appearance to this part of the street and retain the existing building line along the street. However, further along the street there are noted to be single storey projections forward of the typical building line. The proposed single storey extension is of a simple design and appearance. The materials of the proposed development would match those of the original dwelling and this would lessen the impact of the development upon the locality. As the extension is single storey it would maintain subservience to the main dwelling and is considered in scale. The proposed development is considered to sit comfortably on what is an existing bland elevation fronting the street. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not adversely affect the residential setting of the site.

5.3 No impact is considered to apply with regard to privacy or amenity to neighbouring properties as a result of the extension being sited to the front of the application property, the location of the openings and being separated from neighbouring properties by roads.

5.4 The parking serving the dwelling would not be impacted by the proposal.

6.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to a condition regarding duration.

(145) 7.0 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.

(146)

(147)

(148)

(149)

APPLICATION NUMBER: 11/00973/FUL

PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE FROM DWELLING (USE CLASS C3) TO OFFICES (USE CLASS B1), THE ADDITION OF TWO CAR PARKING SPACES.

AT 24 Thomas Drive, Newport Pagnell, MK16 8TH

FOR Mr David Arnold

Target: 11th July 2011

Ward: Newport Pagnell North Parish: Newport Pagnell Town Council

Report Author/Case Officer: Alex Harrison Contact Details: 01908 252608 [email protected]

Head of Team: Andrew Horner Contact Details: 01908 252609 [email protected]

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY (A brief explanation of what the application is about, what the main issues are and the officer's Recommendation to the Committee)

1.1 The Site The application site contains a detached dwelling. A previous extension constructed as a granny annexe is being used as a office in a working at home arrangement. There is currently parking for 3 vehicles on site, in front of a double garage. Thomas Drive is a residential area with a number of cul-de- sacs. The application site is within a cul-de-sac serving 5 other homes. 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 dwelling to business use to accommodate a B1 business use. The proposal includes the provision of two additional parking spaces on the site, taking on site capacity to 5 spaces. The change of use has taken place and the scheme is therefore part retrospective.

1.3 The business at the premises relates to first aid with activities including the processing of application forms for membership into the Association of First Aiders and insurance paperwork. The forms state that 4 staff are employed although supplementary information states that two of the staff are the applicant and his wife. Two staff are therefore employed that are not associated with the dwelling and there is also sometimes a student for work experience for a few weeks each year.

1.4 The scheme has been amended since its original submission and the previously proposed 1.8m fence running to the highway has been withdrawn. At the time of drafting this report, a consultation has been sent to contributors on the fence change inviting any further comments. Details of the proposal as

(150) described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.

1.5 Main Issues The main issues with this application are: • Impact on the character of the area • Impact on neighbouring amenity • Impact on highway and parking

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of this report.

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

2.1 National and Regional Policy PPS1 - Delivering sustainable development.

2.2 Local Policy Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 D1 – Impact of development proposals on locality T10 – Traffic T15 – Parking provision.

Supplementary Planning Guidance Adopted parking standards 2005

3.1 04/01151/FUL Rear conservatory. Permitted 03.09.2004

06/00553/FUL Enlarged front dormer window, new rear balcony, alterations to windows and doors on rear elevation, new door and window to existing garage and new link element to existing conservatory. Permitted 09.06.2006

09/01613/FUL New dormer to existing habitable loft. Permitted 07.12.2009

4.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS (Who has been consulted on the application and the responses received)

4.1 Ward Member Cllr Barry Initial I feel it is unnecessary to have offices in a residential area such as this.

Updated Further to my initial response, I have been asked by the applicant to visit the

(151) property which I did today. Having seen his set up I now have no objection to this application. I understand that he is to provide two more parking spaces, which is helpful.

I wonder if a condition could be applied that planning consent is given for change of use only whilst he resides in the house? He has, in fact stated that if and when he moves he would request a change back to residential use. I am prepared to speak on his behalf should this come before DCC.

4.2 Ward Member Cllr Eastman Initial I wish to object to this planning application as I believe it would be intrusive to have office accommodation in what is a small residential spur and increased traffic movements would detract from the nature of this location.

