Development Control Panel Agenda Thursday 19 December 2013 2.00 Pm

Democratic Services

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL AGENDA THURSDAY 19 DECEMBER 2013 2.00 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 16 DECEMBER 2013

Should you have any enquires about this meeting or wish to speak in objection to any applications on this agenda, please contact Dino Imbimbo (Committee Manager) on Tel: (01908) 252458 or E- mail:[email protected] Written Representations to be received no later than 12:00 noon Wednesday 18 December 2013

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

Membership: Councillors: Legg, McLean and C Williams and one vacancy each for the Conservative and Labour Groups

Milton Keynes Council Democratic Services Division, Civic Offices 1 Saxon Gate East Milton Keynes MK9 3EJ Tel: Milton Keynes (01908) 691691 Fax: (01908) 252456 Hays DX 31406 Milton Keynes 1

Health and Safety Please take a few moments to familiarise yourself with the nearest available fire exit, indicated by the fire evacuation signs. In the event of an alarm sounding during the meeting you must evacuate the building immediately and follow all instructions provided by the fire evacuation officer who will identify him/herself should the alarm sound. You will be assisted to the nearest designated assembly point until it is safe to return to the building. Mobile Phones Please ensure that your mobile phone is switched to silent or is switched off completely during the meeting. Agenda Agendas and reports for the majority of the Council’s public meetings can be accessed via the Internet at: http://cmis.milton-keynes.gov.uk/cmiswebpublic/ Wi Fi access is available in the Council’s meeting rooms. Recording of Meetings The proceedings at this meeting may be recorded for the purpose of preparing the minutes of the meeting. Comments, Complaints and Compliments Milton Keynes Council welcomes comments, complaints and compliments from members of the public in order to make its services as efficient and effective as possible. We would appreciate any suggestions regarding the usefulness of the paperwork for this meeting, or the conduct of the meeting you have attended. Please use the slip below by detaching it and passing it to the Committee Manager. Alternatively the slip can be returned by post to Democratic Services, Milton Keynes Council, Civic Offices, 1 Saxon Gate East, Milton Keynes, MK9 3EJ, or you can e- mail your comments to [email protected] If you require a response please leave contact details, ideally including an e-mail address. A formal complaints / compliments form is available online at http://www.milton- keynes.gov.uk/complaints/ or is obtainable at the meeting from the Committee Manager. ------Meeting Attended: Development Control Panel Date of Meeting: 19 December 2013 Comments:……………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………. ………………………………………………………………………………………………….

...... Contact details:…..……………………………………………………………………………

(2) AGENDA 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Apologies 3. Disclosure of Interests Members to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests, or personal interests (including other pecuniary interests), they may have in the business to be transacted, and officers to disclose any interests they may have in any contract to be considered. 4. Planning Applications To consider Planning Applications and receive representations from objectors, of which notice has been given, and replies from applicants in accordance with the Council’s Procedure Rules. The deadline for requests to speak in objection to a planning application and for Ward Councillor requests to speak, either in favour or in objection to a planning application is 12.00 noon on Monday 16 December 2013.

A LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED IS OVERLEAF

(3)

App Reference Address Ward Town/Parish Report Plan(s) Appen- Council Pages Pages dices 17 19 22 6 Oxford Street, Stony Stony Stratford Stony Stratford 1. 13/01424/FUL Stratford, Milton Town Council other Keynes

25 29 34 The Fox and Hounds, Stony Stratford Stony Stratford 2. 13/01440/FUL 87 High Street, Stony Town Council other Stratford

41 44 49 The Fox and Hounds, Stony Stratford Stony Stratford 3. 13/01441/LBC 87 High Street, Stony Town Council other Stratford

53 59 62 13/01493/FUL 55 London Road, Loughton Park Loughton 4. Loughton, Parish Council Milton Keynes

67 70 72 Dobbies Garden Danesborough Bletchley & 5. 13/01543/FUL Centre, Fenny Stratford Watling Street, Town Council Bletchley

74 77 87 Land To The South Stony Stratford Stony Stratford 6. 13/01669/FUL East of York House, Town Council Other And North East of 1 To 7 Hayes, Stony Stratford

92 97 101 13/01890/FUL 3 Meadow Lane, Middleton Broughton & 7. Minor Milton Keynes Village, Milton Keynes Milton Keynes Parish Council

104 107 110 Wolverton & 8. Wolverton 13/01898/FUL 11 Brookside, Hodge Greenleys Minor Lea, Milton Town Council Keynes

112 117 118 Land Between 62 and Whaddon West Bletchley 9. 13/01910/FUL 64, Derwent Drive, Council (i) Bletchley

(4) 121 125 130 13/01971/FUL 74 Colesbourne Dr. Linford South Great Linford 10. Downhead Park, Parish Council Milton Keynes

131 136 140 13/02021/FUL Land To The West of, Bradwell Bradwell Parish 11. Minor 28 Streatham Place, Council Bradwell Common

144 146 148 13/02023/FUL 15 Willow Lane, 12. Stony Stratford Stony Stratford Other Stony Stratford, Town Council Milton Keynes

151 155 164 13/02115/FUL 29 Brookfield Road, Hanslope Park Haversham 13. Minor Haversham, Cum Little Milton Keynes Linford PC

167 176 184 13/02150/FUL Land To The East of Sherington North Crawley 14. Minor The Old Rectory, Parish Council High Street, North Crawley

190 194 201 13/02151/LBC Land To The East of Sherington North Crawley 15. Minor The Old Rectory, Parish Council High Street, North Crawley

204 211 213 13/02164/FUL Unit B1, B2 And C Mill Wolverton & 16. Wolverton Court, Greenleys Featherstone Road, Town Council Wolverton Mill

216 223 225 13/02276/FUL Norfolk House and Campbell Park Central Milton 17 Ashton House Keynes Business Centre, Town Council Silbury Boulevard, Central Milton Keynes

237 240 247 13/02283/ADV Kwik Fit, Wolverton & 18. Wolverton other Stratford Road, Greenleys Wolverton Town Council

(5) 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.

(6) 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 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.

(7) 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)

(8) 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)

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

This Code applies to all Members but particularly members of the Development Control Committee, their substitutes, and officers associated with planning cases.

GENERAL

1 The Development Control Committee (DCC) is a quasi-judicial body.

2 DCC members must therefore act totally impartially at all times from as soon as they first become acquainted with a planning application or potential planning application until the final decision is taken.

3 They must declare the nature and extent of any personal interest they have in any planning matter and must cease to be involved in any planning matter in which they have a prejudicial interest as soon as they realise that they have such an interest.

4 Insofar as possible DCC members should avoid contact with applicants, agents, objectors, and - in particular - decline all offers of gifts and hospitality. Before an application is made they should have an officer present if possible when meeting any of the above and keep a record of the meeting.

5 They should take their decisions in accordance with the Council's planning policies unless there are clear and compelling planning reasons for not doing so.

6 All Members must not disclose or use to their own advantage any confidential information.

7 Members of the DCC should not become associated in the public mind with any vested interest in planning matters.

OUTSIDE THE COMMITTEE BEFORE OR AFTER RECEIPT OF A PLANNING APPLICATION

8 DCC members should not offer any opinion on a planning application until it has come to Committee and they are satisfied that they have all the relevant planning information.

9 This includes all applications arising within their wards - which should be handled by other councillors.

10 DCC members are advised not to allow themselves to be lobbied but, when they are, they must give equal time and opportunity to both applicant and objector.

REVISED VERSION ADOPTED BY COUNCIL - 14 JANUARY 2005

L:\Committee\2012-13\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE\ADMIN\AGENDA PROCEDURE PACK\3. Guidance Summary.doc

(10) 11 DCC members should normally only meet applicants and objectors with a Council officer present.

12 All such contacts must be reported to the assistant Director (Planning, Economy and Development).

13 All Members must not put pressure on any officer associated with planning matters in order to influence their recommendations on a particular application one way or the other (see 19 below)

14 All Members must follow the Council's guidelines on procedure at site visits.

IN COMMITTEE OR CABINET

15 Members must base their decisions only on material planning considerations. No others are permitted.

16 Members must not speak or vote on any planning matter in which they have a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest could be a disclosable pecuniary interest, or a personal interest which a member of the public, looking on may consider so significant that it would prejudice their judgement in carrying out their role as a Member. However, where a Member holds a conflict of interest described above, before retiring he or she may first exercise the ability to address the meeting as a member of the public in accordance with the Access to Information Procedure Rules.

17 They must declare if they have any relevant information on a planning application or have been lobbied in respect of it.

18 They must list their planning reasons for any departure from the Council's planning policies (see 5 above); and take a recorded vote on any such decision.

OFFICERS

19 Officers are required at all times to give objective, professional and non- political advice on all planning matters.

20 Additionally the guidelines above apply as appropriate to all officers associated with planning matters.

REVISED VERSION ADOPTED BY COUNCIL - 14 JANUARY 2005

L:\Committee\2012-13\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE\ADMIN\AGENDA PROCEDURE PACK\3. Guidance Summary.doc

(11) PROCEDURE FOR THE DETERMINATION OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (a) Council Procedure Rule 9 does not apply to the Development Control Committee and the Development Control Panel when determining planning applications. (b) Members of the public may request the right to speak at any meeting of the Development Control Committee and the Development Control Panel to object to a planning application. The number of requests to speak will be limited to three per application (not including any right of reply). A single objector will be allowed to speak for a maximum of 3 minutes. Where there is more than one objector representing a group or organisation, they will be limited to 3 minutes to present the group or organisation’s objection, but more than one representative may speak on behalf of the group or organisation. Both the number of speakers and the time limit may be extended at the Chair’s discretion. (c) If an application is deferred any speaker heard by the Committee when an application was first received will not be precluded from being heard again when the application is reconsidered, subject to the speaker submitting a further request to speak in accordance with paragraphs (b) and (g) of this Annex. (d) Ward Councillors may comment on any application either within their Ward, or which has a significant impact on the residents of their Ward. If a Ward Councillor is objecting to a planning application he/she must advise the Assistant Director (Democratic Services), in order that the applicant can be offered a right of reply. Any request to speak must be submitted in accordance with paragraph (g) of this Annex. (e) Applicants will be entitled to speak in favour of a planning application where the planning officer has recommended refusal and there have been no requests from members of the public to speak in objection. Any speech in favour will last no longer than 3 minutes. (f) Any applicants, or their agents, will be informed when a request to speak in objection has been received and will be invited to exercise a right of reply either in writing or orally at the meeting. Any right of reply will not exceed the cumulative time given to objectors to the specific planning application. Applicants, or their agents, may invite witnesses to give evidence within the allocated time available. (g) Any request to speak (other than exercising the right of reply) must be received by the Assistant Director (Democratic Services) by noon, two clear working days before the meeting. (h) Depending on the volume of representations the Committee / Panel may wish to either: (i) receive all representations and consider the related applications at the commencement of the meeting; or (ii) follow the agenda and receive all representations as the applications are considered; or

(12) (iii) take all representations at the commencement of the meeting and then follow the order of the agenda. (i) Deputations and Petitions under Council Procedure Rule 9.12 and Public Questions under Council Procedure Rules 9.1 to 9.10 will operate as set out in these Rules, for matters of general policy and issues not directly related to promoting, or objecting to a particular planning application, and will form part of the 30 minutes allocated for public participation.

(13) National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The Impact of the NPPF of the Council's Planning Policies On the 27th March 2012 the Government's National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published and came into force. The NPPF sets out the Government's planning policies for England and replaces the majority of the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) and Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) produced by the Government together with some ministerial advice given in Letters to Chief Planning Officers and a few Circulars, including Circular 05/2005: Planning Obligations. All Local Planning Authorities must take the NPPF into account in plan preparation and it is a material consideration in planning decisions. Like most Local Planning Authorities (LPA), Milton Keynes Council (MKC) has an Adopted Local Plan and a number of other planning policy documents which pre date the NPPF. The Government recognised that this situation would arise and therefore the NPPF contains guidance on how planning authorities should attribute weighting to their existing policies against the policies of the NPPF until such time as the LPA produces revised policies to take into account the policies in the NPPF. The NPPF advocates progressing revision of plans as quickly as possible. The weight to be given to Local Plan Policies In respect of the adoption of the policies of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011, MKC relied on the transitional arrangements in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, it adopted its local plan under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ( the 1990 Act) and paragraph 215 of the NPPF applies. Therefore when considering planning applications MKC must: (a) take the policies contained in the NPPF into account as a material consideration; and (b) only give weight to MKC’s existing planning policies to the extent and the degree with which they conform with the policies in the NPPF; and MKC may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans to the extent and degree with which they also conform with the policies in the NPPF, the stage of preparation of the emerging plan and the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies The weight to be given to Mineral Plan Policies The MKC’s Mineral Local Plan was also adopted under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and so the same paragraph 215 position applies to the determination of mineral plan applications as set out above. On the 27th March 2012 the Government also published Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework. This technical guidance is intended to ensure the effective implementation of the Framework policies in (a) areas at risk of flooding and (b) in relation to mineral extraction. In relation to mineral extraction, the guidance deals with issues such as dust emission, noise and restoration.

(14) Supplementary Planning Guidance and Supplementary Planning Documents In respect of the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) and Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD), the Council must apply the same weighting and balancing considerations to these documents as to the policies they relate to. Therefore SPG or SPD documents that relate to policies in the Local Plan and the Minerals Plan should be considered in accordance with the approach set out in 215 of the NPPF Planning Obligations S106 agreements In addition to these changes the NPPF replaces the previous 5 part test for planning obligations contained in Circular 05/2005. The NPPF test requires that planning obligations/S106 agreements should only be sought where the requirements are: 1) Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. 2) Directly related to the development. 3) Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. Reports to Development Control Committee and Panel Officers are currently reviewing the NPPF and assessing the conformity of the policies contained in the Council's Local Plan and Mineral Plan with those contained in the NPPF. When this review is complete a comprehensive guide to the weight to be given to the Council's policies will be produced. However, until this can be done each report deals with the issue as far as it relates to the considerations relevant to that particular application.

(15) ITEM 4

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL

19 December 2013

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

MAJOR APPLICATIONS

Major Applications – Major applications are those proposing 10 dwellings or more and for all other types of development those proposing 1000 square metres or more of additional floor space.

MINOR APPLICATIONS

Minor Applications – Minor applications are proposed residential dwellings of less than 10 dwellings or other new commercial, industrial, retail office or warehouse proposals of less than 1000 square metres of new floor space.

OTHER APPLICATIONS

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

(16)

APP 01

Application Number: 13/01424/FUL Other Installation of disabled ramp and hand rails to front entrance (retrospective)

AT 6 Oxford Street, Stony Stratford, Milton Keynes

FOR Mr Mark Beynon

Target: 26th September 2013

Ward: Stony Stratford Parish: Stony Stratford Town Council

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

Team Leader: Alex Harrison Contact Details: 01908 252608 [email protected]

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

1.1 The Site The application site is no 6 Oxford Street a mid terrace property in Stony Stratford. 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 This retrospective planning application is for the installation of a ramped access to the front of the property in replacement of the small path. Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.

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

2.1 National Policy National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) : Paragraph 17: Subsection 4 - High quality design

2.2 Local Policy Core Strategy (July 2013) CS 13 Ensuring High Quality, Well Designed Places

Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 D1: Impact of Proposals on Locality D2: Design of Buildings

(17)

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

3.1 Impact on character and appearance of the area.

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

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

5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have lead to the officer Recommendation)

5.1 Character of the area. The ramp would be an L-shaped with the longer arm measuring 5.7 metres adjoining the property and running in parallel to it. The ramp would be sited within the grassed area in front of the property. The design and visual appearance of the ramp is simple and responds to the fall from the front door to the pavement. As is good practice, handrails have also been installed to allow safe use. The highest point of the ramp (excluding handrails) is 100mm above the ground level.

5.2 Neighbouring amenity The ramp would have no impact upon residential amenities of the neighbouring properties.

5.3 The ramp is considered to be acceptable in visual and design terms. The installation of the access ramp would not impact on pedestrian movements along Oxford Street.

None – Retrospective

(18)

(19)

(20) (21) Appendix to 13/01424/FUL

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

A1.1 None.

A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS

(Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)

A2.1 None.

(22)

A3.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS (Who has been consulted on the application and the responses received. The following are a brief description of the comments made. The full comments can be read via the Council’s web site)

Comments Officer Response

A3.1 Parish - Stony Stratford Noted. No comments received

A3.2 Ward - Stony Stratford - Cllr Brunning Noted. No comments received.

A3.3 Ward - Stony Stratford - Cllr Hawthorn Noted. No comments received.

A3.4 Ward - Stony Stratford - Cllr Wharton Noted. No comments received.

A3.5 Councils Archaeologists Noted. No comments received.

A3.6 Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application: 1 Ousebank Way Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 1, 2, 4, 8, 10, 12, 24 Oxford Street Stony Stratford Milton Keynes

A3.7 1. Two letters have been received from neighbours who Discussed in Section 5. commented that the ramp has been installed without permission and it is larger than the previous ramp

(23) which did not have handrails. A resident of the adjoining property commented that the ramp is “a complete eye sore” and that the development has not been thought through.

2. One comment also highlighted that the residents of Noted. This however, is not a material planning No. 6 dry their washing over the rail and this looks consideration. dreadful in the front garden.

(24) APP 02

Application Number: 13/01440/FUL Other

Erection of two rear outbuildings (retrospective)

AT The Fox And Hounds, 87 High Street, Stony Stratford

FOR The Fox And Hounds

Target: 5th September 2013

Ward: Stony Stratford Parish: Stony Stratford Town Council

Report Author/Case Officer: Sakina Dossaji Contact Details: 01908 252242 [email protected]

Team Leader: Alex Harrison Contact Details: 01908 252608 [email protected]

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

1.1 This application was deferred from the meeting of 21 November 2013 to allow for a Members site inspection.

1.2 The Site The application site is located on the High Street within the north west of Stony Stratford. The site is a Grade II Listed Building located within the Conservation Area. The building has undergone a number of alterations and extensions with some single storey additions to the rear of the building. 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 current application seeks retrospective planning consent for erection of two timber framed outbuildings located to the rear of the application site. The first outbuilding is north east of the site and is a lean to structure attached to the rear of the main building. The second outbuilding located further north is open sided with a front smoking shelter. It is noted that the applicant seeks consent for the use of the outbuildings for a period of five years. Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.

It is noted that a separate application for Listed Building Consent has also been submitted.

(25) 2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application)

2.1 National Policy National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) Section 12: Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment Section 7: Requiring Good Design Paragraph 17: Subsection 4 – High quality design 2.2 Local Policy

Core Strategy CS20: The Historic and Natural Environment CS13: Ensuring High Quality CS18: Healthier and Safer Communities

Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 D1 Impact of Development Proposals on Locality D2 Design of Buildings HE4 Extension or Alteration of a Listed Building HE6 Conservation Areas T15 Parking Provision

Supplementary Planning Guidance Adopted Parking Standards (2005) and Addendum (2009)

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

3.1 1. The impact of the proposed development on the character of the local area, street scene and amenity of the conservation area. The proposal is not expected to impact the existing frontage onto High Street or cause harm to the amenity of the conservation area owing to the location of the outbuildings within the rear of the site. It is noted the outbuildings do appear visually intrusive in respect to the setting of the listed building however it is considered this impact could be mitigated by suitable condition attached to the planning permission and Listed Building Consent.

2. The impact of the proposed development on neighbouring residential properties. It is considered that the development would have some impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers but it would not be so detrimental to warrant refusal of this application.

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

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

(26) 5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have lead to the officer Recommendation)

5.1 Impact on the character and appearance of the area The existing building and boundary structures would screen the outbuildings from many of the public vantage points. The outbuildings are located well within the application site and would not be highly visible from the streetscene. The northern outbuilding would be partially obscured by the existing boundary wall between the application site and No. 89. It is therefore considered that the principle of development in this location would be acceptable in terms of impact on the character and appearance of the area.