Updated At Mr Arnolds request I visited his house

I have considered his comments and information provided and I still object to the planning application.

Mr Arnold confirmed that he does expect his business to grow before he seeks an alternative location. It seems that a further 2 employees could join his firm and this could lead to further vehicles using this residential street.

I firmly believe that this small cul-de-sac should remain as residential without business premises and therefore retain its identity.

I have further concerns that should a change of use be granted there will be no control in its use in the future and it could also set a precedent for Thomas Drive and the Closes that run off it.

4.3 Newport Pagnell Town Council No comments received.

4.4 Highways Development Control The part of the dwelling which is the subject of the change of use has a gross floor area of approximately 40m². Under the council’s parking standards the maximum parking requirement is 2 spaces (B1 use: 1 space per 30m²). The site currently has space for three cars to park on plot and with the additional 2 spaces, which meets the standards for the B1 use, the site is therefore acceptable in parking terms.

Typically, a B1 unit generates approximately 11-18 vehicle trips per day, but this is based on a floor area of 100m². A smaller unit such as the application site would likely have a lower number of trips although not necessarily a pro rata lower number. The highway network leading to the site is suitable in terms of width, alignment and turning area to accommodate the B1 traffic movements to the unit.

(152) I have no objections to planning permission being granted subject to a condition requiring parking to be provided within 3 months.

4.5 Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application: • 18, 20, 22, 26 and 34 Thomas Drive

13 letters have been received. 10 of these are letters of objection raising the following issues. • Office use not appropriate in a residential area. • Increased traffic in the cul-de-sac • Proposed fence will be unsightly • Extra spaces will reduce the on street parking availability. • Driveway will dominate the close. • Multiple deliveries daily including lorries. • There is already a business area in the Poets estate. • Additional parking would block neighbouring parking spaces. • Business will become larger if approved.

2 letters have been received supporting the application stating that • The common delivery vehicle was a postal van • The business is phone and internet based and does not require stock to be held or deliveries.

1 letter received raising no objections stating there have been no problems with parking or access.

5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (The analysis of the issues which are critical, material, considerations and/or of greatest concern to objectors for the Committee to weigh up before making a decision)

5.1 Principle of development The Council has a Local Plan policy and advice leaflet into working from home advising on the parameters that qualify such an activity. The business on site does not fall within these parameters. This is acknowledged by the applicant as the proposal seeks permission for B1 use rather than a ‘home office’. Therefore consideration of this proposal is on the establishment of a business unit on the site and policy E10 is not therefore relevant. The unit is considered as a small business unit which is defined in the Local Plan as a business of less than 300 square metres. Policy relating to this, E11, is not directly applicable as it is geared towards the retention of lawful units and at the time of considering this the unit is unlawful. Policy D1 is therefore best suited as the principal policy consideration which considers the effect of a proposal on the locality.

5.2 The proposal effectively shows the provision of a specific B1 unit in what is a residential area. By virtue of it not being residential it is not in keeping with the area, however, a B1 use is defined as offices, research and development of products and processes and light industry appropriate in a residential area. it is therefore considered that the use, in principle can be accommodated in

(153) residential areas however the impact of each particular case would need to be assessed in light of the character of the area, highway safety and convenience and the impact on neighbouring amenity.

5.3 It is therefore considered that the principle of development can be regarded as acceptable however this is dependent on the individual merits of each case and therefore in this instance, the merits of the operation of a phone/internet based company from this location.

5.4 Character of the area The original submission did raise concerns over this impact due to the fencing proposed to run up to the highway which would have been an uncharacteristic addition to the streetscene. However this element has been removed from the scheme. The unit itself is a subservient part of the dwelling, formerly occupied as an annexe. It has a specific front door which gives it a visual separation from the dwelling however it would not be prominent in the area and while it is a different use it would not be out of character. Likewise the office nature of the business which has no visitors and two staff will not alter the residential character of the area to a detrimental degree and as a result there is not conceded to be any harm to the character of the area that would warrant a justified reason for refusal.

5.5 Highway matters The proposed scheme has not had objection raised to it by the highways Engineer. However there have been third party objections on the grounds of increased traffic and on street parking. In terms of traffic photographs were submitted showing delivery vehicles and a lorry at the site or parked on the highway. The applicant has advised in his submission that there are infrequent deliveries of stationary and collections are made in transit sized vans. He stated the photographs show vehicle activity associated with recent building works on site associated with 09/01613/FU.L

5.6 Having requested and received clarification into the business activities from the site and having had Officers see the business from the inside it is considered that there is no reasonable doubt as to the activities described and that they are largely phone and internet based. Deliveries are noted but the information detailing the size of vehicle and frequency suggest that it is not continuous and that it is of a level that would not result in detrimental harm to highway safety and convenience.

5.7 In terms of parking, it is acknowledged that that there are objections on the grounds of on street parking. The proposal does employ two staff who come to the site and therefore there are increased vehicles in this respect. However the scheme also includes a proposal to create two further spaces on site. These two spaces would therefore accommodate the staff coming to the site, while not compromising the existing 3 spaces on associated with the dwelling. It is therefore considered that suitable on plot parking is required and the proposal is therefore acceptable in light of policies T10 and T15 of the Local Plan.

(154) 5.8 Neighbouring amenity. The proposed use of the site is B1 and this use class is partly defined as one that is capable of being carried out in a residential area. The phone and internet based nature of the company will comply with this and the scale of the operations are such that it is felt that there would be no harm from the office business by virtue of noise and disturbance. The frequency of vehicle deliveries/collections is also considered to be of a scale that would not harm amenity, although it is acknowledged that vehicles will be apparent in the cul- de-sac at points during the day. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not be contrary to policy D1 of the Local Plan.

5.9 Conditions The business use is considered appropriate at this location principally due to the nature of the business that is present. Given the residential nature of the area it may be possible that a different future use of the site would not be appropriate. Therefore this use should be treated in isolation, almost as an exception and as a result the future use of the unit will require control. A personal permission would not control the use of the site, rather the user and this is therefore appropriate. In order to achieve this restriction a condition will be required limiting the business activities to those proposed here so that a future occupier cannot change it without requiring consent.

5.10 As the use itself is retrospective a standard time limit condition cannot be applied. However, the parking spaces need to be provided to cater for the staff employed and therefore it is essential to ensure these are done. Therefore a condition will be proposed requiring the parking spaces to be provided within 3 months of the date of the decision to ensure that the spaces are provided quickly.

6.1 The proposal is considered to be an operation in excess of what is regarded as home working. However the nature of the use, being phone and internet based, is one that can be accommodated in a residential area without harming the character of the area or neighbouring amenity. The proposed parking spaces will provide on plot parking for the employed staff and therefore there would be no harm to highway safety or convenience. The Council would be able to control the extent of the use now and in the future through conditions and therefore it is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to the conditions detailed below.

1. The B1 use hereby approved shall enure for the benefit of the occupier of 24 Thomas Drive (and staff) and be restricted to allow office activities in

(155) connection with running the Association of First Aiders (AoFA) which is the processing of insurance, memberships, order processing, qualification processing, marketing and internet activities only.

Reason: A differing business in the same use class could have differing impact on the character of the area and neighbouring amenity and this restriction enables the Local Planning Authority to consider this impact in light of policies D1 and T15 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 - 2011

2. The B1 use shall be confined to the former ground floor annexe, outlined and illustrated in drawing number 01 Rev 2 dated 10 May 2011.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to safeguard the amenities of local residents in the interests of policy D1 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan

3. The B1 use hereby approved shall only be undertaken by a maximum of 4 people in any 24 hour period and no business operations shall take place outside the hours of 09:00 and 17:00 Monday to Friday and not at all on Saturdays, Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason: the proposed use is acceptable at the current business activity levels and any intensification may impact on neighbouring residential amenity and highway convenience and the restriction enables the Council to consider any intensification in the interests of policies D1 and T15 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 - 2011.

4. Within three months from the date of this decision notice the scheme for parking shown on approved plan 02 Revision 3 shall be laid out in accordance with the submitted plans and thereafter be retained as parking.

Reason: To enable vehicles to draw off and park clear of the highway to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway in the interests of policies D1 and T15 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2011 - 2011.