5.2 It is considered that the scale and design of the outbuildings are not in keeping with the main building and do result in a degree of visual impact on the setting of the listed building. The north east shed encroaches on to the existing eaves and side elevation of the listed building which could result in a harmful impact on the building. It is therefore recommended that a condition to reduce the temporary use of the buildings applied for by the applicant from five to three years could be attached subject to planning consent. Further detail of this is outlined in section A3.3 of this report.

5.3 Impact on the amenities of residential properties There are neighbouring residential properties adjacent to the site and neighbouring gardens to the rear of the site. It is considered that the outbuildings do not result in any direct loss of privacy, visual intrusion or sunlight to neighbouring residents. However it is noted that concerns have been raised by neighbouring residents regarding historical and current issues of noise and disturbance at the site from customers using the outdoor space. It is recommended that a condition to restrict the use of the outbuildings should be included to reduce the disturbance caused to neighbours. Whilst it is acknowledged that there are historic and current issues regarding noise and behaviour at the site, this would not justify refusing the application and the proposal does not result in a perceived intensification of use to this area. This is discussed in further detail in Section A2. 1.

1. This permission shall be for a limited period of three years only, expiring on 20th December 2016. On or before that date the structure shall be removed and the land reinstated to its former condition or such other condition as may have been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent an unsatisfactory form of permanent structure.

2. Except for access and egress from the premises, the use of outside drinking areas shall cease no later than 23:00 hours on any night, except for use by smokers. Such persons are not permitted to consume alcohol or other refreshments in external areas after this time.

(27)

Reason: To respect the amenity of residential properties

3. Within two months from the date of this decision notice the existing timber boarding shall be stained black and shall be so maintained for the period of the consent hereby granted.

Reason: To preserve the character and special interest of the listed building and the character and appearance of the conservation area, in accordance with policies HE4 and HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan, adopted December 2005.

(28)

(29)

(30)

(31)

(32)

(33)

Appendix to 13/01440/FUL

A1.1 MK/920/83 SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION Permitted 26.10.1983

MK/921/83 LISTED BUILDING CONSENT FOR SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSSION Permitted 17.10.1983

13/01441/LBC Listed building consent for erection of two rear outbuildings (retrospective) Pending

A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS

(Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)

A2.1 Noise disturbance and anti-social behaviour The outdoor garden space and the parking space is already in use by customers. Objections have been raised to the increase in disturbance due to the proposed outbuildings. It is considered that restricting the use of the outbuildings to 11pm would be in keeping with the existing license on the site. Any breaches to conditions or licence agreements may result in further action by the Council and would be a matter dealt with outside of the current applications for planning permission.

A2.2 Impact on parking The number of spaces available on the application site is 12 car parking spaces. The applicant has provided a parking layout plan showing the marked out parking spaces. The Council's Highways Engineer is satisfied that the site offers adequate parking provision and therefore the scheme is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the highway or public safety.

(34)

Comments Officer Response

A3.1 Conservation And Archaeology My conclusion is that the scheme is rather ad hoc and of a Noted. scale and detailing that make it visually intrusive in the setting of the listed building to its detriment. A secondary concern for me is that rudimentary manner of construction of the northern shed, its inadequacy as a smoking shelter and the intrusion into the eaves line of the rear sheds of the listed building.

On the other hand I can also see that there is a case for an outdoor sheltered area and a separate smoking shelter that contributes to the viability of the business which it seems is a genuine community asset. The impact on the character of the conservation area is less distinct because of its relatively unobtrusive location.

A3.2 At this point I am uncertain quite what to recommend. The Noted. outward impact of the southern shed is more pronounced whilst the intrusion on the listed building is worse for the northernmost.

Of the two, it is the northern shed which probably concerns me the most. It also seems that its justification as a general shelter is more marginal as customers continue to smoke there despite the presence of the more open purpose-built

(35) shelter thus making it less useful to none smokers who may wish to be outdoors in inclement weather.

I have concluded that the shelters and stores do less than substantial harm to the designated heritage asset and the character of the conservation area.

I also believe that there visual presence could be reduced if they were to be dark stained. I also accept that there is a case in principle for both sheds if properly designated as smoking and none smoking areas and for the southern shed which has the additional use as a store.

I think there may, however, be a case for granting consent for the extensions if we include conditions that require the timber to be stained a dark brown or black and which limit the life of the buildings to five years. After this period any problems that come to light with the encroachment of the northern shelter on the eaves of the listed outbuilding might be addressed. The applicant also asserts that the structures are temporary and so would be subject to removal or replacement in due course anyway.

A3.3 I advise that rather than for five years we add a condition to Subject to further discussion with the Council's Conservation the planning permission that limits the period of permission Officer- additional comments were provided. to three years so that any harm that may be caused by the presence of the north east shed to the eaves and sides of the listed outbuilding does not become too long term with the attendant potential for increase in cost for any making good that could be required. I also think that three years is adequate time for a more ‘designed’ solution to be put forward that relates better to the listed outbuildings

(36)

I believe the visual presence of the sheds could be significantly reduced by staining them a dark colour.

A3.4 Highways Development Control

Application 13/01440/FUL is a retrospective application for Noted. the erection of two timber buildings in the courtyard at the rear of the Fox and Hounds Public house in Stony Stratford. The rear courtyard and parking area is accessed off a shared private driveway from Prospect Road. The timber buildings are not located in the main car parking area

A3.5 Access The access to the rear parking area off Prospect Road is Noted. narrow and a single car width at the gates which will cause some conflicts for drivers accessing this car park. The section of Prospect Road from numbers 15-23 is a private access road and there are no restrictions on parking on this section of road. The adopted section of Prospect Road in front of the terrace houses is approx 5m wide and with vehicles can only park on one side without obstructing the traffic flow.

A3.6 Parking The existing car park layout is not affected by the erection of Following the Council's Highways Officer's comments the the buildings since the buildings are within the existing applicant has provided a parking plan (Drawing 134479-13- courtyard area. 04). The Highways Officer offered no objection to the The increase in gross floor area of the public house if application and commented that the available parking layout theses buildings are included would be 68m2 and the Milton is acceptable. Keynes Parking Standards requires an additional 7 car parking spaces for this amount of floor area.

(37) The application information as submitted does not show the number of existing car parking spaces or the gross floor area of the public house prior to the buildings being erected so it is not possible to make an accurate assessment of the overall parking numbers required.

Parking is available on the High Street during the day and evenings so some customers may be able to use these spaces rather than the rear car park, although demand for parking spaces on the High Street in Stony Stratford is high from shoppers and residents in the evening.

The applicant should provide a car parking layout showing the maximum number of marked out bays that can be achieved and also the gross floor area of the overall building for an accurate assessment of the maximum number of parking spaces to be carried out.

The increase in gross floor area will also require 2 number cycles spaces to be provided and also 6 % of the overall car parking spaces should be marked out for disabled use.

Crime Prevention Design Advisor While I have no objection in principle to this application, I do Noted. feel that it is prudent to restrict the use of the buildings after 2300 hours. This hopefully will hopefully reduce the number of complaints with regards to excessive noise and other anti-social behaviour.

Regularity advice and licensing I have reviewed the application for the above site and I have Noted. some concerns in respect of the applications. The premise

(38) is in close proximity to residential properties hence there is potential for noise disturbance to residents residing in the area.

I would require the use of the outside buildings/shelter to be restricted in accordance with the current licence which restricts use of the outside drinking areas after 23:00:

A3.7 Parish - Stony Stratford Noted. No comments received

A3.8 Ward - Stony Stratford - Cllr Brunning Noted. No comments received.

A3.9 Ward - Stony Stratford - Cllr Wharton Noted. No comments received.

A3.10 Local Residents Noted. The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application: 83 High Street Stony Stratford Milton Keynes Osborne House York Road Stony Stratford 14A Prospect Road Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 15 Prospect Road Stony Stratford Milton Keynes Ebor York Road Stony Stratford 2 York Road Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 91 High Street Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 89 High Street Stony Stratford Milton Keynes Flat 83 High Street Stony Stratford

(39) 8 public representations have been received detailing the following issues:

1.Impact on character and appearance Noted, see paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2

2.The development would increase the existing problem of Noted, see paragraphs 5.3 and A2.1 noise pollution, disruption and anti-social behaviour

3. Impact on parking Noted, see paragraph A2.2

(40) APP 03

Application Number: 13/01441/LBC Other

Listed building consent for erection of two rear outbuildings (retrospective)

AT The Fox And Hounds, 87 High Street, Stony Stratford

FOR The Fox And Hounds

Target: 5th September 2013

Ward: Stony Stratford Parish: Stony Stratford Town Council

Report Author/Case Officer: Sakina Dossaji Contact Details: 01908 252242 [email protected]

Team Leader: Alex Harrison Minor Applications Team Leader Contact Details: 01908 252608 [email protected]

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

1.1 The Site The application site is located on the High Street within the north west of Stony Stratford. The site is a Grade II Listed Building located within the Conservation Area. The building has undergone a number of alterations and extensions with some single storey additions to the rear of the building. Details of the location of the site and its relationship to surrounding properties can be seen in the plans attached to this report.

1.2 The Proposal The application seeks retrospective Listed Building Consent for erection of two timber framed outbuildings located to the rear of the application site. The first outbuilding is north east of the site and is a lean to structure attached to the rear of the main building. The second outbuilding located further north is open sided with a front smoking shelter. Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.

It is noted that a separate application for planning consent has also been submitted. The issues relating to the scheme are discussed in full detail in the full planning application Ref 13/01440/FUL.

The application seeks temporary consent for five years.

(41) 2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application)

2.1 National Policy National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) Section 12: Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment

Sections 16, 66 and 72 of The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

2.2 Local Policy

Core Strategy CS20 Historic and Natural Environment

Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 HE4 Extension or Alteration of a Listed Building

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

3.1 The impact of the proposed development on the significance of the Listed Building as a designated heritage asset. It is noted the outbuildings do appear visually intrusive in respect to the setting of the listed building however it is considered that this impact could be mitigated by a suitable condition attached to the full planning permission application.

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

4.1 It is recommended that Listed Building Consent is granted.

5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have lead to the officer Recommendation)

5.1 Impact on the character and appearance of the area It is considered that the impact of the outbuildings on the listed building could be addressed by attaching suitable conditions to the full planning permission. The proposal is not acknowledged as being one that would enhance the significance of the building however it is acknowledged that here are public benefits from the structures in terms of the viability of the public house.

5.2 The Conservation Officer has recommended a shorter temporary permission of the units of 3 years. This would allow limit the impact of the proposal on the building and would help facilitate discussions for a more suitable permanent proposal if this is needed at that time in the future.

5.3 On balance it is considered that the benefits of the structures mean that the application can be supported and temporary consent can be granted.

(42)

Reason: To prevent an unsatisfactory form of permanent structure.

(43)

(44)

(45)

(46)

(47)

(48) Appendix to 13/01441/LBC

A1.1 13/01440/FUL Erection of two rear outbuildings (retrospective) Also on this agenda

A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS

(Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)

A2.1 None.

(49)

Comments Officer Response

A3.2 At this point I am uncertain quite what to recommend. The Noted. outward impact of the southern shed is more pronounced whilst the intrusion on the listed building is worse for the northernmost.

(50) shelter thus making it less useful to none smokers who may wish to be outdoors in inclement weather.

I have concluded that the shelters and stores do less than substantial harm to the designated heritage asset and the character of the conservation area.

I advise that rather than for five years we add a condition to Subject to further discussion with the Council's Conservation the planning permission that limits the period of permission Officer- additional comments were provided. to three years so that any harm that may be caused by the presence of the north east shed to the eaves and sides of the listed outbuilding does not become too long term with the attendant potential for increase in cost for any making good that could be required. I also think that three years is adequate time for a more ‘designed’ solution to be put forward that relates better to the listed outbuildings

(51)

I believe the visual presence of the sheds could be significantly reduced by staining them a dark colour.

Public Representations

One Third Party representation was received. The comments submitted are the same as received in the full planning application and are addressed in that planning application as they relate to planning matters only.

(52)

APP 04

Application Number: 13/01493/FUL

Change of use from residential dwelling (use class C3) to residential dwelling (use class C3) and childcare provision (use class D1) for up to 10 children and two employees (retrospective)

AT 55 London Road, Loughton, Milton Keynes

FOR Mrs Jennifer Wilcox

Target: 13th December 2013

Ward: Loughton Park Parish: Loughton Parish Council

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

Team Leader:Jeremy Lee Joint Team Leader Strategic Applications Team Contact Details: 01908 252316 [email protected]

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

1.1 The Site

The application site is a detached property located in the residential area of Loughton. The property lies on a larger than average plot. Parking for vehicles is provided to the front of 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.

1.2 The Proposal

The current application seeks consent to operate a child-minder for up to 10 children from the property. The residential use of the property would also continue and with the ground floor being a mixed use. The applicant resides at the property and two further assistants are employed at the site. The rear garden is used as an outdoor play area. Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.

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

2.1 National Policy National Planning Policy Framework paragraph:

Para 14 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development Para 17 – Core planning principles

(53) Para 72 - Education Para 123 - Noise

2.2 Local Policy

Core Strategy

Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 D1: Impact of Development Proposals on Locality T10: Traffic T15: Parking Provision C1: Location of Community Facilities C6: Childcare Facilities Appendix C6: Proposals for the Provision of Childcare Facilities

Supplementary Planning Guidance Adopted Parking Standards (2005) and Addendum

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

3.1 1. Impact on amenity of neighbouring properties. The impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties in very finely balanced in this case. On balance given the scale of the use, the size of the plot and proposed limited use of the garden for outdoor play the proposal is considered to be acceptable.

2. Impact on parking. It is considered that the staff and residents parking could be accommodated on the site plus some limited drop off facilities for parents. However the proposal would result in some parents using the highway to drop off and pick up children. In this case, given the location of the site, the use of the highway is considered to be acceptable in accordance with Appendix C6 where drop off is provided on the highway.

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

4.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have lead to the officer Recommendation)

5.1 Planning Policy Context Policy C6 of the Local Plan states that planning permission will be granted for childcare facilities if they are consistent with the guidance in Appendix C6. In this case the proposal would involve the partial use of a resident property for up to 10 children. Therefore paragraphs 3, 4 and 6 of Appendix C6 are considered to be relevant. Paragraph 3 states that in assessing proposals the Council will pay special attention to the type of facility, its scale and operation, the character of the surrounding area and the detailed relationship with the neighbouring properties. Paragraph 4 states that car parking should be required to be provided on site and a safe and convenient facility for

(54) dropping off and collecting of children on or close to the property. Paragraph 6 states planning permission will normally be granted for a change of use of part of a dwelling house for up to 10 children where all the following criteria are met:

- The parking standards set out in paragraph 4 - Good separation between internal areas to be used and living areas of adjacent dwellings - Provision for outdoor children’s play in cases where care is offered for children of 3 years and over, in a screened area away from the living accommodation of adjacent dwellings - The proposal would not result in a concentration of childcare or other non-residential uses in a primarily residential area.

5.2 The principle of locating this type of facility in and close to residential properties to provide childcare to local residents is considered to be acceptable so long as it does not significantly impact on neighbouring properties in terms of noise and disturbance and highway considerations are deemed acceptable. If deemed to be acceptable in all other regards it is recommended that the permission be conditioned to only allow it to be used as a nursery and no other use within Use Class D1.

5.3 Impact on neighbouring properties The application proposes to utilise the rear garden of the property as an outdoor play area. A primary concern with this type of application is the impact on neighbouring properties amenity by virtue of having children playing outside and the noise and disturbance to neighbouring properties. In this case the potential exists for 10 children to be playing in the garden area of the application property at any one time. In a residential area, although this is something that may occasionally happen (e.g. for a child's birthday party) it is not something that likely to happen on a day to day basis. Outdoor play in the garden is likely to be restricted due to the weather at some times, however in summer time outdoor play is likely to happen on a more regular basis.

5.4 The application property is located in a residential area and therefore neighbours would expect a relatively high level of amenity in terms of freedom from noise and disturbance to allow them reasonable enjoyment of their gardens. In this case the property is located on a larger than normal plot as it is an older property however it does share common boundaries with other properties.

5.5 The applicant proposes for the use to operate between 8am and 6pm Monday to Friday. Although many residents may be at work at these times, a number of residents such as retired people and people who work shifts are likely to be at home especially with changing patterns of employment. This application is very finely balanced on this matter and the Council has successfully defended planning appeals for child minders accommodating 12 children in residential properties on these grounds. However these have generally been in more modern properties on newer estates where the plots are smaller and

(55) neighbouring properties are closer.

5.6 Discussions have taken place with the applicant regarding the use of the outdoor space and it is considered that the use of the garden for outdoor play could be restricted between 10:30-12:00 and 14:30-16:00 to help reduce the disturbance to neighbouring properties from outdoor play. This would mean that whilst the proposal would lead to some noise and disturbance to neighbouring properties as a result of outdoor play it would be limited to certain hours. Given the numbers of children proposed, the size of the plot, the relationship with neighbouring properties, and the limited outdoor play hours, on balance it is not considered the proposal would generate a level of disturbance which would justify refusal of the planning application on these grounds when balanced against the benefits of the scheme of providing childcare. Members may wish to consider a temporary permission of 2 years so the impact on neighbours can be tested.

5.7 The application property is a detached property so internal noise transmission to neighbouring properties is not considered to be significant.

5.8 Highways Appendix C6 of the Local Plan states that car parking will normally be required to the following standards:

(i) On-site (ii) A safe and convenient facility for dropping off and collecting children, on a premises or close to it. If this facility is located on the highway, it should be clear of sharp bends, junctions, residents parking reservations or areas where on-street parking is already heavy, prohibited or undesirable because of the narrow width of the highway.

5.9 In this case the applicant is able to provide space for 3 independently accessible parking spaces to the front of the site and a further 2 parking spaces which would not be accessible if other spaces were occupied. Therefore a total of 5 parking spaces are provided.

5.10 Under the council’s parking standards the requirement for this application is 3 spaces for staff (1 per member of staff) and 3 spaces for pick up and set down (1 space per 4 children). The continued use of the property as a dwelling also need to be taken into account and has a parking requirement of 2 spaces. As one of the members of staff is also the occupier of the property one of the staff parking spaces can be included in the dwellings spaces. This gives the development (excluding set down and pick up) a requirement for 4 parking spaces. Whilst it is not ideal that not all the spaces are independently accessible it is considered that all staff and residents parking could be provided on site. This would leave 1 space for set down and pick up of children on the premises. There would therefore be some set down and pick up likely to occur on the highway.

5.11 As outlined in appendix C6 where this facility is located on the highway, it

(56) should be clear of sharp bends, junctions, residents parking reservations or areas where on-street parking is already heavy, prohibited or undesirable because of the narrow width of the highway. In this case the alignment of the road is relatively straight, is clear from junctions and there are no residents parking restrictions. Whilst some on-street parking already exists there are opportunities for parents to park safely on the highway when dropping off/picking up children. Given the nature of the use, vehicles are only likely to park for a short period of time and in this case the limited use of the highway for set down/pick up is considered to be in accordance with Appendix C6 and T15 of the Local Plan.

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 premises shall be used only as a childcare facility and for no other purpose including any other purpose in class D1 of the Schedule of the Town and Country Planning (use classes) order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification.

Reason: To ensure adequate parking is available for the use and the scale of the use is appropriate to the location with regards to the impact on the neighbour.

3. The use of the garden for outdoor play and any other uses associated with the child care business shall be limited to 10:30am-12:00pm and 14:30pm - 16:00pm. No use of the garden for the purposes of the childcare business shall take place outside of these hours.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

4. No more than two members of staff not living at the premises shall be present at the site at any one time.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the neighbouring properties and ensure there is an adequate level of parking serving the use in accordance with policies D1 and C6 (and appendix) of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 - 2011..

5. The use hereby permitted shall not operate other than between the hours of 0800 and 1800 on Monday to Fridays. It shall not operate at any

(57) time on Saturdays, Sundays or public holidays.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring properties in accordance with policies D1 and C6 (and appendix) of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 - 2011.