(156)

(157)

(158)

(159)

APPLICATION NUMBER: 11/01046/FUL

SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION, LOFT CONVERSION INCLUDING DORMER TO ROOF TO REAR ELEVATION AND FRONT PORCH

AT 20 Vicarage Walk, Stony Stratford, Milton Keynes

FOR Mr & Mrs J Whittaker

Target: 18th July 2011

Ward: Stony Stratford Parish: Stony Stratford Town Council

Report Author/Case Officer: Mark Turner Contact Details: 01908 252491 [email protected]

Head of Team: Alan Mills Contact Details: 01908 252412 [email protected]

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY (A brief explanation of what the application is about, what the main issues are and the officer's Recommendation to the Committee)

1.1 The Site The property is a mid-terraced Victorian house located within a road of similar properties adjacent to St Mary and Giles Middle School and fronting onto playing fields. The site lies down an unmade road with limited on-street parking. The site does not lie within a 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 Planning permission is sought for various alterations to the application property including: 1. The erection of a small porch to the front of the application property with depth approximately 0.5 metres and width 0.8 metres; 2. Box roof dormer to rear elevation; 3. Single-storey in-fill extension, 4. Single-storey rear extension with depth 4.88 metres and width 4.275 metres; 5. 11 rooflight windows to rear elevation and two rooflight windows to front elevation.

Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.

1.3 Main Issues 1. Impact of Development Proposals on Neighbouring Properties; 2. Impact of Development Proposals on Street Scene; 3. Parking Provision.

(160) 1.4 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out at the end of this report.

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

2.1 Local Policy Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011

The most relevant 'saved' policies within the adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 - 2011 are:

D1 - Impact of Development Proposals on Locality; T15 - Parking Provision.

Supplementary Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Guidance - Addendum to 'Parking Standards for Milton Keynes 2005’ adopted April 2009.

3.1 Planning permission has been granted for a single-storey rear extension at 15 Vicarage Walk, Stony Stratford (Planning Ref.: 07/00413/FUL).

Other notable examples of single-storey rear extensions include 13 Vicarage Walk (04/1279/FUL), 12 Vicarage Walk (MK/1158/90) and 14 Vicarage Walk (MK/870/84).

4.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS (Who has been consulted on the application and the responses received)

4.1 Stony Stratford Town Council Seeks confirmation that the off-street parking requirements for a four bedroomed property can be met with the addition of the front porch as proposed.

4.2 Ward Councillor. Wharton Requests that the application be directed to the Development Control Panel.

4.3 Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application: 19 and 21 Vicarage Walk, Stony Stratford No representations have been received.

5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (The analysis of the issues which are critical, material, considerations and/or of greatest concern to objectors for the Committee to weigh up before making a decision)

5.1 To address each of the proposed forms of development in turn:

(161) (i) Front porch and parking

The proposed depth of the porch is shallow and is considered to be in keeping with other properties within Vicarage Walk. The depth of the driveway is noted as being approximately 6.0 metres, the proposed depth of the porch at 0.5 metres, which will provide a driveway of 5.5 metres which is considered satisfactory to accommodate a car.

The application property is currently a three bedroom house. The proposed roof dormer and loft conversion seeks an increase in the number of bedrooms from three to four but in the Parking Standards this does not change the number of parking spaces required and no objection is therefore raised to this element of the application.

5.2 (ii) Box roof dormer to rear elevation

Box roof dormers of the dimensions proposed are a common feature to properties along Vicarage Walk. The dormer proposed is considered an exact replication in terms of size to that at No. 19 Vicarage Walk. Given that there are no windows within the rear roof plane of No. 21 there are not considered to be any issues with regard to privacy or overlooking.

5.3 (iii) Single-storey in-fill extension and single-storey rear extension

The proposed depth of 4.88 metres significantly exceeds the Council’s guideline depth of 3.0 metres for single-storey rear extensions to terraced properties. However this is only a guideline figure and is not adopted policy. On-site is was noted that the main property that would be affected was No. 21 Vicarage Walk that had built a single-storey in-fill extension to the side of the property which came in-line with the existing two-storey rear extension of the application property. This in-fill extension served a kitchen and study, the study being located to the rear of the extension. Light was provided via a glazed roof structure and also through the glazed double doors and high level windows within the rear elevation of the extension.

The eaves height of the proposed extension to No. 20 is shown as approximately 2.6m, and a ridge height of 3.6m, which is higher than any glazing within the rear elevation of No. 21. The proposed extension would extend for a length of 4.88 metres from the rear of the infill extension at No. 21, set only one brick course in from the boundary and on slightly higher land. As a result of the significant depth of the extension, the eaves height and the land level differences it is therefore considered that there would be a reduction in the level of light and outlook afforded to the rear window to No. 21 to an unacceptable level which would be contrary to Policy D1 (iii) of the adopted Local Plan.

No objection is raised with regard to No. 19 Vicarage Walk as a result of both windows within the rear elevation of this property being obscurely glazed and not serving habitable rooms.

(162) Reference has been made to various other single-storey extensions along Vicarage Walk which are noted as being comparable to that proposed as part of the current application. Two of these applications date back to 1984 and 1990 respectively and there have been significant guidance changes since these were granted. The most recent and relevant permission is noted as being No. 15 Vicarage Walk. In this instance there were noted as being significant differences between the two sites, namely there was no in-fill extension to the neighbouring property, the eaves height of the extension was 0.25 metres lower and there was no difference in land levels, further there existed a ginnel between the application property and its neighbour which provided a greater separation. There are therefore noted as being differences between the two application sites and for this reason each application is assessed on its own individual merits.

5.4 (iv) 11 rooflight windows to rear elevation and two rooflight windows to front elevation.

No objection is raised with regard to the rooflights to any direction as no issues are proposed to apply with regard to amenity to neighbouring properties, the only issues being from neighbouring properties having a view into new rooflight windows of the application property. The proposed two rooflight windows to the front elevation are considered modest in size.

6.1 It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons noted within Section 7.0 of this report.

7.0 REASON (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 single-storey rear extension by virtue of its size, siting and scale would introduce a large, bulky and incongruous extension which would have a detrimental impact on the daylight, outlook and amenity of the occupiers of 21 Vicarage Walk, Stony Stratford. The development would be contrary to saved Policy D1 (iii) of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

(163)

(164)

(165)

(166)

ITEM 5 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 21 JULY 2011

TREE PRESERVATION ORDER

(167)

Application Number: 11/01195/TPO

TREE PRESERVATION ORDER

TO FELL SIX FIELD MAPLES TO GROUND LEVEL (T1, T2, T6, T10, T11, T13), TO REDUCE OVERHANGING BRANCHES BACK TO BOUNDARY WITHOUT REDUCING OVERALL HEIGHT SIX FIELD MAPLES (T3, T4, T5, T7, T12, T14), TO REMOVE IVY TO GROUND LEVEL ON ONE FIELD MAPLE (T8), TO REMOVE OVER HANGING LIMB BACK TO SOURCE AND REMOVE IVY TO GROUND LEVEL ON ONE ASH (T9), TO LIFT THE CROWN OF A LONDON PLANE (T15), TO FELL TWO LONDON PLANES TO GROUND LEVEL (T16, T18), TO CROWN CLEAN REMOVING DEAD AND CROSSING BRANCHES OF FOUR LONDON PLANES (T17, T19, T22, T23) AND TO CROWN REDUCE BY 20% AND CLEAN THE CROWN OF TWO LONDON PLANES (T20, T21)

AT Land Off, Lucas Place, Woughton On The Green

FOR Orbit Housing

Target: 26th July 2011

Ward: Middleton Parish: Woughton Community Council

Report Author/Case Officer: Nicola McTeer Contact Details: 01908 252932 [email protected]

Head of Team: Andrew Horner Contact Details: 01908 252609 [email protected]

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY (A brief explanation of what the application is about, what the main issues are and the officer's Recommendation to the Committee)

1.1 The Site The application site is a large green located adjacent Lucas Place in Woughton On The Green. The trees which are the subject of this application are protected under a group tree preservation order reference PS/540/15/19. 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 current application seeks tree preservation order consent to carry out works to a total of 23 trees. Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.