6. The use hereby permitted shall accommodate no more than 10 children in any calendar day.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the neighbouring properties from noise and disturbance in accordance with policies D1 and C6 (and appendix) of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 - 2011.

(58)

(59)

(60) (61) Appendix to 13/01493/FUL

A1.1 02/01940/FUL - Part single storey front extension with double garage, part two storey front and single storey side extension - Refused

03/00733/FUL - Part single storey front extension with double garage, part two storey front and single storey side extension - Permission

A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS

(Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)

A2.1 None

(62)

Comments Officer Response

A3.1 Highways Development Control Application 13/01493/FUL is situated on London Road in Loughton. The road is subject to a Noted 30 mph speed limit and is a relatively straight section of highway running north west to south east with dwellings on both sides in the vicinity of the application site. The dwellings have off street parking on driveways in the vicinity of the application site..

Summary No objection.

A3.2 Access Access to the parking and set down and collection area is to the front of the dwelling and via Noted a residential crossover off the street to an existing gravelled surface area. be. However the crossover for the dwelling does not extend for the full length of this parking area and the access requires amending accordingly to ensure vehicles can use the spaces provided efficiently and avoid parking on the highway.

A3.3 Parking Parking for 2 spaces for the dwelling can be accommodated on the left hand side of the Noted See 5.8-5.11. parking area in front of the dwelling for 2 vehicles; although these cannot be used during the time when the set down and collection area is being used. However this can be managed by the residents to avoid parking on the street at the times when the set down and collection is most used during the opening hours for the nursery. During the evening it is unlikely to an issue for residents parking on the plot. The garage parking is not included in the overall calculation of the parking provision in accordance with the Milton Keynes Parking Standards. Visitor parking to the dwelling during the day would have to be accommodated

(63) on the street if the set down and collection area is in use. In the evening, it is likely that there would be space on the plot for visitor parking. The parking standards requires 1 space per staff employed which means that 2 parking spaces on plot should be provided.

A3.4 Set down and collection The nursery/crèche facility requires set down and collection parking to be provided in the Noted. Noted see 5.10-5.11 ratio of 1 space per 4 children. Based on the information submitted in the application this requires 3 spaces (rounded up). The plot has space for 3 vehicles to park in front of the garage on the right hand side of the dwelling which is adequate. The proposed development requires a maximum of 4 spaces for the residents and staff together with 3 set down and collection spaces. The plot can accommodate 5 spaces and only 1 space on plot would be available for the set down and collection provision. This would result on short term parking on street at times for the set down and collection especially during the morning period.

A3.5 Traffic Impact In terms of the impact on the local highway network, the increase in trips to the nursery can Noted be accommodated and purely in terms of the impact on the traffic in the locality the opening hours before the morning peak of 8-9 am would reduce this. However an increase in traffic before 8 am in a residential area may not be acceptable for other reasons. I note that the applicant may be proposing reduced opening hours of 8 am- 6 pm which could address the impact on the local residents, but customers would be arriving and leaving during the morning and afternoon peak times for traffic flows. The actual number of vehicles to the property would be an increase on the existing residential use even though the actual number is relatively low compared to the overall traffic flows in the area.

A3.6 Conclusion. The application does not meet the parking standards for the proposed use; however if the residents and staff parking is off the street for the long term parking the shortfall of 1 to 2 spaces for the set down and collection may be acceptable. Vehicles reversing off the set down area may cause more disruption and delay to traffic on the highway than the short term on street parking at peak times.

(64)

A3.7 Parish - Loughton The council objects to this application on the grounds that despite this being a larger Noted. The hours have residential property it is inappropriate to have childcare facilities on this scale in a residential been reduced since the area directly adjacent to a busy road. We cannot accept the potential number of hours it application was originally indicates to operate, essentially 84 hours per week which includes Sundays and Bank submitted and the parish Holidays. These hours should be more in keeping with the surrounding residential area at have been notified. 07.30 hours to 19.30 hours Monday to Friday only. We object to weekend or bank holiday operations.

A3.8 In our opinion the parking arrangements are not satisfactory and there is no clear Noted. See 5.8-5.11. explanation of the provision for a safe release and collection of children as the property is located on a busy through route. Despite there being an indication of potentially 7 car parking spaces, including two in the garage, due to their layout and several spaces being needed for family and staff usage, only 3 can be assumed to be for occasional customer parking. Equally these are not easy drive in and out spaces as it is expected vehicles would have to reverse across the footpath from or onto the busy London Road. These should not be considered as suitable off road and drop off places.

A3.9 This council is extremely concerned about this being a retrospective planning application The fact that the application when the applicant would have been fully aware of the need for this. This would have given is retrospective is not a time to negotiate a suitable solution before any expensive decisions were made. We wish to planning consideration. state that this council is not in a position to comment on the suitability of the internal facilities or qualification of staff.

A3.10 Environmental Health Manager No comments received.

A3.11 Childcare Provision I note this application relates to a childminder who is seeking to expand their provision. Our Noted. records indicate that she has been judged by Ofsted as providing a ‘good’ standard of care and education. She delivers free early education provision to children aged from 2 to 4 and

(65) as such supports the local authority to fulfil its statutory duties in this regard. We do not object to this application.

A3.12 Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application: 18 - 20 (all) Gurney Close, Loughton 36,38, 40, 42, 44, 53A and 57 London Road, Loughton

A3.13 1 letter of support and 1 letter of objection have been received. These have raised the following issues:

- Concerns over the weekend and bank holiday opening hours. These have now been removed - Concerns over parking provision for set down and pick up. This could affect the See para 5.8-5.11 surrounding properties and safety of the accesses at peak time. - The development meets and vital need for affordable good quality childcare in the Noted area. - Not aware of any complaints and activities not dissimilar to a large family. Noted - It is important to locate facilities in residential areas close to schools and parks. Noted. See para 5.2.

(66) APP 05

Application Number: 13/01543/FUL

Change of use of 5 existing parking spaces for siting of mobile veterinary unit

AT Dobbies Garden Centre, Watling Street, Bletchley

FOR Ms Linda Wilson-Leary

Target: 16th September 2013

Ward: Danesborough Parish: Bletchley & Fenny Stratford Town Council

Report Author/Case Officer: Jeremy Lee Contact Details: 01908 252316 [email protected]

Team Leader: Nicola Wheatcroft Contact Details: 01908 252274 nicola.wheatcroft@milton-keynes .gov.uk

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

1.1 The Site

The application site is an area of car park situated in front of the garden centre, close to the vehicular access to the site as a whole. There is an existing Portakabin style building and canopy situated on part of the car park at the far side of the car park, furthest from the entrance to 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.

1.2 The Proposal

The proposal is to site an ex mobile mammography unit in the car park for use as a veterinary clinic. The applicants have stated that the proposal is to provide support to Dobbies in the care of animals they sell and to support Dobbies customers who may have purchased animals. The proposal is to use an ex mammography mobile unit is to enable the applicants to explore the viability of providing this facility before committing resources to a permanent building to house it. Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.

(67)

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

2.1 National Policy National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs:

14 Sustainable Development 18-21 Building a strong competitive economy 23 Ensuring the vitality of town centres

2.2 Local Policy

Core Strategy

CS13 High Quality and Well Designed Places

Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011

D1 Impact Upon Locality D2 Design of Buildings D8 Temporary Buildings T15 Parking

Supplementary Planning Guidance

Parking Standards

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

3. The main issue is the impact of the proposal upon the appearance of the area. The proposed building is not appropriate in terms of its design and appearance and would be detrimental to the appearance of the area. However, it is considered appropriate to allow the proposal for a short period to enable the viability of the use to be established before requiring the applicants to invest resources in providing a suitably designed and located building.

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

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

5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have lead to the officer Recommendation)

5.1 Siting and Design

The proposed building is clearly not intended to be a permanent structure and it is not designed to reflect the design and appearance of its setting. It would

(68) also be located in a fairly prominent location. There are therefore strong policy arguments for refusing the application. However, given the applicant’s stated intention to use the building to establish the viability of the veterinary use in this location, it is considered that a short term approval could be justified.

5.2 Parking

The proposed building would be sited over five car parking spaces. In addition the Council’s car parking standards require 4 car parking spaces to be provided to serve the proposed use. The proposal therefore results in a short fall of 9 spaces for the site as a whole. However, there is no evidence that there is currently a shortfall of parking spaces on the site and, at least in part, it is assumed that at least some visits to the vetinary surgery would be in combination with visits to the garden centre. On balance it is not considered that the proposal would result in an on street car parking problem.

5.3 Conclusions

It is considered that the proposal would have a detrimental impact upon the appearance of the site and the area in general. However, the level of impact would not be overpowering. On that basis, and taking into account the economic investment required, it is considered that a temporary permission to allow the applicants to assess the viability of the business is appropriate.

1. The permission hereby granted shall be for a period of 3 years only. On or before the 31st December 2016 the structure hereby permitted shall be removed and the area laid out as car parking as prior to the installation of the structure.

Reason: The proposed structure is of insufficient quality in terms of design and materials for such a prominent location and would have a detrimental impact upon the appearance of the area if left in situ for a prolonged period of time, contrary to policies D1 and D8 of the Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

(69)

(70) (71) Appendix to 13/01543/FUL

A1.1 09/00615/FUL Erection of a canopy and a Portakabin for use as hand car wash facility and office/store. Permitted 03.06.2009

10/02099/FUL Erection of polytunnels over external sales area. Permitted 03.12.2010

A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS

(Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)

A2.1 None.

(72)

Comments Officer Response

A3.1 Parish - Bletchley & Fenny Stratford

No Objections

Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application: Magiovinium Belvedere Lane Bow Brickhill

No comments received.

(73) APP 06

Application Number: 13/01669/FUL Other

Installation of a series of 7 pieces of public sculpture in part of the communal open area of the development

AT Land To The South East of York House, And North East of 1 To 7 Hayes, Stony Stratford

FOR Stony Stratford Town Council

Target: 25th September 2013

Ward: Stony Stratford Parish: Stony Stratford Town Council

Report Author/Case Officer: Sakina Dossaji Contact Details: 01908 252242 [email protected]

Head of Team: Alex Harrison Minor Applications Team Leader Contact Details: 01908 252608 [email protected]

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

1.1 The Site The application site is within the Hayes Mews residential development on the east side of London Road, adjacent to York House Centre. The area of development is an open communal space located on the north west side of the Hayes housing development. The trees on the site are protected by a tree preservation order. 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 is for public artwork designated within the boundaries of the Hayes housing development site as part of the section 106 agreement between Milton Keynes Council and Barratt Homes.

Planning permission is sought for the installation of 7 pieces of public sculpture. The scheme consists of two free standing sculptures and 5 smaller sculptures mounted on steel columns. Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.

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

2.1 National Policy National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012)

(74) Paragraph 17: Subsection 4- High quality design Paragraphs: 58, 60-61- Impact on character and appearance of area; Section 7 Paragraph 64: Impact on character and appearance of area; Section 7

2.2 Local Policy

Core Strategy Policy CS12 – Developing Successful Neighbourhoods Policy CS13 – Ensuring High Quality, Well Designed Places.

Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 D1 Impact of Development Proposals on Locality D2A Urban Design Aspects of New Development

L2 Protection of public open space and existing facilities T15 Parking Provision

Supplementary Planning Guidance Residential Design Guide 2012.

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

3.1 1. Impact of the works on the character and appearance of the area; the proposed sculptures are prominent additions to the streetscene but are not expected to be visually harmful or result in any adverse impact to the amenity of the local area.

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

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

5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have lead to the officer Recommendation)

5.1 Impact on the Character and Appearance of the area The proposal is considered to be appropriate for this location in making it a feature of the history of this site and its surroundings. The proposed artwork is expected to add interest and a sense of place the application site and nearby housing development. The sculptures would appear as a fairly prominent addition within the streetscene but in a reduced context as it would be set well into the linear strip of land within the Hayes residential development. The proposal will be partially screened by the existing trees located on the application site. It is noted that one sculpture (A) would front London Road. Owing to the scale and design, the sculpture is not considered to be visually dominant on the street scene.

(75) 6.0 CONDITIONS (The conditions that need to be imposed on any planning permission for this development to ensure that the development is satisfactory. To meet legal requirements all conditions must be Necessary, Relevant, Enforceable, Precise and Reasonable )

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

(76)

(77)

(78)

(79)

(80)

(81)

(82)

(83)

(84)

(85)

(86) Appendix to 13/01669/FUL

A1.1 None.

A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS

(Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)

A2.1 Impact on the amenities of residential properties The proposed works would be partially visible from some of the residential properties located within Hayes Mews. The development is not expected to cause any harm in terms of privacy or visual intrusion to these neighbouring properties. The existing landscaping within the amenity space obscures views of the public art installations and therefore it is considered that visual impact would be mitigated. Given the positioning of the sculptures within the amenity space, it is not considered that the proposal would appear overbearing or dominant within this space.

A2.2 Concerns have been raised that the development would restrict the local resident's use of the amenity space. It is noted that the development would have some degree of impact on the way in which local residents and members of the public use this space. However the current application site is deemed as amenity open space whereby the primary function is to offer attractive features in otherwise built-up areas, or as wildlife habitats. There is no particular use attached to such sites and therefore the application is considered acceptable.

A2.3 Impact of the development on parking The scheme is unlikely to lead to issues of on-street parking and it is not considered that any additional parking is required as a result of the application.

(87)

Comments Officer Response

A3.1 Conservation And Archaeology Team Noted No objection to the proposed development.

A3.2 MKC Public Art Project Officer We are aware of the project, which has gone through a Noted thorough process of community consultation etc so have no negative comments to make.

A3.3 Landscape Services Manager - Trees No comment received. Noted

A3.4 Parish - Stony Stratford No comment received. Noted

A3.5 Ward - Stony Stratford - Cllr Brunning No comment received. Noted

A3.6 Ward - Stony Stratford - Cllr Hawthorn No comment received. Noted

A3.7 Ward - Stony Stratford - Cllr Wharton No comment received. Noted

A3.8 Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the

(88) application: 78 Wolverton Road Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 42 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes York House Centre London Road Stony Stratford 57 London Road Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 51 London Road Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 19 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 17 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 18 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 5 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 1 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 3 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 7 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 16 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 14 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 12 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 10 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 61 London Road Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 59 London Road Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 55 London Road Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 53 London Road Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 8 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 56 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 54 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 52 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 50 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 48 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 46 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 44 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 6 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 40 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 38 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes

(89) 36 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 34 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 32 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 30 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 28 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 26 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 24 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 22 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 20 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 4 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 2 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 21 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 15 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 13 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 11 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 9 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 19 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes York House Centre London Road Stony Stratford 71 The Limes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 69 The Limes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 67 The Limes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 46 London Road Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 24 Kingston Avenue Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 23 Kingston Avenue Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 22 Kingston Avenue Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 21 Kingston Avenue Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 20 Kingston Avenue Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 19 Kingston Avenue Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 18 Kingston Avenue Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 17 Kingston Avenue Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 15 Hayes Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 24 London Road Stony Stratford Milton Keynes

(90)

A site notice was erected adjacent the application site and a public notice advert was published in the newspaper.

A3.9 Public Representations

5 letters of support were received.

6 representations in objection were received detailing the following issues:

1. Impact to neighbouring amenity in terms of outlook and Paragraph A2.1 privacy.

2. The development would impact on residents using the Paragraph A2.2 communal garden area.

3. It would encourage more footfall within the site resulting Paragraph A2.3 in an increase in parked cars visiting the site.

(91)

APP 07

Application Number: 13/01890/FUL Minor

Variation of conditions 1 (list of approved plans) and 4 (external materials) attached to planning permission 11/02366/FUL (Extension of time limit on planning permission 09/00054/FUL for the erection of a detached dwelling) to change the external material finish to South West and North East elevations from brick to render

AT 3 Meadow Lane, Milton Keynes Village, Milton Keynes

FOR Mr Andrew Lammas

Target: 30th October 2013

Ward: Middleton Parish: Broughton & Milton Keynes Parish Council

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

Team Leader: Jeremy Lee Joint Team Leader Strategic Applications Team Contact Details: 01908 252316 [email protected]

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

1.1 The Site

The application site currently forms part of the garden of 3 Meadow Lane, Milton Keynes Village. The existing property is a two-storey detached dwelling with an annex located at the end of a cul-de-sac. The property is within the settings of two grade II listed dwellings (at 1 and 6 Meadow Lane) and the setting of Milton Keynes Village Conservation Area. Adjacent to the application site is a pond with records of Great Crested Newts. 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

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

1.3 This application originally included additional/altered windows to the rear elevation and the installation of grey aluminium window frames; however,

(92) these items have now been removed from the application. Therefore, the current application is now only for the proposed change from brick to render to the front and rear elevations of the approved new dwelling.

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

2.1 National Policy

National Planning Policy Framework, March 2012 (NPPF)

2.2 Local Policy

Core Strategy CS 13 Ensuring High Quality, Well Designed Places CS 19 The Historic and Natural Environment

Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 (saved policies) D1: Impact of Development Proposals on Locality D2A: Urban Design Aspects of New Development D2: Design of Buildings HE5: Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building HE6: Conservation Areas NE2: Protected Species H7: Housing on Unidentified Sites T15: Parking Provision

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

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

3.1 The impact of the proposed change from brick to render on the character and appearance of the area.

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

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

5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have led to the officer Recommendation)

5.1 The proposal originally included variations to the rear first floor windows and window frames as well as the proposed change from brick to render. However, the current application has now been amended withdrawing the proposed changes to the rear first floor windows and window frames. Therefore, the current application is now for the proposed change to the front and rear elevations of the approved new dwelling rom brick to render; which would

(93) result in the new dwelling being a mix of render, brick and timber cladding. The proposed brick and timber cladding have already been approved and therefore the consideration of the current application is on the basis of the impact of the proposed addition of the render on the character and appearance of the area.

5.2 The new dwelling would be located on a cul-de-sac and would be surrounded by existing properties. The relationship to the neighbouring properties is such that the use of uncomplimentary materials would create an overly dominant and discordant dwelling within the existing group. Consideration has therefore been given to the range of external materials within the existing dwellings on Meadow Lane. The existing properties are largely brick; however, the existing property at 2 Meadow Lane has white rendered walls. Taking into account the presence of render at number 2 it is considered that the proposed change from brick to a mix of render and brickwork for the new dwelling would not have a significant impact on the character and appearance of the area.

5.3 It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions listing the approved plans (as amended) and the conditions listed below.

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 23rd December 2014, which is three years from the date of the permission issued under reference 11/02366/FUL.

2. The external materials to be used in the development shall be in accordance with the following details and samples (as received on 18th October 2013 and 4th December 2013): - Brick: Ibstock Ivanhoe Cottage Blend (Ibstock Code: 0055) - Render: Sto Render 1.5mm - Colour 31409 - Tiles: Marley Eternit Clay Plain Tile - Heather Blend - Windows: Timber Window Frame stained with Sansin Rosewood 35 Translucent - Timber Cladding: 19x144mm Western Red Cedar No.2 Clear Microline Channel, Stained with Sansin Rosewood 35 Translucent - RWG: Black uPVC

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

3. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance

(94) with the recommendations contained within the Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index Report (Report Number: RT-MME-108285) which has already been approved under application reference 12/01542/DISCON.

Reason: To comply with wildlife law and Policy NE2 of Milton Keynes Local Plan by safeguarding Great Crested Newts, a European Protected Species.

4. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the levels shown on the approved plans unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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.

5. All planting in accordance with the approved Landscaping Scheme (Landscape Plan, as Proposed (drawing number 07059 (D) 110 D)) 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.

6. The approved boundary treatment (Site Boundary Plan, as Proposed (drawing number 07059 (D) 111 B)) shall be provided in accordance with the approved scheme before the dwelling is first occupied. The approved fence, hedge or wall shall subsequently be retained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

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 dwelling, and to safeguard the privacy and amenities of the occupiers of existing neighbouring dwellings.