1.3 Main Issues The main issues are considered to be the impact of the proposed works upon the amenity value of the trees and the impact of the works upon the character and appearance of the area.

(168) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that tree preservation order consent is granted for the proposed works.

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

2.1 Local Policy Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 Policy D1: Impact of development proposals on locality.

3.1 None.

4.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS (Who has been consulted on the application and the responses received)

4.1 Landscape Services Manager – Trees It would seem to be good arboriculture practice to carry out the proposed works. The reductions will create extra future management due to the reaction growth however it would be considered beneficial as reshaping the crown will balance the weight of the tree and reduce weight on lateral branches. The crown cleans will allow them opportunity to remove dead, dying or dangerous wood as well as the removal of crossing branches; this again is good Arboricultural practice and will benefit the trees for their future development.

Crown thinning would also be acceptable if they wished to carry this out; it is good practice as it creates pockets through the sail area of the canopy so reduces the risk of damage in high winds. Because they intend to remove a few of the trees in the row then the remaining trees will be more exposed to the elements, this will increase the risk of failure so a crown thin is recommended.

The trees in which they intend to fell will impact on the local amenity value; however there is good arboricultural reason to remove these trees mainly down to the fact that removal will allow the remaining trees to develop further. The trees are also showing signs of increased risk through included bark and areas of decay. It would not be beneficial to keep these trees.

The eight trees in which they intend to remove should be replaced with new trees in a suitable location. This could be alongside the south west side of the Field Maple and Ash tree row. Suitable species should include Filed Maple, Blackthorn or similar in keeping species.

To conclude; although the proposed application of works will impact on amenity value it is seen as good Arboricultural practice. A total of 12 trees should be replaced to cover the loss of the trees in which are to be felled. Species should include Blackthorn, Field Maple or other species that are in keeping with the current landscape. Plans of new planting should be submitted

(169) so we can comment on whether or not it is suitable.

4.2 Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application: 11 – 24 Lucas Place Woughton On The Green Milton Keynes 26 – 34 Lucas Place Woughton On The Green Milton Keynes Church House Newport Road Woughton On The Green

A site notice was erected adjacent to the application site in order to advertise the proposed works.

4 letters of objection have been received from neighbouring properties regarding a loss of privacy, increase in noise, loss of a view, impact on wildlife and visual impact.

1 letter of support has been received.

5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (The analysis of the issues which are critical, material, considerations and/or of greatest concern to objectors for the Committee to weigh up before making a decision)

5.1 Some of the trees are located to the boundary of Church House (to the north west) and some are located adjacent Lucas Place road (to the south east). The trees are highly visible from the road and contribute to the character of the area. The proposed works to trees T3, T4, T5, T7, T12, T14, T8, T9, T15, T17, T19, T22, T23, T20 and T21 are not expected to be significantly detrimental to the street scene or local area. The Landscape Services Manager commented that the proposed works would not severely affect the amenity value of the trees and raised no objection to the works. The works are considered to be acceptable as necessary and good arboricultural practice and it is considered that the applicants may proceed with the proposed works.

5.2 It is considered that the loss of the 8 trees that are proposed to be felled (T1, T2, T6, T10, T11, T13, T16, T18) would have an impact on the visual amenity of the area. However, the removal is seen as good arboricultural practice. It is considered, in line with the advice of the Landscape Services Manager, that 12 trees should be planted to replace the trees which are to be felled. This will allow the remaining trees to increase their contribution to the visual amenity of the area and to provide additional trees which will further contribute to the amenity value of the trees in this area. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact, overall, on the visual amenities of the area.

6.1 It is recommended that consent is granted subject to a condition regarding replacement trees.

(170) 7.0 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. Within three months of the date of this permission full details of replacement trees shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall show the species and size of the trees to be planted and their location in relation to buildings, roads, footpaths and drains and shall include full details of the ground preparation planting medium and tree pit dimensions. The approved replacement trees shall be planted in the next planting season following approval. Should any of the replacement trees die, become diseased or be otherwise removed within 5 years of planting they shall be replaced by another of similar size and species.

Reason: To mitigate the adverse impact on the character of the area arising from the removal of the trees the subject of this consent.

(171)

(172)

(173)

(174)