7. The scheme for parking and manoeuvring as 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.

8. The windows at first floor level within the north east (rear) elevation shall be obscurely glazed to a level of obscurity of level 3 within the Pilkington range of Textured Glass or equivalent. They shall not be altered to clear glazing without the prior approval, in writing, of the Local Planning Authority.

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

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 Class A, B and C of Part I 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, and any other alteration to the roof of a dwellinghouse) shall not apply to the dwelling hereby permitted and no such development shall be carried out without the permission, in writing, of the Local Planning Authority being first obtained.

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

(96)

(97)

(98)

(99)

(100) Appendix to 13/01890/FUL

A1.1 09/00054/FUL Erection of Detached Dwelling; permitted 22.05.2009

11/02366/FUL Extension of time limit on planning permission 09/00054/FUL for the erection of a detached dwelling; permitted 23.12.2011

12/01542/DISCON Details submitted pursuant to discharge of condition 5 (Great Crested Newts) attached to planning permission 11/02366/FUL; details approved 21.09.2012

13/01889/DISCON Details submitted pursuant to discharge of conditions 3 (ground conditions assessment), 4 (external materials), 7 (landscaping scheme) and 8 (boundary treatment) attached to application 11/02366/FUL; details approved 05.12.2013.

A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS

(Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)

A2.1 Proposed List of Conditions

The list of conditions at section 6.0 of this report are those attached to the previous planning permission (11/02366/FUL) with amendments to take into account the details already approved under references 12/01542/DISCON and 13/01889/DISCON for an assessment of ground conditions, external materials, Great Crested Newts, a landscaping scheme and boundary treatment.

(101)

Comments Officer Response

A3.1 Broughton & Milton Keynes Parish Council

The Parish Council objects to the application: the The proposed alterations to the windows have been application includes an additional window and in addition removed from the current application. Condition 8 at section the windows are larger in size and not obscurely glazed. 6.0 of this report requires the first floor windows within the rear elevation to be obscurely glazed. A3.2 Public Representations

The occupiers of the following properties in Milton Keynes Village were notified of the application: 1 to 6 Meadow Lane 1 Northend House, Willen Road 42 Walton Road

A3.3 Objections have been received from the occupiers of 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 Meadow Lane. The comments received can be summarised as follows:

1. Additional windows at first floor level within the rear 1. The proposed alterations to the windows have been elevation and the lack of obscure glazing raise concerns removed from the current application. Condition 8 at of overlooking of neighbouring properties and would section 6.0 of this report requires the first floor windows increase the accommodation size (increasing number of within the rear elevation to be obscurely glazed. bedrooms from three to five).

2. The proposed elevational treatments are not 2. An assessment of the proposed changes is provided at

(102) sympathetic to the conservation area. section 5.0 of this report.

3. Grey aluminium windows would be out of keeping with 3. The proposed change from brown timber windows to the area; the surrounding properties have grey aluminium windows has been withdrawn from the brown/mahogany window frames. This requested application. change will make the additional house (which will be in the middle of numbers 2, 3, 4 and 5) look out of place.

4. The external rendering, apart from presenting a 4. An assessment of the proposed change is provided at significant maintenance problem that would decrease section 5.0 of this report. The issues of property value the value of the property, is also unseen elsewhere in and future maintenance are not material planning the area even on the older timber-framed buildings. considerations.

5. Objected to the original application as an 5. The new dwelling has already been granted planning overdevelopment of the site and out of character with the permission; the current application relates to a variation rest of the conservation area. to the proposed materials only and there is no opportunity to re-visit the principle of the development.

(103) APP 08

Application Number: 13/01898/FUL Minor

Single storey side extension and repositioning of entrance door

AT 11 Brookside, Hodge Lea, Milton Keynes

FOR Mr V Sivanarudselvan

Target: 26th November 2013

Ward: Wolverton Parish: Wolverton & Greenleys Town Council

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

Team Leader: Alex Harrison Contact Details: 01908 252608 [email protected]

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

1.1 The Site The application site is an existing shop located off Brookside in Hodge Lea. There are public parking bays to the east of the application site. Details of the location of the site and its relationship to surrounding properties can be seen in the plans attached to this report.

1.2 The Proposal Planning permission is sought to erect a single storey side extension to the south side of the shop to provide a store room and small external service yard. It is also proposed to reposition the entrance doors to the shop to the east side of the shop and infill the previous entrance with a glazed screen. Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.

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

2.1 National Policy National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

2.2 Local Policy

Core Strategy CS12 Developing Successful Neighbourhoods CS13 Ensuring High Quality, Well Designed Places CS18 Healthier and Safer Communities

(104)

Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 D1 Impact of development proposals on locality D2 Design of buildings T15 Parking provision

Supplementary Planning Guidance MK Parking Standards

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

3.1 1. Impact on character and appearance of the area. The proposed extension is not considered to harm the character and appearance of the area.

2. Impact on residential amenity. There is not considered to be any amenity harm as a result of this proposal.

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

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

5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have led to the officer Recommendation)

5.1 Impact on the character and appearance of the area The proposed extension would be built in matching materials to that of the existing shop and it would continue the flat roof. The repositioning of the entrance provides glazing to the east elevation and infilling the existing entrance on the north elevation with glazing adds interest to both of these elevations and is considered to enhance the appearance of the brick building. The fencing to the yard reflects the existing fencing (2 metres close boarded) and is not considered to have a negative visual impact on the area.

5.2 Impact on residential amenity The proposed extension and service yard would bring development closer to the residential property No. 12 Brookside and therefore would have some impact on this occupier’s amenity. However the extension would be single storey in height with a flat roof to match the existing building and the existing electrical sub-station and vehicular access would remain between the application site and No. 12. There is existing fencing to the side boundary of No. 12 and to the current service yard. The main outlook to No. 12 is to the front and rear of the dwelling (the application site is to the side). It is not considered that the development would have a detrimental impact on No. 12’s residential amenity that would warrant refusal of this application. The proposal is considered acceptable with regard to residential amenity.

(105)

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

2. No deliveries to or collections to the store and yard area shall take place outside the hours of 7.00am and 7.00pm without the prior permission in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect the amenities of nearby residential properties.

(106)

(107)

(108)

(109)

Appendix to 13/01898/FUL

A1.1 None.

A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS

(Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)

A2.1 Impact on parking provision The proposed extension would not impact on any existing public parking areas. The extension is to provide additional storage space for the shop. In this case the existing parking arrangement is considered acceptable.

A2.2 Other matters The proposal is for an extension to the existing shop. Any street lighting would be within the highway (footpaths) and the plans do not indicate any alterations to the existing arrangement. The new shop entrance would be re- positioned to the east elevation which faces towards the public car parking bays and is nearby to the bus stop. Therefore it is considered that surveillance of the entrance and light to the entrance is an improvement to the current situation.

(110)

Comments Officer Response

A3.1 Parish - Wolverton & Greenleys Request that this application is heard by committee. Noted.

Local Residents

The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application: 12 Brookside, Hodge Lea, 17 - 20 Dunvedin Place, Hodge Lea

One letter of no objection has been received (subject to adequate street lighting.

One letter of objection has been received. The planning concerns are: 1. Visual impact of the proposals Noted, see para 5.1

2. Loss of light / outlook to their property Noted, see para 5.2

(111) APP 09

Application Number: 13/01910/FUL

Demolition of existing garage and erection of an end of terrace dwelling (resubmission of 13/01248/FUL)

AT Land Between 62 And 64, Derwent Drive, Bletchley

FOR Mr Colin Tigue

Target: 23rd October 2013

Ward: Whaddon Parish: West Bletchley Council

Report Author/Case Officer: Katy Lycett Contact Details: 01908 252313 [email protected]

Team Leader: Alex Harrison Contact Details: 01908 252608 [email protected]

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

1.1 The Site The application site is land between numbers 62 and 64 Derwent Drive in Bletchley. The plot currently has an existing single garage which is associated with number 62 and this is to be removed as part of the proposal. The local area is residential with a mixture of terraced and semi-detached dwellings. Details of the location of the site and its relationship to surrounding properties can be seen in the plans attached to this report.

1.2 The Proposal The proposal seeks consent for the erection of a 2 bedroom end of terrace dwelling attached to number 62. Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.

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

2.1 National Policy Para 39 Parking Paras 56, 57, 60, 61,63,64 Design

2.2 Local Policy

Core Strategy CS13 Ensuring High Quality Well Designed Places CS4 Retail and Leisure Development

(112) Adopted 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 H7 Housing on Unidentified Sites

Supplementary Planning Guidance Parking Standards For Milton Keynes (2005)

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

3.1 1. The principle of a new dwelling in this location. Under Policy H7 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan the introduction of a new dwelling is assessed against criteria which in this instance are achieved.

2. The impact of the proposed development on the local area and street scene. The character of this part of Bletchley is mainly terraced and semi-detached dwelling and the creation of this property is not expected to have a detrimental impact upon the local pattern of development.

3. The impact of the proposed dwelling on nearby properties and occupiers. There is not expected to be any significant impact on the occupiers of dwellings nearby as there is a distance of approximately 30 to the nearest rear elevation on Nene Drive.

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

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

5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have lead to the officer Recommendation)

5.1 Principle of a new Dwelling Under the criteria of Policy H7 the introduction of a new dwelling in this location is assessed in terms of its suitability and compatibility with the existing land uses in the surrounding area. The site falls within the settlement limits for Bletchley which allows the principle of a new dwelling. This proposal will essentially extend an existing run of terraces and as a result is deemed to be an appropriate scheme for this location. The site has access to existing shops, facilities and services and there is considered to be sufficient capacity in the existing infrastructure.

5.2 Impact on Local Area and Street Scene The proposed dwelling has been designed to follow the existing pattern of development in this part of Bletchley. The local area is residential with mainly terraced and semi-detached dwellings and the creation of this new dwelling is considered to be of an appropriate design and appearance to be sympathetic

(113) to the character of this part of Derwent Drive.

5.3 This application is a resubmission of a previously refused application which was submitted earlier in 2013. The revised proposal has removed the part flat- roof design which was deemed to be an inappropriate design feature in this location. This revised application still essentially creates a three storey property however the creation of a box dormer window is considered to be a more suitable and appropriate design in this location.

5.4 Impact on Amenity of Nearby Occupiers The proposed dwelling has been designed to create a similar frontage to that which exists at 62 Derwent Drive and does not project beyond their existing rear elevation. On this basis the proposed dwelling is not expected to have a significant impact upon the amenity value of the occupiers of number 62 or 64 Derwent Drive.

5.5 To the rear, there is a distance of approximately 30 metres to the closest rear elevation in Nene Drive and this is not a direct relationship. As a result the proposed dwelling, although will be partially visible from properties in Nene Drive fulfils guidelines for retaining sufficient distance to protect privacy and amenity value to occupiers. To the rear, the application site adjoins the boundary of the rear garden of 1 Kennet Drive. However due to the orientation of the proposed dwelling in relation to this property the impact is expected to be limited.

5.6 Parking As part of the proposal two on-plot parking spaces have been provided which will ensure that the development meets the requirements of the Parking Standards. In addition the scheme ensures replacement parking for the existing dwelling which would otherwise be lost as a result of this development.

6.0 CONDITIONS (The conditions that need to be imposed on any planning permission for this development to ensure that the development is satisfactory. To meet legal requirements all conditions must be Necessary, Relevant, Enforceable, Precise and Reasonable ) 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

2. The external materials to be used in the development shall be in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any work is commenced. (M02) Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality.

3. 1) Prior to any development taking place, the developer shall carry out an assessment of ground conditions to determine the likelihood of any

(114) 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.

2) 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.

3) 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.

4. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted the car parking area shown on the approved drawings shall be constructed, surfaced and permanently marked out. The car parking area so provided shall be maintained as a permanent ancillary to the development and shall be used for no other purpose thereafter.

Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision at all times so that the development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or the safety on the neighbouring highway.

5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 or any Statutory Instrument revoking or amending or re-enacting that Order, the following provisions of Article 3(1), part I of Schedule 2 of the said Order shall not apply to any dwelling to which this permission relates and planning permission shall be required for the forms of development described:

Classes A, B, C, D and E

Reason: So that future development on the site can be considered in light of any impact on neighbouring amenity, parking provision and the vitality of existing trees.

6. A landscaping scheme, which shall include provision for the planting of trees and shrubs, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any part of the development is commenced. 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

(115) 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 two 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. (L01)

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

(116)

(117)

Appendix to 13/01910/FUL

A1.1 13/01248/FUL Demolition of existing garage and erection of an end of terrace 2 bedroom dwelling Refused 21.08.2013

A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS

(Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)

A2.1 None.

(118)

Comments Officer Response

A3.1 West Bletchley Parish Council Commented that the application would be an Noted and see para. 5.2 to 5.4 overdevelopment of the site and would generate increased traffic and parking issues in the area where the road network is already considered as being overloaded.

A3.2 Environmental Health Officer Commented that the proposed use is particularly vulnerable Noted and see Condition 3 to the presence of contamination and as a result a condition is attached to ensure that ground conditions are assessed prior to works being carried out.

A3.3 Highways Development Control Commented that Parking on-plot has been provided Noted and see para. 5.6 including permeable paving to prevent surface water run-off to the highway and is in accordance with the Milton Keynes Parking Standards.

A3.4 Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application: 2 to 8 (evens) Nene Drive Bletchley Milton Keynes 52 to 64 (evens) Derwent Drive Bletchley Milton Keynes 1 Kennet Drive Bletchley Milton Keynes

(119) A3.5 One Third Party representation was received from the occupiers of 1 Kennet Drive raising the following issues:

Object on the grounds of invasion of privacy and out of Noted. Paras 5.2 – 5.5 apply. character to existing terrace.

(120) APP 10

Application Number: 13/01971/FUL

Two storey side extension and garage conversion

AT 74 Colesbourne Drive, Downhead Park, Milton Keynes

FOR Mr Stephen Gribble

Target: 8th November 2013

Ward: Linford South Parish: Great Linford Parish Council

Report Author/Case Officer: Katy Lycett Contact Details: 01908 252313 [email protected]

Team Leader: Alex Harrison Contact Details: 01908 252608 [email protected]

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

1.1 The Site The application site is a detached dwelling located on Colesbourne Drive in Downhead Park. The property sits on a corner location with Daylesford Court. The local area is residential with a variety of house types and styles, mainly detached with large plots and a varied street scene. The application site is covered by a blanket TPO that was made in 1971. Details of the location of the site and its relationship to surrounding properties can be seen in the plans attached to this report.

1.2 The Proposal The proposal seeks consent for the erection of a two storey side extension and garage conversion to the property, most of which has already been completed on site. An application was approved in 2012 for the same works – this application regularises some minor changes which have taken place.

1.3 The variations which form this application include changes to:

- Window size (many being reduced from the 2012 permission) - Front porch roof. - Garage. - Wall hung tiles.

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

(121) 2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application)

2.1 National Policy National Planning Policy Framework Para 39 Parking Paras 56, 57, 60, 61,63,64 Design

2.2 Local Policy

Core Strategy CS13 Ensuring High Quality Well Designed Places

Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 D1 Impact Of Development Proposals On Locality D2 Design Of Buildings T15 Parking

Supplementary Planning Guidance Parking Standards For Milton Keynes (2005)

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

3.1 1. Impact of the works on the character of the area and street scene. The works proposed are minor changes to a previously approved scheme which overall are considered to be small scale alterations.

2. Impact of works on nearby properties and occupiers. The proposal will have a minimal impact to properties in Daylesford Court.

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

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

5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have lead to the officer Recommendation)

5.1 Impact on Character of the Area The application property is located within a predominantly residential area with a mix of house types and designs. The proposed changes to the previously approved FUL and MMAM applications are deemed to be relatively minor and not anticipated to have a significant impact on this part of Downhead Park. The changes to the garage and porch roof design will be visible from the public realm however not highly prominent in the context of the property as a whole.

5.2 The proposal includes the replacement of some trees and the retention of others. A landscape plan has also been submitted as part of the application to provide landscaping to help to soften the impact of the development in the

(122) street. It is considered that the proposed landscaping works to the application site would protect the appearance and character of the area and minimise the effect of development on the area. This can be secured by way of condition and is included in the recommendation. There is also an argument that a wire mesh fence would have a less visually impact than a close boarded fence. A wire fence with planting will allow the landscaping to be seen from the public realm which is deemed to be more beneficial than being concealed to the rear of a timber boundary treatment.

5.3 Impact on Neighbouring Properties and Amenity

The proposed changes to the previously approved application would not have a harmful impact upon neighbouring amenity. The principle of development in this location has been established and this application seeks generally minor changes. The alterations to the scheme are not expected to cause harm to local properties and occupiers.

5.4 The proposed changes to the development would not have an impact on the existing on plot parking arrangement. The proposal is considered acceptable in regard to parking provision.

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.

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

3. All existing trees to be retained as shown on plan 090-P-101A received 24th September 2012 are to be protected according to the provisions of BS 5837 2005 'Trees in relation to construction - Recommendations'. All protective measures especially the fencing must be put in place first, prior to any other work commencing on site. The fencing shall be of the same specification as that depicted in figure 2, page 13 of BS 5837 2005. Signs informing of the purpose of the fencing and warning of the penalties against destruction or damage to the trees and their root zones shall be installed at minimum intervals of 10 metres and a minimum of two signs per separate

(123) stretch of fencing. The Root Protection Area (RPA) within the protective fencing must 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 adequately safeguard the trees to be retained on site.

4. All planting in accordance with the scheme shown on plan 090-P-101 A received 24th September 2013 shall be carried out within twelve months of commencement of development. Any trees or shrubs removed, dying, severely damaged or diseased within two 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.

(124) (125)

(126) (127) Approved Plan under 12/02445/MMAM

(128) Appendix to 13/01971/FUL

A1.1 05/01704/CLUP CONSTRUCTION OF GARDEN STUDIO AND RELANDSCAPING OF GARDEN Lawful 29.12.2005

12/00469/FUL Proposed two storey side extension and garage reinstatement Permit 04.05.2012

12/02445/MMAM Minor material amendment to planning permission 12/00469/FUL for omission of the permitted front balcony and alteration to window arrangement, and the addition of 2x small windows Permit 17.01.2013

A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS

(Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)

A2.1 None.

(129)

Comments Officer Response

A3.1 Great Linford Parish Council Noted. Summarised comments as follows: - Queries and legal clarification regarding the ownership of the landscaping buffer. Great Linford Parish Council objects to the application unless it is completely satisfied that the land belonged to №74. - Unacceptable visual intrusion or loss of privacy, sunlight and daylight cause by the fence especially to Daylesford Court. - Impact of the proposed 2 metre wire fencing abutting the highway. Comments submitted highlight the proposed fence as being unacceptable unless the hedge is planted in front of the wire fence as the original boundary was a thick hedge up to the back edge of the boundary.

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

1 to 4 Daylesford Court Downhead Park Milton Keynes 71, 72 and 76 Colesbourne Drive Downhead Park Milton Keynes

No Third Party representations received.

(130) APP 11

Application Number: 13/02021/FUL Minor

Demolition of existing garage and erection of detached 3 bedroom dwelling

AT Land To The West of, 28 Streatham Place, Bradwell Common

FOR Mr John Fox

Target: 25th November 2013

Ward: Bradwell Parish: Bradwell Parish Council

Report Author/Case Officer: Sakina Dossaji Contact Details: 01908 252242 [email protected]

Team Leader: Alex Harrison Contact Details: 01908 252608 [email protected]

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

1.1 The Site The application site is the land located west of No. 28 Streatham Place in Bradwell common. The site is situated adjacent to No. 28 which currently forms the garden of this property. There is an established boundary between the rear gardens of properties located on Eelbrook Avenue along the north west boundary of the site. There is an existing double garage located at the end of Streatham Place. Details of the location of the site and its relationship to surrounding properties can be seen in the plans attached to this report.

1.2 The Proposal Planning permission is sought for the erection of a 3 bedroom detached dwelling to be located at the eastern end of the cul-de-sac on Streatham Place. The proposal includes the demolition of the existing double garage to create two vehicle parking bays. Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.

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

2.1 National Policy National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012)

Paragraph 39 Parking Paragraphs 56, 57, 60, 61,63,64 Design

(131) 2.2 Local Policy

Core Strategy CS 13 Ensuring High Quality, Well Designed Places

Adopted 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

Supplementary Planning Guidance Parking Standards For Milton Keynes (2005) and Addendum (2009) Residential Design Guide (April 2012)

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

2. The impact of the proposed development on the local area and street scene. The character of this part of Bradwell Common is mainly detached dwellings of a similar design and scale. The proposed new dwelling is not expected to have a detrimental impact upon the local pattern of development. In addition the external materials are to be submitted to the local authority for approval to ensure the development is in keeping with the local area.

3. The impact of the proposed dwelling on nearby properties and occupiers. Due to the layout of the site there is not expected to be any significant impact on the occupiers of dwellings nearby. There is a back to back distance of approximately 23m to the closest point of No.85 Eelbrook Avenue and a back to flank distance of approximately 18m between the proposed dwelling and the nearest elevation of No.91. Eelbrook Avenue.

4. The impact of the proposed dwelling on parking provision. The scheme includes adequate parking for two vehicles on the site and therefore it is unlikely that there would be any adverse impact on the highway.

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

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

(132) 5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have lead to the officer Recommendation)

5.1 Principle of Development Under Policy H7 the principle of a new dwelling is assessed under relevant criteria relating to the impact on the local area and nearby properties. The site falls within the settlement boundary limits of the residential area, as a result the introduction of a new property could be acceptable subject to relevant criteria.

5.2 Character and Appearance The proposed dwelling would infill the space between No. 28 and the western boundary for the site which is adjacent to the rear gardens of the properties on Eelbrook Avenue. The dwelling will be visible from the amenity space and redway located opposite the application site as well as in the wider public realm. It is considered that a new dwelling is unlikely to change the character and appearance of the local area to a significant degree. The proposed design and scale of the dwelling is considered to be in keeping with the existing housing types and styles in the local area and therefore the proposed new dwelling is not expected to affect the pattern of development.

5.3 Neighbouring Amenity It is expected impact of the new dwelling will be to the closest dwellingswhich are on Eelbrook Avenue. The new dwelling would retain a back to flank distance of approximately 18m of the proposed dwelling and the nearest elevation of No. 91. It is considered there would be some degree of visual impact to this property however it is not considered that the development would result in any loss to the privacy of this property given that there are no windows directly facing on to this property on the side elevation. It is noted that the outlook will be marginally affected however as the proposed dwelling is not directly behind this property the effect will be reduced.

5.4 There will be a back to back distance of approximately 23m to the closest point at number 85 Eelbrook Avenue – this will be a sufficient separation distance to retain privacy and limit the impact to the occupiers of this dwelling. In addition No. 89 Eelbrook Avenue is not considered to be significantly impacted by the proposal as this property is not directly behind the application site.

5.5 The principle of a new dwelling is accepted in this location under the relevant criteria of Policy H7. The impact is not considered to be detrimental to the amenity of surrounding properties and is not sufficient to warrant refusal of the application on the grounds of amenity value.

5.6 An attached condition has been added requesting the implementation of a landscaping scheme and this will help to mitigate the impact of the development in the local area and neighbouring amenity.

5.7 Parking Provision The proposal has allocated enough space on plot for vehicle parking associated with a new dwelling and there is an existing suitable access to the property. It is considered that the development would not result in any adverse

(133) impact on to the access road serving the 3 properties on Streatham Place and the proposed site of development. The scheme offers adequate parking provision for two vehicles on the site of the existing double garage and therefore the proposal results in additional off-road parking.

2. A landscaping scheme, which shall include provision for the planting of trees and shrubs, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any part of the development is commenced. 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 two 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. (L01)

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

3. 1) 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.

2) 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.

(134) 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. 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.

5. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted the car parking area shown on the approved drawings shall be constructed, surfaced and permanently marked out. The car parking area so provided shall be maintained as a permanent ancillary to the development and shall be used for no other purpose thereafter.

Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision at all times so that the development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or the safety on the neighbouring highway.

6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 or any Statutory Instrument revoking or amending or re-enacting that Order, the following provisions of Article 3(1), part I of Schedule 2 of the said Order shall not apply to any dwelling to which this permission relates and planning permission shall be required for the forms of development described:

Classes A, B, C, D and E

Reason: So that future development on the site can be considered in light of any impact on neighbouring amenity, parking provision and the vitality of existing trees.

(135)

(136)

(137)

(138)

(139) Apendix to 13/02021/FUL

A1.1 None.

A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS

(Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)

A2.1 None.

(140)

Comments Officer Response

A3.1 Environmental Health Manager See paragraph 6.0 Suggested conditions.

A3.2 Highways Development Control Noted. The proposal includes for 2 parking spaces in accordance with the Milton Keynes Parking Standards for a 3 bedroom dwelling in zone 3. The proposal shows an area for turning in front of the dwelling which is adequate for the new swelling. Visitor parking could be accommodated on the private shared driveway in front of the new dwelling.

A3.3 MKC Urban Design It is noted the applicant has provided and amended block Given the context of this site I don’t object to the design plan and cover letter clarifying some of the issues raised by proposed in this application. Officers.

However, the proposed garden is small particularly for a family home. The application also needs to accurately show the location of all the neighbouring properties in order to assess the back to back and side to back distances of this infill proposal.

A3.4 Senior Landscape Architect Noted.

I raise no fundamental objections to for a new dwelling, although I do raise a concern regarding likely visual impact

(141) when viewed from adjoining dwellings. The north-western corner of the proposed dwelling is shown at only 1.2m away from the boundary fence which adjoins the rear gardens of properties within Eelbrook Avenue & this would result in the damage & probably loss of some areas of tall vegetation (trees & shrubs) within the application site & thus exposure of the building elevation. The proposed parking must not extend further south than the existing garage line.

A3.5 Parish - Bradwell Noted. No comment received.

A3.6 Ward - Bradwell - Cllr Wallis Noted. No comment received.

A3.7 Ward - Bradwell - Cllr Bradburn Noted. No comment received.

A3.8 Ward - Bradwell - Cllr Exon Noted. No comment received.

A3.9 Local Residents Noted. The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application: 93 Eelbrook Avenue Bradwell Common Milton Keynes 91 Eelbrook Avenue Bradwell Common Milton Keynes 89 Eelbrook Avenue Bradwell Common Milton Keynes 87 Eelbrook Avenue Bradwell Common Milton Keynes 85 Eelbrook Avenue Bradwell Common Milton Keynes 26 Streatham Place Bradwell Common Milton Keynes

(142)

A3.10 Two letters of objection were received detailing the following issues: - Impact on parking provision and the wear and tear of the Paragraph 5.7. Comments regarding the damage to the access road. access road and maintenance are not a planning consideration.

A3.11 - Devaluation of property prices The comments are noted however the issues raised are not - Damage to front gardens and boundaries relevant planning considerations to the merits of this -The development could be intended to be used for multiple- application. occupancy

(143)

APP 12

Application Number: 13/02023/FUL Other

Erection of partition walls inside carport (retrospective)

AT 15 Willow Lane, Stony Stratford, Milton Keynes

FOR Mr Richard Baldwin

Target: 15th November 2013

Ward: Stony Stratford Parish: Stony Stratford Town Council

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

Team Leader: Alex Harrison Contact Details: 01908 252608 [email protected]

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

1.1 The Site The application site is located towards the southern end of Willow Lane in Stony Stratford. 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 consent is sought for the erection of a wooden partition wall inside the existing attached carport. Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.

1.3 It is noted that a separate application has been submitted for gates to enclose the front of the carport which has been refused on the grounds of a loss of parking.

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

2.1 National Policy National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012)

2.2 Local Policy

Core Strategy CS 13 Ensuring High Quality, Well Designed Places

(144)

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) Adopted Residential Design Guide (2012)

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

3.1 1. Impact on parking provision. The installation of the partition will not result in a loss of parking provision on the site and is therefore considered acceptable.

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

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

5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have led to the officer Recommendation)

5.1 Impact on parking provision The dwelling is located within a small cul-de-sac with a mixture of garages, carports and on street parking for residents and visitors. The Council’s Highway Engineer was consulted on the proposal and raises no objection stating that the wooden partition wall within the carport reduces the number of on plot parking spaces by 1. However the plans show that the total distance of the original car port area is under 10 metres which would not provide two spaces in accordance with the Council’s standards. Therefore it is argued that here is no loss of parking in terms of spaces. Although the partition reduces the depth of the carport, a vehicle parked in the carport would still have approx. 7.1 metres to the highway boundary. Therefore it is unlikely that the parked vehicle would overhang the highway or result in an increase in parking in the street that would warrant refusal of this application.

1. Within 2 months of this permission a sample of the partition finish shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved particulars within one month of the approval of the partition finish.

Reason: To reduce the visual impact of the development.

(145)

(146) (147) Appendix to 13/02023/FUL

A1.1 13/02032/FUL Insertion of metal gates carport (retrospective) REF 20.11.2013

A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS

(Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)

A2.1 Impact on the character and appearance of the area The parish council have raised concerns regarding the wooden partition existing finish and its visual impact. The partition is set well within the carport and therefore public views of the partition are limited. However, it is considered that a condition be attached regarding a sample of the partition finish to be submitted to the LPA and then applied to the partition to ensure that the visual impact of the development is reduced.

(148)

Comments Officer Response

A3.1 Highways Development Control

No objection.

‘The installation of a partition wall into the carport converts Noted. Discussed in section 5.1 of this report. the carport to an undercroft/garage and reduces the numbers of on plot parking provision in accordance with the Milton Keynes Parking Standards by 1. Garages are not included in calculations of the overall numbers of spaces and without the carport the dwelling does not have sufficient space on the plot for parking in accordance with the standards. However a vehicle parking the undercroft/ garage would have approx. 7.1 metres to the highway boundary and would probably not overhang the highway. There is a visitor bay in front of the dwelling. As an open fronted undercroft/garage space without a door I would have no objection to the application since it is unlikely to result in an increase in parking on the street’.

A3.2 Parish - Stony Stratford

‘Consider the finish to the partition as viewed from the Noted. Discussed in section A2.1 of this report. roadside to be unsuitable’.

(149) A3.3 Local Residents

The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application:

16 & 20 Willow Lane, Stony Stratford, Milton Keynes St Mary And St Giles Vicarage, 14 Willow Lane, Stony Stratford

One letter of support has been received.

(150) APP 13

Application Number: 13/02115/FUL Minor

Erection of a single storey rear extension, demolition of existing garage and neighbouring garage and erection of 2x new garages (resubmission of 13/00570/FUL)

AT 29 Brookfield Road, Haversham, Milton Keynes

FOR Mr Brad Wright

Target: 27th November 2013

Ward: Hanslope Park Parish: Haversham Cum Little Linford PC

Report Author/Case Officer: Sakina Dossaji Contact Details: 01908 252242 [email protected]

Team Leader: Alex Harrison Contact Details: 01908 252608 [email protected]

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

1.1 The Site The application site is a semi-detached dwelling located within the residential area of Haversham. The site has an existing detached garage within the rear garden of the site. The application site also includes part of the rear garden of No.27 Brookfield Road. Details of the location of the site and its relationship to surrounding properties can be seen in the plans attached to this report.

1.2 The Proposal The application seeks consent for the erection of a single storey flat roof extension on the rear elevation of the dwelling measuring 4.5m in depth and extending across the total width of the property.

1.3 The proposal also includes the demolition of the detached garage and neighbouring garage to create a new garage block serving No.29 and No.27 Brookfield Road, Haversham. Both garages will have individual access and will be separated by the common boundary between No.29 and 27. The footprint of the garage block measures 7m in length by 6.5m in width with a ridge height 4.8m.Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.

(151) 2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application)

2.1 National Policy National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) : Paragraph 17: Subsection 4 - High quality design

2.2 Local Policy

Core Strategy CS 13 Ensuring High Quality, Well Designed Places

Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 D1: Impact of Proposals on Locality D2: Design of Buildings

Supplementary Planning Guidance Residential Design Guide (April 2012)

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

3.1 1. The impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area. The new garage block is considered to be large addition to the application site however owing to the setback of the garage block and the rear location of the extension the visual impact of the development is not considered to be detrimental to the streetscene or character of the local area.

2. The impact of the development on neighbouring amenity. The rear extension is not considered to result in significant harm to the amenity of No.31 Brookfield Road to warrant a refusal.

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

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

5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have lead to the officer Recommendation)

5.1 Impact on the character and appearance of the area The properties located on the southern side of Brookfield Road are of a similar design and scale. There is a strong pattern of development which consists of semi-detached houses with long linear plots. Owing to the nature of the residential plots, many properties have rear extensions and detached outbuildings/garages within the rear gardens. There is a mixed character to the rear of these properties due to the various extensions, conservatories and garage buildings serving these properties. The proposed scale of the development would form a subservient addition to the main dwelling and is not

(152) expected result in any harm to the character of the area and the streetscene as a result.

5.2 There are two detached garage buildings serving No.29 and No.27 Brookfield Road. The existing garage buildings are located adjacent to the common boundary between both properties however they are not sited directly parallel to one another. It is acknowledged that the proposed garage block is considered to be a significant enlargement to the existing and the scale would not appear to be in keeping with other existing outbuildings and garages in the local area. However, the location of the development would be setback from the streetscene by approximately 18m and therefore the development is unlikely to appear prominent on the street frontage. Further to this, the development does not result in overdevelopment of the site as a large proportion of the rear garden would be retained. As a result there is no evidence of detrimental harm resultant from the proposed scale and design of the garage building. The proposal shows the loss of two trees within the rear gardens of No. 27 and No.29 which is unfortunate but they are not considered to be of a species that provides such amenity value that would warrant preservation.

5.3 Neighbouring Amenity

The proposed rear extension builds up to the common boundary line with No.31 Brookfield Road. Whilst it is noted that the extension would be set at a marginal higher height than the neighbouring rear conservatory, the extension would not result in any significant loss to this property’s amenity in terms of outlook and lighting. The extension does not project any further than the building line of the neighbouring conservatory and the existing fencing between both properties mitigates any impact in respect to privacy.

5.4 The proposed garage block has a shallow pitched roof which reduces the bulk of the development when viewed from neighbouring properties which mitigates the visual impact of the development. In terms of overbearing, the garage will be located adjacent to the boundary with No.27. The development would not dominate the entire site of the rear garden and the open character of the garden would be largely retained. It is acknowledged that there would be some visual impact of the development however the proposal is not considered to cause detrimental harm to neighbouring amenity.

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

(153)

2. The garage building hereby permitted for No. 29 Brookfield Road, Haversham shall be used solely as ancillary accommodation to No 29 Brookfield Road and shall not be let or sub-let or transferred separately from the main dwelling.

Reason: To ensure the premises are not sub-divided without the permission of the Local Planning Authority and to avoid the creation of two distinct dwellings which would have inadequate access and parking arrangements.

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. The garage building hereby permitted for No. 27 Brookfield Road, Haversham shall be used solely as ancillary accommodation to No 27 Brookfield Road and shall not be let or sub-let or transferred separately from the main dwelling.

(154)

(155)

(156)

(157)

(158)

(159)

(160)

(161)

(162)

(163) Appendix to 13/02115/FUL

A1.1 13/00570/FUL Erection of a single storey rear extension, demolition of existing garage and neighbouring garage and erection of 2 new garages Withdrawn 31.07.2013

A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS

(Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)

A2.1 None.

(164)

Comments Officer Response

A3.1 Parish - Haversham Cum Little Linford Noted. Paragraph 5.2 and 5.3.

Haversham Parish Council considered this application last It is noted that there are no material changes from the night. They felt that there had been no real change from the original application however the current application provides earlier application to which this Parish Council had objected. additional detailed drawings/ sections clarifying the siting of The same concerns still apply. the extension and its relationship to the neighbouring The proposed size of this development on what is a property. relatively small plot is not appropriate. There are concerns about the impact on the neighbours at No 31 where light loss would be inevitable and the development would be intrusive. There are concerns about the height of the garage being proposed and whose roof would be intrusive.

No evidence was produced with regard to the how they Noted. However this is not a material planning propose to manage any structural issues reading No 31 consideration. Brookfield Road.

A3.2 Ward - Hanslope Park - Cllr Geary No comment received. Noted.

A3.3 Highways Development Control No objection. Noted.

A3.4 Local Residents

(165) The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application: 31 Brookfield Road Haversham Milton Keynes 27 Brookfield Road Haversham Milton Keynes

One letter of objection was received detailing the following issues:

A3.5 1) The rear extension would impact on the amenity of the Noted. Paragraph 5.3 neighbouring rear conservatory in terms of light and overshadowing

A3.6 2) The close proximity of the development to the boundary Noted. However this is not a material planning would result in access to the neighbouring property consideration. which has not been agreed.

A3.7 3) The development could lead to structural issues. Noted. However this is noted a material planning consideration.

A3.8 4) Visual impact of the garages would be out of keeping in Noted. Paragraph 5.1 and 5.2 the local area.

(166) APP 14

Application Number: 13/02150/FUL Minor

Change of use, conversion and extension of barns to single storey dwelling and erection of detached garage

AT Land To The East of The Old Rectory, High Street, North Crawley

FOR Mr And Mrs M Chinn And Mr And Mrs S Davies

Target: 2nd December 2013

Ward: Sherington Parish: North Crawley Parish Council

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

Team Leader:Jeremy Lee Joint Team Leader Strategic Applications Team Contact Details: 01908 252316 [email protected]

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

1.1 The Site

The application site currently comprises of two barns to the east of the Old Rectory in North Crawley. The barns are curtilage listed by virtue of their connection with the Old Rectory which is a Grade II listed building. The site is also located with North Crawley Conservation Area. The barn closest to the front of the site is a 1 ½ storey brick barn under a pitch tiled roof. The second barn is a single storey building with stone walls to the rear and brickwork to the gables. The front is part timber, part brick and part open with a slate roof. 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 use the barns as a single dwelling. This would include a new single storey L shaped extension to the barns which will link them together and allow them to be used as one living space. A detached garage is proposed to the front of the site.

1.3 The site would share the existing vehicular access from the High Street which is used by the Old Rectory. Full details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.

(167) 2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application)

2.1 National Policy National Planning Policy Framework: Para 14: Presumption in favour of sustainable development Para 17: Core Planning Principles Chapter 6: Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Chapter 7: Requiring good design Chapter 11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Chapter 12: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

2.2 Local Policy

Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011

The relevant saved policies within Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011:

D1: Impact of Development Proposals on Locality D2A: Urban Design Aspects of New Development D2: Design of Buildings HE4: Extension or alteration to a listed building HE5: Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building HE6: Conservation Areas H7: Housing on Unidentified Sites H8: Housing Density T10: Traffic 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 CS 19 The Historic and Natural Environment

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

3.1 Impact on heritage assets: Whilst it is acknowledge that the proposed development will lead to some harm to the heritage assets by virtue of the domestification of the site and additional built development, this harm is considered to be limited given the design of the proposals and is outweighed by the benefits of securing a long term viable use of the building.

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

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

(168)

5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have led to the officer Recommendation)

5.1 Principle The application property is located with the development boundaries of North Crawley. Therefore the principle of residential development on the site is considered to be acceptable subject to other considerations. Policy H7 of the Local Plan lists a number of criteria development proposals will be assessed against. It does not state that all criteria must be met. The proposal is considered to be in compliance with Policy H7. The application site contains barns which are proposed to be redeveloped. In 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 and upgrade the system as appropriate. Overall the principle of developing the site for residential purposes is therefore considered to be acceptable subject to other considerations.

5.2 Impact on Heritage Assets The barns which are subject to this application are classified as designated heritage assets as they are curtilage listed by virtue of their historic relationship with the Old Rectory. The site is also located in the setting of the Old Rectory and in a Conservation Area both of which are designated heritage asset. The NPPF advises that heritage assets are irreplaceable resources and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. In this case the proposal is considered to lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets and therefore this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal in accordance with paragraph 134 of the NPPF, including securing its optimum viable use.

5.3 In this case the proposed development would make use of the existing empty barns and provide a long term viable use to secure the future of the heritage asset. It would also provide an additional dwelling within the village confines. Both of these are benefits arising from the scheme.

5.4 The proposals have been amended and reduced in scale during the course of the application to address some initial concerns raised by the Conservation Officer. The proposed link extension between the barns is designed to be subservient to the existing barns on the site and has been designed to retain the simple linear layout and form of the barns. The proposal limits the amount of new openings in the historic parts of the barn and generally utilises existing openings to retain the simple barn character of the buildings.

5.5 Whilst the proposed extension is relatively large it is considered to be acceptable in this case given the design and the manner which it links the two buildings. The proposed openings in the extension have been altered to avoid them appearing overly domestic in nature and the internal layout of the dwelling has been developed to retain the open character of the two existing barns with minimal division of open spaces which is considered to be important

(169) to their historic character. Whilst the proposal will lead to some harm to the heritage asset, this is considered to be less than substantial and is considered to be outweighed by the benefits of providing a long term viable use for the building.

5.6 In relation to the setting of the listed building at the Old Rectory, whilst the application site would share an access with this building, the Old Rectory is orientated away from the application site and has a number of outbuildings separating the listed building from the site. This results in the application buildings already having a rather detached relationship with main listed building. Whilst the proposal will impact to some degree on the setting of the building by virtue of the domestication and extension of the site and the erection of a new garage this is not considered to be significant given the design and scale of the proposals.

5.7 The site is also located within the Conservation Area. Views into the site from the High Street are mainly screened through existing planting and trees to the front of the site. However in the winter months the planting is thinner and there are views from the High Street into the site. The proposed development will therefore be visible from outside of the site and will lead to some reduction in the openness and a further domestication of the site. However the proposed extension will be read as a new addition to the existing barns and the character of the barns will be retained. The garage will be located adjacent to some existing outbuildings serving the Old Rectory and will also be softened by the existing trees. The Council Arborist is satisfied that the existing trees can be retained on site subject to conditions protecting them during construction. On balance given the scale and design the proposals are considered to preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area.

5.8 Overall in relation to the impact on heritage assets, the proposal is considered to result in less than substantial harm to the designated heritage assets. However this harm is considered to be limited given the amended design, detailing and scale of the proposed scheme. Therefore in accordance with paragraph 134 of the NPPF the benefits of the scheme are considered to outweigh the harm.

5.9 Access and Parking The development proposes to share the existing access with the Old Rectory from the High Street. The highway engineer has been consulted and has raised no objection to the application based on the visibility splays which can be provided and the 30mph speed limits. The proposed development will provided sufficient car parking to serve the proposed dwelling and visitors to site. The development is therefore considered to be acceptable in this regard.

(170) 6.0 CONDITIONS (The conditions that need to be imposed on any planning permission for this development to ensure that the development is satisfactory. To meet legal requirements all conditions must be Necessary, Relevant, Enforceable, Precise and Reasonable )

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

2. Prior to the installation of any new roof materials, at least three samples of the proposed roof material and a sample of the proposed ridge tile, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Samples shall be accompanied with details of source/supplier. The works shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved particulars.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality or the listed building in the interests of policy HE4, HE5 and HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan.

3. Prior to the commencement of any new brickwork, a sample panel of brickwork shall be constructed on site for the inspection and written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The sample panel should use the proposed walling material, mortar type, bond, coursing and pointing, and include coping where proposed. The panel shall remain on site until the works are completed. The works shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved particulars.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality or the listed building in the interests of policy HE4, HE5 and HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan.

4. Prior to the installation of any new external boarding, a sample of external boarding complete with proposed finish shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The boarding shall be accompanied by details of the species of the timber and the supplier. The works shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved particulars.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality or the listed building in the interests of policy HE4, HE5 and HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan.

5. Prior to the installation of any new rainwater goods, full details of proposed rainwater goods shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved particulars.

(171)

Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality or the listed building in the interests of policy HE4, HE5 and HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan.

6. Prior to the installation of any new windows, full details of the proposed windows shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details shall include window elevation drawings, horizontal and vertical cross sections at a scale of at least 1:5. Details shall confirm the finish of the windows, depth of reveal (to face brickwork/timber) and include opening method and sill. The works shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved particulars.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality or the listed building in the interests of policy HE4, HE5 and HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan.

7. Prior to the installation of any new doors, full details of the proposed doors shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details shall include elevation drawings, horizontal and vertical cross sections at a scale of at least 1:5 and confirm the proposed finish. The works shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved particulars.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality or the listed building in the interests of policy HE4, HE5 and HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan.

8. No new plumbing, pipes, soil stacks, flues, vents, extracts, ductwork, grilles, security alarms, lighting, cameras or other appurtenances shall be fixed on the external faces of the building unless shown on the drawings hereby approved or otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality or the listed building in the interests of policy HE4, HE5 and HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan.

9. Notwithstanding the submitted details, the chimney/flue shall be in a black matte finish unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality or the listed building in the interests of policy HE4, HE5 and HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan.

10. Prior to commencement of works, detailed plans at a scale of at least 1:5 to show the timber framing with arched braces to be retained, and the junctions of these with new glazing/ walls/ roof shall be provided to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be

(172) carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved particulars.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality or the listed building in the interests of policy HE4, HE5 and HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan.

11. Prior to erection of any boundary treatment full details of their location and appearance shall be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The boundary treatment shall thereafter be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to the development being occupied.

Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the area.

12. Prior to the development commencing a method statement for the execution of hard and soft landscaping works within the root protection areas shall be submit to the local planning authority for approval in writing. Prior to any landscaping operations within root protection areas being carried out, the local authority tree officer shall be notified so a site meeting can be arranged with the landscape contractor to confirm the agreed landscape working methods that will avoid root damage.

Reason: To ensure the trees are protected.

13. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification), the dwelling hereby permitted shall not be enlarged, improved or altered under Schedule 2, Part 1 Classes A, B, C, D, E and G of that Order.

Reason: In order to protect the character and appearance of the designated heritage asset.

14. Prior to commencement of development a biodiversity mitigation and enhancement scheme shall be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect biodiversity on the site.

Advisory: The Countryside Officers comments are available to view on the Councils website and provide further details of the requirements of this condition.

15. A suitably qualified ecologist shall examine the structure for signs of use by bats prior to any dismantling work on the building between 1st April and 31st October. If no evidence of bats is found as a result of the survey, any dismantling should be performed with care and contractors should be advised to be vigilant during the process. If bats or evidence of bats is found at any time during the works, work must cease immediately and Natural

(173) England must be contacted for advice.

Reason: to protect bats as required by law.

16. No part of the development shall be occupied until the new means of access has been sited and laid out in accordance with the approved plan and constructed in accordance with Milton Keynes Council's guide note 'Residential Vehicle Crossing Details'.

Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the access.

17. Prior to any works to the garage full details of the garage foundations and construction method and the impact on trees shall be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the development does not adversely impact on the trees.

18. If construction-facilitation pruning of the trees is required, this should be carried out by a competent, qualified and experienced tree surgeon according to the provisions of BS 3998: 2010 and current arboriculture industry best practice and in accordance with details which have first been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure any true pruning is undertaken in an acceptable manner with regards to the health and form of the trees.

19. Prior to commencement of development, full site specific details of areas of nil excavation constructions (for the driveway and garage) and edge restraints shall be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Details shall include specifications, plans, construction details, drain/service runs, cross sections, proposed and existing spot levels and method statements demonstrating the achievability of the nil-excavation surfacing in this site context. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect the trees on the site.

20. All existing trees and hedges to be retained are to be protected according to the provisions of BS 5837: 2012 'Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations'. All protective measures especially the fencing and ground protection must be put in place first, prior to any other work commencing on site (this includes vegetation clearance, ground-works, vehicle movements, machinery / materials delivery etc.) The fencing shall be of the same specification as that depicted in figure 2, page 20 and ground protection as specified in 6.2.3.1 - 6.2.3.5 pages 21/22 in BS 5837: 2012. Signs informing of the purpose of the fencing and warning of the penalties against destruction or damage to the trees and their root zones shall be installed at minimum intervals of 10 metres and a minimum of two signs

(174) per separate stretch of fencing. Once erected the local planning authority shall be notified so the fencing can be inspected and approved in writing. The Root Protection Area (RPA) within the protective fencing must be kept free of all construction, construction plant, machinery, personnel, digging and scraping, service runs, water-logging, changes in level, building materials and all other operations, personnel, structures, tools, storage and materials, for the duration of the construction phase. The developer shall submit details of the proposed layout and general arrangements of the site in relation to the trees to be retained which shall be approved in writing prior to any works commencing. In particular details of storage areas including what substances will stored and where, locations of car parking, welfare facilities, cement plant, fuel storage and where discharge, filling and mixing of substances will take place. The details should include site levels to enable risks posed to tree to be quantified. Earthworks, level changes, service runs, foundations and all other works involving excavation should not be located within the root protection areas.

Reason: To protect the trees on the site.

21. Prior to any works commencing on the site, the applicant will employ a competent archaeologist, surveyor or architect to record the buildings to a scheme agreed in writing with the Council's Archaeological Officer. The record will comprise a report with plans, elevations and sections of the building at a scale of 1:50 drawn to the standards set by English Heritage (2006). This will be accompanied by a written description of the building and its development, together with a photographic record of the interior and exterior. All photographs will be dated and annotated. Two copies of building recording report will be deposited with Milton Keynes Sites and Monuments Record prior to building works or demolition commencing, and within three months of the recording survey being completed. An additional copy of the report will be forwarded to the National Monuments Record.

Reason: To ensure that affected heritage assets are adequately recorded pursuant to paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework

Advisory: A Brief for this work can be provided to the applicant by the Archaeological Officer

(175)

(176)

(177)

(178)

(179)

(180)

(181)

(182) (183) Appendix to 13/02150/FUL

A1.1 13/02151/LBC - Listed building consent to convert, alter and extend barns to single storey dwelling – Pending consideration

08/00861/LBC – Listed building consent for the conversion of existing outbuilding to a garage/store – Consent granted

A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS

(Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)

A2.1 Impact on neighbouring properties Given the scale of the proposed development and the distance to the neighbouring properties, the proposal is not considered to significantly impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties in terms of loss of light, outlook or privacy. Concerns have been raised that the proposed chimney could lead to smoke pollution in neighbouring properties gardens however chimneys are common features on buildings in residential areas. It is not considered that this would substantiate a reason for refusing planning permission. If a nuisance was to occur there is other environment legislation which exists to protect neighbours from nuisance.

A2.2 Neighbours have also raised some concern over the access way which is proposed down the eastern boundary of the site. This would be owned and maintained by the occupier of the Old Rectory to allow them to gain access to land which they own to the rear of the site. It would be separated from the garden of the application property by a post a post and rail fence. It is not considered that the proposal would result in any increase in opportunities for crime and would actually provide more security to these residents that the existing situation where the boundary is open. The provision of this access would not restrict any legal right neighbouring properties have to maintain their boundaries and this is a civil matter not a planning consideration.

A2.3 Impact on Trees A number of the trees located within the site are subject to a tree preservation order. The application has been accompanied by a tree survey which demonstrates the existing trees on the site will be retained. The Councils Arborist has provided comments on the application and has requested a number of conditions to ensure the proposals do not significantly impact on the trees on the site which positively contribute to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Subject to the recommended conditions the application is considered to be acceptable in this regard.

(184) A2.4 Ecology The application was accompanied by an Ecology report and the Councils Countryside Officer has also visited the site. The site buildings provide limited potential for bats to breed or hibernate however there are crevices in the structural timbers and masonry which could be used for roosting. Evidence of breeding birds was also found within the structure. The proposal will result in the loss of some wildlife opportunities and to mitigate the impact of the proposal the Councils Countryside Officer has requested a number of conditions to minimise the impact on biodiversity and provide net gains.

(185)

Comments Officer Response

A3.1 Conservation The Old Rectory is grade II listed, and is within the conservation area. It is a substantial house, with historic stable block, and a walled garden and associated outbuildings attached. These structures and the barns that are the subject of this application are considered to be curtilage listed. It is often not desirable to split historic outbuildings from their principle building, loosing the historic connection between them, which can impact on the setting of the listed building, particularly if the outbuildings become too domestic in appearance or if boundary treatments to partition the plot are inappropriate.

A3.2 Whilst in this case there is some scope for the conversion of the barns, some initial Noted. See para 5.2 to 5.8 concerns over the level and detailing of the proposal were raised. Following receipt of amended the Conservation Officer is satisfied with the proposal and raises objection subject to condition.

A3.3 Highways Development Control No objection subject to conditions if approval is given to the proposal. The shared Noted. See para 5.9. access has visibility that exceeds the minimum guidance for the visibility splays of 2.4m x 45 m in Manual for Streets and is therefore acceptable. The proposal will increase the traffic generation from the overall site however this is unlikely to cause a problem since the amount of additional traffic that could be generated from the 4 bedroom dwelling is probably low and will not have a significant impact on the highway network. The village is also served by some public transport provision which is available for non-drivers to use or as an alternative to using a car for local trips. The proposal states that the first 5m of the shared access is to be surfaced in a bound material to prevent loose material being tracked onto the highway which is satisfactory. The applicant must provide a system of

(186) drainage from the shared driveway to prevent surface water run-off to the highway to the detriment and safety of the highway users.

A3.4 Cycle parking in accordance with the Milton Keynes Parking Standards can be accommodated in the garage on this development. There is adequate vehicle parking for the minimum 3 number resident parking and visitor parking can also accommodated within the courtyard area in front of the dwelling which is acceptable. Parking for visitors on the High Street is available however the on site provision will reduce the impact for residents parking along the High Street.

A3.5 Subject to conditions for the construction of the access within the highway to being to the MK standards and including a method of dealing with any surface water run-off I do not have any objections to this proposal.

A3.6 Landscape Services Manager - Trees No objections however request a number of conditions relating to details of construction Noted. See para A2.3 and 5.7. of garage and driveway, tree protection and tree pruning.

A3.7 Councils Countryside Officer A Protected Species Survey report of a site survey undertaken by a suitably qualified ecologist was provided in support of this application.

Bats: A site survey for bats was undertaken in February 2013. The report acknowledges that the timing of this survey was not ideal and that an emergence survey was not appropriate for the time of year. However, as there were no signs of bats using the structure, a follow-up survey was not undertaken. Having visited the site, it appears that there is currently little potential for bats to breed or hibernate due to the open nature of the building and the structure of the roof. However, there are crevices in the structural timbers and masonry which could be used for roosting and may contain concealed bats.

Birds: Evidence of breeding birds was found within the structure. Local records held by MKC show that 16 bird species, including Red List, Amber List and BAP bird species of

(187) Principal Importance exist within 60m of the application site. Swift and house sparrow are recorded close to the site.

A3.8 There are opportunities within this application to incorporate features into the design Noted. See para A2.4. which are beneficial to wildlife. A habitat improvement plan has not been provided in support of this application: The Protected Species Survey Report acknowledges that wildlife opportunities will be lost as a result of the development of these barns. Habitat improvements that recompense for these losses and provide net gains for wildlife and encourage protected species and other wildlife to utilise habitats within the development site should be incorporated into the structure. Features that are built into the structure are preferred as they are more discrete and require less long-term maintenance or replacement than boxes mounted on walls. It is recommended that these be conditioned.

A3.9 Councils Archaeologists The structures subject to the proposal are of historic significance. A full historic building Noted. See condition 21. record should be made of the structure prior to their conversion which should be secured by condition.

A3.10 Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application: 2- 8 (even)Folly Lane, North Crawley 1 Violets Close, North Crawley 1, 2, 3, 3A and 5 High Street, North Crawley

A site notice was also posted at the site.

A3.11 2 letters have been received. These have raised the following concerns:

- Concerns over sewage disposal. Noted. See para 5.1 - Access path around the property and potential security risk by creating an Noted. See para A2.2. alleyway. Also it may prevent access from neighbouring properties to maintain boundaries.

(188) - Smoke from proposed chimney may cause problems to neighbouring properties. Noted. See para A2.1 - There appears to be a lot of new build attached to the listed building. Can a new Noted. See para 5.2-5.8 build be attached to a listed building? - Are skylights and glass doors in keeping with the listed building. Noted. See para 5.2-5.8

(189) APP 15

Application Number: 13/02151/LBC Other

Listed building consent to convert, alter and extend barns to single storey dwelling

AT Land To The East of The Old Rectory, High Street, North Crawley

FOR Mr And Mrs M Chinn And Mr And Mrs S Davies

Target: 2nd December 2013

Ward: Sherington Parish: North Crawley Parish Council

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

Team Leader: Jeremy Lee Joint Team Leader Strategic Applications Team Contact Details: 01908 252316 [email protected]

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

1.1 The Site

The application site currently comprises of two barns to the east of the Old Rectory in North Crawley. The barns are curtilage listed by virtue of their connection with the Old Rectory which is a Grade II listed building. The site is also located with North Crawley Conservation Area. The barn closest to the front of the site is a 1 ½ storey brick barn under a pitch tiled roof. The second barn is a single storey building with stone walls to the rear and brickwork to the gables. The front is part timber, part brick and part open. The roof is slate. 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 use the barns as a single dwelling. This would include a new single storey L shaped extension to the barns which will link them together and allow them to be used as one living space. Full details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.

(190) 2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application)

2.1 National Policy National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

Para 14 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development 128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,140,141 Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment 186, 187, 196, 197 Decision Making

2.2 Local Policy

Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011

HE2-HE5 Listed Buildings

2.3 Core Strategy

CS20 Historic and Natural Environment

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

3.1 1. Whether the impact of the development on the significance of the heritage asset is outweighed by the public benefits. The proposed development would result in a long term viable use for the designated heritage asset which is currently rather underused. The scale and design of the extensions and alterations are considered to be appropriate to the building character and the benefits of securing a long term viable use for the building are considered to outweigh the harm.

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

4.1 It is recommended that listed building consent be granted subject to conditions.

5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have lead to the officer Recommendation)

5.1 The barns which are subject to this application are classified as designated heritage assets as they are curtilage listed by virtue of their historic relationship with the Old Rectory. The NPPF advises that heritage assets are irreplaceable resources and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. In this case the proposal is considered to lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets and therefore this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal in accordance with paragraph 134 of the NPPF, including securing its optimum viable use.

5.2 In the current application the proposal seeks to link the two barns together with

(191) an L shaped extension. This is required due the existing relationship between the buildings. Part of the extension would have a double pitched roof which would be subservient to the ridge height of the existing buildings. The external footprint of the building is linear in form to respect the character and simple layout of the existing buildings. The link extension is relatively large however on balance is considered to be acceptable in scale.

5.3 Given the size of the proposed link extension it allows for the internal subdivision to be contained mainly within the new extension. This enables the historic parts of the barns to remain internally open which is considered to be important to the historic character and former use of the buildings. The number of new openings proposed in the existing historic buildings is also kept to a minimum which retains the simple non-domestic character of the buildings. The character of the open frontage of the single storey building is also retained with the use of glazing behind the timber posts and bracing detail.

5.4 The proposed link extension would be finished in a stained timber boarding and the proposed openings have been amended during the course of the application to ensure they do not have an overly domestic character which would be at odds with the character of the existing buildings.

5.5 Overall it is acknowledged that the proposed extensions and alterations to the building will have some harmful impact on the significance of the building through the domestication of the application site and architectural character of the building. In terms of the NPPF this is considered to be less than substantial harm. In accordance with paragraph 134 of the NPPF this harm needs to be balanced against the public benefits arising from the scheme. In this case the proposed development would secure a long term viable use for the designated heritage assets which will secure it for future generations and will also provide an additional dwelling within the village confines. The current application has been amended to address a number of concerns raised by the conservation officer to reduce the harm caused by the conversion. It is now considered that the harm caused by the proposal would be outweighed by the benefits of the scheme including securing a long term viable use for the buildings.

1. The works to which this consent relates shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.

Reason: To prevent the accumulation of listed building consents; to enable the local planning authority to review the suitability of the works in the light of altered circumstances; and to comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. (D12)

2. Prior to commencement of works, full details of proposed internal finishes for the existing barns, including details of works to the floor, walls and

(192) roof shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved particulars.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality or the listed building in the interests of policy HE4 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan.

3. The external walls to be made internal by the proposed development shall not be painted, rendered or in any way treated without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality or the listed building in the interests of policy HE4 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan.

(193)

(194)

(195)

(196)

(197)

(198)

(199)

(200) Appendix to 13/02151/LBC

A1.1 13/02150/FUL - Change of use, conversion and extension of barns to single storey dwelling and erection of detached garage – Pending consideration

08/00861/LBC – Listed building consent for the conversion of existing outbuilding to a garage/store – Consent granted

A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS

(Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)

A2.1 None

(201)

Comments Officer Response

A3.1 Conservation The Old Rectory is grade II listed, and is within the conservation area. It is a substantial Noted. See Para 5.1 to 5.5. house, with historic stable block, and a walled garden and associated outbuildings attached. These structures and the barns that are the subject of this application are considered to be curtilage listed. It is often not desirable to split historic outbuildings from their principle building, loosing the historic connection between them, which can impact on the setting of the listed building, particularly if the outbuildings become too domestic in appearance or if boundary treatments to partition the plot are inappropriate.

A3.2 Whilst in this case there is some scope for the conversion of the barns, some initial concerns over the level and detailing of the proposal were raised. Following receipt of amended the Conservation Officer is satisfied with the proposal and raises objection subject to condition.

A3.3 Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application:

2-8 (evens) Folly Lane North Crawley

A site notice was also posted at the site

A3.4 2 letters have been received. These have raised the following concerns:

- Concerns over sewage disposal. Not a consideration in listed building consent. See planning

(202) report. - Access path around the property and potential security risk by creating an alleyway. Also it may prevent access from neighbouring properties to maintain boundaries. - Smoke from proposed chimney may cause problems to neighbouring properties. - There appears to be a lot of new build attached to the listed building. Can a new See para 5.2-5.5 build be attached to a listed building? - Are skylights and glass doors in keeping with the listed building. Roof lights have been removed from the scheme.

(203) APP 16

Application Number: 13/02164/FUL

Change of use from Use class B1a (Offices) to Use Class B1a (Offices), Use Class D1 (Non-Residential Institutions) and Use Class D2 (Assembly and Leisure)

AT Unit B1 B2 And C Mill Court, Featherstone Road, Wolverton Mill

FOR Pace Trustees Ltd

Target: 11th December 2013

Ward: Wolverton Parish: Wolverton & Greenleys Town Council

Report Author/Case Officer: Debbie Kirk Contact Details: 01908 252335 [email protected]

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

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

1.1 The main section of the report set out below draws together the core issues in relation to the application including policy and other key material considerations. This is supplemented by an appendix which brings together, planning history, additional matters and summaries of consultees’ responses and public representations. Full details of the application, including plans, supplementary documents, consultee responses and public representations are available on the Council’s Public Access system www.milton- keynes.gov.uk/publicaccess. All matters have been taken into account in writing this report and recommendation.

1.2 The Site

The application site is located within Wolverton Mill Industrial Estate, which is designated for employment purposes in the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011 Proposals Map. In such areas B1, B2, B8 uses are acceptable. The site is located on the eastern side of Featherstone Road which is accessed from Ridgeway to the south. Units B1, B2 and C were formerly used as offices and have been vacant for over a year. Units B1 and B2 have 35 dedicated parking spaces and unit C has 17 dedicated parking spaces. The three units are located in a courtyard of eight units. Details of the location of the site and its relationship to surrounding properties can be seen in the plans attached to this report.

(204) 1. The Proposal

This application seeks to change units B1,B2 and C at Mill Court from B1a Offices to B1a (Offices), D1 (Non–residential institutions) which comprises uses such as clinics, health centres, day centres, halls, places of worship, church halls, education and training centres and D2 (Assembly and Leisure) comprising dance halls and gymnasiums. Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.

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

2.1 National Policy National Planning Policy Framework (2012) paragraphs

18-20 & 22 Building a strong competitive economy 24 Ensuring the vitality of town centres

2.2 Local Policy

Core Strategy

CS16 Supporting Small Businesses

2.3 Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011

E1 Protection Of Existing Employment Land E11 Protection of Small Businesses

2.4 Supplementary Planning Guidance

Parking Standards For Milton Keynes (2005)

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

3.1 1. Are there compelling reasons to set aside Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011 policy E1 and permit D1/D2 uses at this location? 2. Are the proposed new D1/D2 uses acceptable at this location? 3. Is there adequate parking to serve the proposed uses?

3.2 In summary

It would appear that these units are genuinely vacant and have been marketed for over a year with no interest for B1a use. However, interest has been shown for using the units for D1/D2 uses. It is considered that it is better that these units are occupied and being used rather than being vacant and not contributing anything to the city. The proposed change of uses for the units for B1a (Offices) , D1 (Non-Residential Institutions) and D2 (assembly and Leisure) in highway terms are acceptable provided the necessary disabled/cycling and powered 2 wheeler parking is provided

(205)

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

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

5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have lead to the officer Recommendation)

5.1 Background

This application is to retain the option of the buildings being used for office uses and to add the option of D1 and D2 uses as a response to interest from parties seeking premises for ‘D’ use floor space. Units B1 and B2 can be combined to provide a self –contained building should a prospective occupier require it. The proposal would provide the following potential uses: B1 Business class B1(a) is Offices other than a use within class A2 D1 Non-residential institutions comprise- Clinics, health centres, crèches, day nurseries, day centres, schools, art galleries (other than for sale or hire), museums, libraries, halls, places of worship, church halls, law court. Non residential education and training centres. D2 Assembly and Leisure - Cinemas, music and concert halls, bingo and dance halls (but not night clubs), swimming baths, skating rinks, gymnasiums or area for indoor or outdoor sports and recreations (except for motor sports, or where firearms are used).

5.2 The proposal involves a change of use of three units totalling around 1106 square metres of Gross Internal Area of B1 (a) office floor space to 553 square metres of Gross Internal Area of D1 non-residential institutional and 553 square metres of Gross Internal Area of D2 Assembly and Leisure use on a site area of around 0.49 ha. The three units have been vacant according to the applicant for more than 12 months (unit C since May 2011, unit B1 since October 2011 and unit B2 since August 2012) and despite an intensive marketing campaign interest in office use has been limited.

5.3 Principle

These buildings are located on land shown on the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011 Proposals Map with an employment annotation where policies E1, E7, apply. Land running along the southwest boundary of this site by the H1 Ridgeway road is annotated as a wildlife corridor where policy NE1 (Nature Conservation Sites) applies. In table 5.4 of the Core Strategy accompanying Core Strategy policy CS3 (Employment Land Supply) Wolverton Mill is allocated for B1/B2/B8 uses.

5.4 Should the option of retaining these buildings in office use be exercised then no change of use of the buildings would occur. However, given policy E1 applies to this site any change of use from employment B1(a) use to D1 and

(206) D2 uses at this location would constitute a departure from the current planning policy E1 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 - 2011. For a departure from current planning policy to be justified, the applicant has to demonstrate to the Local Planning Authority's satisfaction that there are exceptional and compelling reasons why D1 and now D2 uses should be permitted at this location. For example the currently vacant units had been adequately and genuinely marketed and could not be filled for their original use.

5.5 The space has remained vacant for a considerable period. In an attempt to make the units as attractive as possible to potential tenants, two out of three of the vacant units have been refurbished (unit C and Unit B1 were both refurbished by October 2011)and exposed to 2 years of active marketing thereafter. The site has been advertised through an agent and bespoke website. The units have been marketed with an entry level of £5 per foot. The Council’s Valuer does not consider this rate to be too high and is considered to be reasonably placed to attract potential interested parties to at least make an offer. The landlord advertised flexible terms, even offering a short form lease for terms less than 3 years duration. The last letting on the development was dated 28th January 2011. The Council’s Valuer is satisfied that the landlords and their agents have demonstrated an active and appropriate marketing of the premises.

5.6 This application is for a wider use to include D1 / D2 use in response to a demand being expressed by potential occupiers. Such enquiries are fairly regular, with two in September 2013, four in October 2013 and 1 in November 2013.

5.7 The D1 uses being proposed at this location include clinics, health centres, day centres, halls, places of worship, church halls, education and training centres and D2 (Assembly and Leisure) comprising dance halls and gymnasiums.

5.8 The D1 category includes most medical/health uses and some community type activities, which often located elsewhere often in residential areas. Vacant employment buildings can be converted to provide a satisfactory and relatively inexpensive venue for uses such as places of worship, church halls, For example the New Life Church in Featherstone Road is not far from this location. Provided site specific details such as parking and the level of noise from the building are satisfactory. Employment buildings can also provide a valuable location for Education and training centres, clinics etc in appropriate instances.

5.9 The National Planning Policy Framework advises that main town centre uses should be located within town centres, which are usually the most accessible locations for people without access to a car.

5.10 The only category of D1/D2 use which come into the category of main town centre use is that of a gym or health and fitness centre. Dance halls do not

(207) appear in the description of main town centre uses. However, in the case of a gym the Council has permitted a gym for the Milton Keynes Springer’s in Kiln Farm and the Kiss 24 hour gym in Knowlhill so if Members of the Development Control Panel are satisfied these units are genuinely vacant, the use of a gym in an employment area is a use the Council has approved previously. A new gym at Wolverton Mill is unlikely to significantly affect the vitality and viability of surrounding centres.

5.11 Access

The access is off Featherstone Road close to the junction Ridgeway and is adequate for the proposed uses. Pedestrian access to Featherstone Road is on the north west side of the entrance to the footway running along Featherstone Road and there is access to the Redway and bus network within easy access from the units.

5.12 Local On Street Parking

The Highway Engineer visited the site on Friday 22nd November 2013. Featherstone Road was heavily congested with parked vehicles on the carriageway, at junctions and on the verge from the north west of the access to Mill Court and towards Ridgeway. Mill Court had a high number of vacant spaces as expected with the number of vacant units. It is important that the change of use does not exacerbate the existing parking problem on Featherstone Road.

5.13 Parking

The proposal includes an analysis of the vehicle parking requirements for the various uses compared to the current Parking Standards for Milton Keynes 2005.The overall assessment for vehicle parking for the various alternative uses is acceptable. The existing building already has parking in excess of the maximum requirements set out under the Parking Standards for Milton Keynes 2005 and the applicant controls the overall site parking. Disabled parking spaces should be provided in accordance with Parking Standards for Milton Keynes 2005 relevant to the use. The current 52 spaces should have a minimum of 3 disabled spaces marked out.

5.14 Cycling and Powered 2 wheelers

There are no allowances in the assessment made by the applicant for cycle or powered 2 wheeler parking to reduce the impacts of the trips generated by the proposed change of uses with sustainable alternatives provided for staff and customers.

The applicant should provide the following minimum numbers of parking for cycling and powered 2 wheelers depending on the different uses. The cycle storage should be in safe secure locations for staff and customers/visitors. Cycling P2W

(208) D1.hall,places of worship ,church halls 22 2

D2.gymnasium, dance hall 22 2

These requirements can be conditioned.

5.15 Servicing

The site has adequate arrangements for delivery vehicles around the central parking and landscaped area for delivery through the front entrances of the units.

5.16 Conclusion

It is considered that these units are genuinely vacant and have been marketed for over a year with no interest. However, interest has been shown for using these units for D1/D2 uses. It is considered that it better that these units are occupied and being used rather than being vacant and not contributing anything to the city. The proposed change of uses for the units for B1a (Offices) , D1 (Non-Residential Institutions) and D2 (assembly and Leisure) in highway terms are acceptable provided the necessary disabled/cycling and powered 2 wheeler parking is provided.

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

2. Prior to first occupation of any unit for a D1 (clinic, health centre, day centre, halls, places of worship, church hall, education and training centre) or D2 (dance hall or gym) details of two spaces for powered two wheelers shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the agreed scheme shall be laid out.

Reason: To ensure that there is adequate facilities for powered two wheelers)

3.Prior to first occupation of any unit for a D1 (clinic, health centre, day centre, halls, places of worship, church hall, education and training centre) or D2 (dance hall or gym) details of 22 covered cycle spaces shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the agreed scheme shall be laid out.

(209) Reason: To ensure that there is adequate facilities for cycles

4.Units B1, B2 and C Mill Court shall only be used for D1 clinic, health centre, day centre, halls, places of worship, church hall, education and training centre or D2 dance hall or gym uses or be retained as a B1a office use.

Reason: To ensure that there is adequate parking facilities to serve the development

(210)

(211) (212) Appendix to 13/02164/FUL

A1.1 None.

A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS

(Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)

A2.1 None.

(213)

Comments Officer Response

A3.1 Highways Development Control

The proposed change of uses for the units for B1a (Offices), See paras 5.11- 5.15 and See section 6 conditions 2, 3 and D1 (Non-Residential Institutions) and D2 (assembly and 4 Leisure) is acceptable providing the necessary Policy T3, T4 and T15 MKLP 2001 – 2011and Parking disabled/cycling and powered 2 wheeler parking is provided. Standards For Milton Keynes 2005

Any other change of use in Use Class D 1 or D2 would have to considered as a separate application to this since the level of parking required may not be achievable within the site and additional cycling and powered 2 wheeler parking would be required.

A3.2 Wolverton and Greenleys Town Council

Object to “open-ended” changes to D1 and D2 but are Noted. Members and Officer's have to consider the happy to consider individual applications. application which is currently before them.

A3.3 Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application: Units E And F Mill Court Featherstone Road Unit 1A Mill Court Featherstone Road Unit A2 Mill Court Featherstone Road

(214) C T D I Nethouse Services Ltd Featherstone Road Wolverton Mill Unit D Mill Court Featherstone Road

A3.4 One letter of has been received from CTDI Ltd, advising:

There are many issues with parking along the road in Featherstone Road, so much so that there is currently a consultation regarding double yellow lines which we are supporting. However it is not planned to have double yellow lines throughout the whole length.

If there is any development that will increase parking on the road, parking on the pavement / verges, parking on the corners of the roads or at entrances to sites, then want to record an objection.

Lorries visiting our site, many of which are articulated, have to back into our side. With the parking on the road this is becoming increasingly difficult for them and we are concerned that there will be an incident before long. However, if this proposal does not increase parking on the road, and actually brings a local shop to the industrial are this will be a positive move

(215) APP 17

Application Number: 13/02276/FUL

Creation of new surface car parking area (27 spaces), with associated landscaping and infrastructure

AT Norfolk House And Ashton House Business Centre, Silbury Boulevard, Central Milton Keynes

FOR Apia Regional Office Fund (General Partner) Ltd

Target: 20th December 2013

Ward: Campbell Park Parish: Central Milton Keynes Town Council

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

Team Leader: Jeremy Lee Joint Team Leader Strategic Applications Team Contact Details: 01908 252316 [email protected]

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

1.1 The Site

Landscaped area containing numerous trees between Norfolk and Ashton Houses and North Sixth Street within the Central Business District of CMK. A tree preservation order (PS/540/15/370) has been served on 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.

1.2 The Proposal

Creation of new surface car parking area (27 spaces), with associated landscaping and infrastructure. Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.

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

2.1 National Policy

National Planning Policy Framework, March 2012 (NPPF)

2.2 Local Policy

Core Strategy

(216) CS7: Central Milton Keynes CS11: A Well Connected Milton Keynes CS13: Ensuring High Quality, Well Designed Places CS19: The Historic and Natural Environment

2.3 Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 (saved policies) D1: Impact of Development Proposals on Locality D2A: Urban Design Aspects of New Development T1: The Transport User Hierarchy T3 and T4: Pedestrians and Cyclists T15: Parking Provision CC3: CMK Development Framework CC5: Office Development CC7a: Key Transport Principles CC7c: Key Principles for Parking CC8: Design and Layout CC11: Central Business District L2: Protection of Public Open Space and Existing Facilities

2.4 CMK Alliance Plan (emerging policies): CMKAP S1: Strategic Objectives CMKAP G1: Classic CMK Infrastructure CMKAP G3: Landscaping and Open Space CMKAP T1: Access and Design CMKAP T4: Parking

An emerging neighbourhood plan may be considered as a material consideration; this can depend on the stage the plan has reached and the level of consultation undertaken. In the case of the CMK Business Neighbourhood Plan the planning weight currently given to this document is limited. Significant weight must be given to the policies of the Core Strategy, the saved local plan policies and the NPPF.

2.5 Supplementary Planning Documents / Guidance CMK Development Framework SPD (2013) Parking Standards for Milton Keynes SPG (2005)

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

3.1 The impact on the character and appearance of the area, trees, parking provision and highway safety.

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

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

(217)

5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have led to the officer Recommendation)

5.1 The area between Norfolk and Ashton Houses and North Sixth Street is a mature area of landscaping containing a number of trees within a sculptured landform. Many of the trees have been assessed as BS:5837 Category A ‘High’ (Quality Assessment of Retention in terms of arboricultural, landscape and / or cultural value) and the amenity value of the trees has resulted in the Council serving a tree preservation order. Whilst Norfolk and Ashton Houses are not listed they do form part of the 20th Century New Town architecture of CMK and therefore can be considered as non-designated heritage assets with the landscaping around and between the buildings forming part of their setting. Therefore, when considering the impact of the proposed development consideration should be given to the impact on the setting of these buildings as well as securing the optimum viable use of the buildings. The proposal is to locate car parking within the section of this landscaped area between North Sixth Street and the covered walkway that links the two Houses. This application site is a largely clear area of greensward ringed by trees and shrubs. The existing trees would be retained around the boundary of the proposed car park.

5.2 The applicant initially proposed 77 car parking spaces; however, this would result in the loss of the mature landscaping around and between Norfolk and Ashton Houses. A previous application for 37 spaces was submitted (12/01064/FUL) but was also found to be unacceptable as the proposed car park would result in the loss of a significant area of high quality mature landscaping and would have a significant detrimental impact on the long term retention of trees of high amenity value which are protected by a tree preservation order. This area of landscaping provides a significant positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area and its loss would result in permanent harm which could not be mitigated by additional planting. The proposed development was therefore contrary to the NPPF and saved policies D1, D2a, CC8 and L2 of Milton Keynes Local Plan.

5.3 Saved local plan policy L2 and its accompanying appendix are relevant to this application. Amenity open space is defined within the text that accompanies L2 as "smaller open areas, including woods, copses and ponds, where recreational use is incidental to their primary function as attractive features in otherwise built-up areas, or as wildlife habitats. It includes privately owned areas to which there may be no public access. Areas of amenity open space are found mostly in residential areas, but also in employment areas and shopping centres. Only the larger sites protected by this policy are shown on the proposals map. … Other sites, such as play areas and incidental open space, which are too small to be individually identified on the Map, are given equal protection by this policy." (Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011, paragraph 13.14). The term amenity open space includes areas of landscaping that soften the street scene and add greatly to the visual amenity of an area; many of these landscaped areas are in private ownership. The area of landscaping between Norfolk and Ashton Houses and North Sixth

(218) Street has a significant positive impact on the character and appearance of the area and is considered to be amenity open space and therefore saved policy L2 is relevant.

5.4 The loss of part of this area of landscaping to create the car parking area would be contrary to saved policy L2. However, this should be balanced against the benefits of providing a parking area for Norfolk and Ashton Houses such as increasing the marketability of the buildings which have a high level of vacancy and taking into account what can be done to mitigate the impact (such as the retention of the existing trees and new planting to screen / soften the visual impact).

5.5 Norfolk and Ashton Houses provide a total of 12,114sqm of commercial floorspace comprising predominantly office uses (B1) with a small element of financial and professional services accommodation (A2). Public car parking spaces are provided in surface level car parks in the surrounding area (both Standard and Premium tariff); Norfolk and Ashton Houses have no on site car parking at present.

5.6 At the present time Norfolk and Ashton Houses have 53% of available office space vacant (6,498sqm). The space is being marketed by two agents and investment has been made in the fabric of the buildings. The applicant has identified a lack of car parking and the availability of out of centre campus style developments with the benefit of dedicated private car parking facilities as the principle factor effecting the occupation of Norfolk and Ashton Houses (based on feedback received from potential occupiers); details of feedback dating back to 2010 is provided within the supporting information accompanying the application. The submitted information shows that potential occupiers have expressed a desire to secure private car parking spaces in association with office space; in some cases occupiers would be content with a small number of spaces to offer to visitors or senior staff whilst others have a desire for a significant number of spaces to accommodate all employees.

5.7 The applicant has submitted the current proposal as an opportunity to deliver a relatively small number of car parking spaces in order to make the buildings more attractive to prospective occupiers and to improve take up rates in the Central Business District. The provision of 27 spaces would equate to 1 space per 240sqm of vacant floorspace or 1 per 448sqm taking into account the total floorspace.

5.8 The current proposal for 27 spaces represents the applicants proposed solution to minimise the impact on the trees and landscaping whilst improving the marketability of Norfolk and Ashton Houses. The current proposal allows for the retention of the existing protected trees on the site. New planting around the boundary to the site would provide additional screening and softening of the car park from the adjacent public realm. The current application is a much reduced proposal to those previously put forward. The change from landscaped area to car park would result in some harm to the character and appearance of the area and the setting of Norfolk and Ashton Houses. However, the potential to improve the marketability of Norfolk and

(219) Ashton Houses (when considering the vacancy levels) would outweigh the harm caused when taking into account the retention of the existing trees and the potential for new planting to soften the appearance of the car parking. It is therefore recommended that 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.

2. The parking layout (including pedestrian link) as shown on the approved plans shall be laid out and constructed prior to initial use of the car park and 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.

3. A landscaping scheme, which shall include provision for the planting of trees and shrubs, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any part of the development is commenced. 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. (L01)

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

4. All existing tree to be retained shall be protected according to the provisions of BS 5837: 2012 'Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations'. All protective measures, especially the fencing and ground protection, shall be put in place prior to any other work commencing on site (this includes vegetation clearance, ground-works, vehicle movements, machinery / materials delivery etc.) The location of the fencing shall be in accordance with the approved Tree Protection Plan (drawing number 5080-A-04 A). The fencing shall be of the same specification as that depicted in figure 2, page 20 and ground protection as

(220) specified in 6.2.3.1 - 6.2.3.5 pages 21/22 in BS 5837: 2012. Signs informing of the purpose of the fencing and warning of the penalties against destruction or damage to the trees and their root zones shall be installed at minimum intervals of 10 metres and a minimum of two signs per separate stretch of fencing. Once erected, the local authority tree officer shall be notified so the fencing can be inspected and approved.

The Root Protection Area (RPA) within the protective fencing shall be kept free of all construction, construction plant, machinery, personnel, digging and scraping, service runs, water-logging, changes in level, building materials and all other operations, personnel, structures, tools, storage and materials, for the duration of the construction phase. The developer shall submit details of the proposed layout and general arrangements of the site in relation to the trees to be retained. In particular details of storage areas including what substances will stored and where, locations of car parking, welfare facilities, cement plant, fuel storage and where discharge, filling and mixing of substances will take place. The details shall include site levels to enable risks posed to tree to be quantified. The details shall include any amendments to the RPA taking account of the details submitted and in consultation with the arboriculture officer.

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.

Earthworks, level changes, service runs, foundations and all other works involving excavation should not be located within the root protection areas.

Reason: To protect the existing trees during construction, to minimise the effect of development on the character and appearance of the area.

5. Any roots encountered outside the root protection areas shall be excavated carefully avoiding de-barking, breaking, splitting, splintering or shattering the roots. Once uncovered any roots requiring removal to accommodate the construction shall be cut back to a point 100mm beyond the nearest edge of the construction; they shall be pruned back cleanly with sharp, clean pruning saws or bypass loppers making level, smooth right angle cuts with no ragged edges. If the construction requires concrete pours then shuttering shall be used to keep concrete pours 100mm away from the cut root ends. The void shall be backfilled with a tree planting compost mix finished to the surface. Substances toxic to roots shall be kept away from roots, i.e. tars, fuels, oils, bitumen, cement etc.

Within the root protection areas, if root or soil damage does occur, the whole of the root protection areas of the trees affected shall be carefully cultivated and mulched to a consolidated depth of 75mm with an approved mulch material.

Reason: To protect the existing trees during construction, to minimise the effect of development on the character and appearance of the area.

(221) 6. Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the construction and surfacing of the car park shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved particulars. The submitted construction and surfacing details shall include specifications, plans, construction details, cross sections, proposed and existing spot levels and method statements and shall take into account the approved Tree Protection Plan (drawing number 5080-A-04 A).

Reason: To minimise the impact of the development on existing trees and the character and appearance of the area.

7. Prior to the commencement of development, details of the car park management scheme including details of how vehicular access shall be controlled shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented when the car park is first brought into use and the car park shall thereafter be operated in accordance with the approved particulars.

Reason: In the interest of crime prevention.

8. Prior to commencement of development, details of car park lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted information shall include a LUX/Lighting Plan for the car park; this plan shall including lighting to the BS5489 standard with a minimum uniformity rate of 0.40Uo (40%) and colour rendition of the lighting to at least 60Ra (60%). The approved details shall be implemented prior to the car park being first brought into use and shall be subsequently retained.

Reason: In the interest of crime prevention.

(222)

(223)

(224) Appendix to 13/02276/FUL

A1.1 12/01064/FUL Creation of 37 car parking spaces with associated landscaping and infrastructure; refused under delegated powers on 09.08.2012 for the following reason:

The proposed car park would result in the loss of a significant area of high quality mature landscaping and would have a significant detrimental impact on the long term retention of trees of high amenity value which are protected by a tree preservation order. This area of landscaping provides a significant positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area and its loss would result in permanent harm which could not be mitigated by additional planting. The proposed development is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and saved policies D1, D2a, CC8 and L2 of Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS

(Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)

A2.1 Tree Protection

The existing trees around the perimeter of the proposed car park are to be retained as part of the proposals. The trees play a significant role in reducing the impact of the proposed car park on the character and appearance of the area. It is therefore important that the trees are suitably protected during construction. In addition, it is important that the car park is constructed and surfaced to minimise the impact on the trees. The proposal is to limit the amount of re-grading required and to install a permeable surface. Conditions are proposed (please see conditions 4, 5 and 6 at section 6.0 of this report) to protect the trees during construction and also to ensure the construction method minimises any impact.

A2.2 Even with protection during construction the creation of car parking in close proximity to trees can result in future pressures for works to the trees where they overhang parking spaces. The trees are protected by a tree preservation order and therefore any future works would require consent. It is considered that the proposed development would increase the risk of future works to the trees; however, the potential impact is not considered significant enough to outweigh the benefits of the scheme.

(225) A2.3 Parking

The offices currently have no private car parking and as stated within paragraph 5.7 above the provision of 27 spaces would equate to 1 space per 240sqm of vacant floorspace or 1 per 448sqm taking into account the total floorspace. Consideration has been given to the principle of the creation of car parking to service the offices. Consideration has also been given to the availability of public car parking within the surrounding area; parking surveys show that from a parking supply point of view there is no need for this application. However, the creation of some private car parking would have a positive impact in terms of the marketability of the offices which suffer from high vacancy levels.

A2.4 The proposed development is contrary to the spirit of the current car parking standards and promoting more sustainable transport choices. However, taking into account the size of the car park being created, the lack of existing on-site parking and the potential to improve marketability of the vacant office space, it is considered that the principle of the proposed parking would be acceptable, on balance, in this instance.

A2.5 The emerging policies of the CMK Alliance Plan support the creation of a higher parking standard for offices (1 space per 50sqm compared to the current standard of 1 space per 70sqm).

A2.6 Crime Prevention

It is important in the interest of reducing crime, the fear of crime and anti- social behaviour for car parking areas to be properly lit and also for vehicular access to be controlled. Well-designed lighting increases the opportunity for surveillance at night and sends out positive messages about the management of an area; well-lit spaces are also crucial in reducing the fear of crime. Conditions are proposed (please see conditions 7 and 8 at section 6.0 of this report) to address these requirements.

(226)

Comments Officer Response

A3.1 Highways Development Control

Summary

The proposed development is contrary to the spirit of the Noted. current car parking standards but given that there is no technical justification for objection I reluctantly have no objection to planning permission being granted.

A3.2 Layout

The layout is far from ideal as it provides no protection to The plans have now been amended to include a pedestrian space 19. Space 25 will be difficult to access when the link. others around it are occupied. No pedestrian link is shown from the car parking area to the buildings. It is unreasonable to expect that somebody who may be disabled parks their car in the space provided for them and then has to make their way out of the car park via the vehicular access. A 1.2m wide pedestrian link should be provided in line with the set down area for the disabled person’s car parking space; this should be protected against unauthorised vehicle access by protecting it on either side with bollards or robust planting.

(227) A3.3 Car parking

The proposal is contrary to the current car parking Noted. Please see Section 5.0 of the main report and standards in that 27 car parking spaces are being created paragraphs A2.3 to A2.5 regarding parking considerations. for no development. The parking standards are based on their being development to which car parking is ancillary. The development sits amongst an area containing some 25,000 car parking spaces. Whilst the survey figures for Block B1 at 13:00hrs on a Tuesday show a high occupation of the standard rate spaces there is low occupation of the Premium spaces. The real difference between when the office buildings were established and now is that employees have to pay for car parking. The applicant claims that the buildings are not competitive on the commercial market due to a lack of car parking when compared to other areas of MK yet the provision is only for 27 spaces that will not cater for the much larger numbers of employees that Norfolk and Ashton Houses could potentially accommodate.

A3.4 I understand the commercial emphasis that the applicant Noted. The impact on the Council’s parking income is not a has placed on this application but I can’t say I’m material planning consideration. Please see paragraphs sympathetic to it. The provision of additional car parking A2.3 to A2.5 regarding parking considerations. that also results in a negative outcome for this authority’s income and which is collected to aid sustainable travel is setting an unwanted precedent. That said the original provision of parking was not set in relation to specific building footprints and it would not make sense in that respect to object and try to defend at any appeal, over provision of car parking.

(228) A3.5 Conclusion

As a consequence of not have any technical reason to Noted. Amended plans include a pedestrian link. Please object to planning permission I am of the opinion that see condition 2 regarding the layout of the car park. planning permission can be granted from the highway perspective subject to conditions for the parking to be laid out as per the submitted plans and for the provision of a pedestrian link from the proposed car park to the buildings which it serves.

A3.6 Senior Landscape Architect

The layout proposals are generally acceptable, but I do Amended plans have included an additional strip of require a strip of planting to the front of proposed parking landscaping to the front of these spaces. spaces: 13, 14, 15 and 16. The tree protection and proposed surface detail I refer to the council’s Tree Officer.

A3.7 Urban Design

No objection. Noted.

A3.8 Landscape Services

The proposals seek to balance the loss of a certain amount Noted. of green space with the provision of new car parking to make the offices more attractive to potential tenants. It seems a value judgement is required to balance the benefits of an area of maturing urban soft landscaping with a perceived need for more car parking. While on one hand the real need for the car parking can be debated, on the other it might be possible for the two to exist together.

(229) A3.9 Car parking under the canopies of trees can result in Please see paragraph A2.2. problems for the vehicles due mainly to material such as honeydew and bird droppings falling onto them and dirtying them or causing damage to car paintwork. Over time the trees will grow and the number of spaces affect will increase. Consequently, though the trees initially may be retained successfully as part of the scheme, they could well come under pressure for severe pruning or felling in the future, actions which are generally seen as the only solution to prevent such problems occurring.

A3.10 The construction proposals still appear somewhat vague, Please see proposed Condition 6. the arboricultural method statement sets out good principles for a no-dig construction, but the remaining documentation is not clear what type of surfacing will be used or whether the car parking surface will be constructed entirely raised with no digging whatsoever, if it will be a part dug / part raised construction or a full depth dug construction. It could be possible to accommodate the construction of a car park surface while minimising the impact on the tree roots so they have a reasonable chance of surviving in the medium to long term, but full details of the construction type, installation method proposed and any differences between existing and proposed levels are required.

A3.11 The open space to the northwest of the buildings appears to Noted. The existing trees are to be retained and the be in the ownership of the applicant; this would be a good proposal includes additional planting surrounding the new space to put in new tree planting in addition to that parking area. proposed. Retaining existing trees, rather than felling and replanting, is the sustainable approach and it has a lower carbon impact.

(230) A3.12 On balance, it appears that these proposals could be Please see Conditions 4, 5 and 6. executed without loss of existing trees, but the viability of the trees secure position in the urban landscape will be reduced by virtue of the space around them changing from open space of lawn and shrubs to car parking. It is likely that motorists will have issues against the trees leading to TPO requests for tree surgery and possibly for felling. I suggest conditions regarding tree protection measures and full details of construction.

A3.13 Cllr Paul Williams, Campbell Park Ward

I am pleased that the applicant has clearly listened to the Noted. concerns raised around the loss of landscaping in the previous application. I believe this is a good compromise and the application has my support.

A3.14 CMK Town Council

The Town Council objects to the application. The proposed Please see Section 5.0 of the main report. development remains contrary to the NPPF and other policies which was the basis upon which the previous application was declined. The Town Council supported that decision and cannot see the reason for a change in the previous outcome. The Town Council believes the case for approval is not made. The loss in terms of heritage, amenity and landscape outweighs the unproven need for additional car parking at this particular CMK location.

A3.15 The development of Norfolk and Ashton Houses in the late Please see paragraph 5.1. 1970s was implemented in accordance with the guiding principles for CMK. While changes and refinements to

(231) these principles have taken place since then, it is good to have a ‘live’ example, a legacy, which in maturity demonstrates the success of the original factors/concepts for CMK’s urban character – low rise, high quality, spacious and rich landscaping.

A3.16 The application site is an attractive and pleasant place. Please see paragraph 5.8. Visually it relates well to the offices. It is well used by occupants in good weather. It is attractive to passers-by. Beneficial effect and is attractive to both office occupants and to the public realm. The proposed additional shrub planting is unlikely to effectively screen the parked cars or enhance the public realm.

A3.17 The area around the site was implemented according to the Please see paragraphs A2.3 to A2.5 and A3.1 to A3.5. principle of shared use parking. The success of CMK and the rise in car ownership have put pressure on the concept, but at this particular location the need for additional parking is unproven. Random observations during the working day over a period of four weeks have shown between 22 and 42 spaces available in the area around the offices, mainly in the premium zone. If the application is approved, it would further undermine the case for the premium spaces. DCC could request that the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport makes more standard rate parking spaces available for Norfolk and Ashton Houses, by reducing the number of vacant premium rate spaces at this location, which earn no income for the Council. The application is counter to MKC’s policies on sustainability and transport.

A3.18 The Town Council is sceptical about the claim that Please see paragraph 5.6. dedicated parking spaces are needed in order to let the

(232) office space and urges the Council to rigorously scrutinise them, particularly in relation to achievable rents.

A3.19 Public Representations

Eight representations have been received in objection; the The representations received cover the value of the comments received can be summarised as follows: landscaped area, the impact of its loss and the principle of the creation of a new area of car parking. In relation to the 1. Loss of a high quality piece of public realm. Norfolk and above points please refer to Section 5.0 and paragraphs Ashton Houses are two of the older office buildings in A2.3 to A2.5 of this report. In terms of access to green CMK. The associated landscaping in their vicinity space for local residents it should be noted that the accordingly has developed for some 30 odd years and application site is a privately owned landscaped area and the mature trees and shrubs in the area are a substantial whilst access to this space is not currently prevented the visual and environmental enhancement to the vicinity. area does not form part of the publically accessible open The space, the subject of this application, exemplifies space for CMK. (because of the maturity of the planting) the fruition of the original design vision for Milton Keynes, with office buildings juxtaposed with planted areas, giving a green lung and visual contrast for the buildings in the vicinity. The graded grassed area that would be lost is part of a harmonious landscaping whole that should be left with its integrity intact.

2. Loss of green space would be deleterious to the health and amenity of local residents and employees.

3. Residents want to see less parking, as there is more than enough already, and more green areas for walking and relaxing in.

4. No need for any more parking. Ridiculous to sacrifice attractive and valuable landscape to provide additional

(233) parking when the existing provision is underused. 32 premium parking bays are available facing Silbury Blvd plus 2 disabled bays and round the corner in front of the YMCA there are 21 premium bays plus 2 disabled bays; few of these spaces are occupied. Visiting the area at various times of the day during normal working hours it was possible to find parking at the standard tariff. In the last ten days (13/11/2013) I have visited the site during working hours and have counted 11, 24 and 31 vacant parking spaces, mostly, but not all, in the premium zone. Occupancy of the parking spaces on the other side of the Blvd, opposite City Church, is never more than about 65%. Apart from at Christmas time, most of North Row and Secklow Gate and a fair bit of Silbury Blvd (Campbell Park end) are empty for much of the year and have been since the new parking policy was introduced. Officers should carry out a survey, covering a period of four weeks, to be used as evidence to refute/confirm the need for this additional parking.

5. Pricing and not availability of parking spaces is the problem. If many spaces are indeed vacant during the working day the Council should change unused red Premium bays to purple Standard bays, as a way of attracting employment in CMK. Employees are eligible for reduced parking charges in Standard bays which makes daily parking charges reasonable and the vacant offices more attractive for a company locating to CMK.

6. Other alternative means of transport are available: walking, cycling, bus, train or taxi. Also, car share schemes reduce the need for individual car use.

(234)

7. Secure cycle parking and changing facilities could be considered.

8. Get the transport system working like other cities and towns and there will be no problem. Oxford and Cambridge have had Park and Ride for decades and have sorted out these problems.

9. Why should these particular employees and visitors be treated any differently from other residents, workers or visitors?

10. Not sustainable development. No new car parking should be encouraged on demand with little evidence of economic, social and environmental benefit.

11. Contrary to the Council’s strategic goals. Local Plan policies include those designed to: reduce dependence on the car; reduce the dominance of parked cars in the urban landscape; encourage walking via safe and attractive pedestrian routes; reduce the expectation that people can park next to their designation; achieve a step change in the use of public transport; achieve a high quality public realm which delights visitors; and satisfies residents and attracts investment.

12. Contrary to Local Plan Policies S5 (iii), CC7C, D1 and D2A (iii).

13. Contrary to the Parking Strategy for CMK (Objectives and Actions of Parking Strategy page 6). To change

(235) cultural behaviour of Milton Keynesians Action by which achievable. Address the expectation that motorists should be able to park close to their chosen destination Improved way-finding to facilitate better routes for pedestrians and cyclists Address expectation that parking supply should match demand by demonstrating the viability of alternatives to the car

(236) APP 18

Application Number: 13/02283/ADV other Advertisement consent for 4 x fascia signs and 4 x other signs

AT Kwik Fit, Stratford Road, Wolverton

FOR Kwik-Fit (GB) Limited

Target: 24th December 2013

Ward: Wolverton Parish: Wolverton & Greenleys Town Council

Report Author/Case Officer: Sarah Hine Contact Details: [email protected]

Team Leader: Alex Harrison Contact Details: 01908 252608 [email protected]

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

1.1 The Site The application site is located on Stratford Road, Wolverton and currently shared with a petrol filling station (Sui Generis) and garage including workshop (B2). The site is surrounded by predominantly commercial and retail uses although residential properties are located on the adjacent side of Stratford Road. Details of the location of the site and its relationship to surrounding properties can be seen in the plans attached to this report.

1.2 The Proposal Planning permission is sought for the display of 2 x non-illuminated fascia signs, 1 x internally illuminated totem sign, 2 x internally illuminated fascia badge signs, 1 x overhead illuminated reception sign, 1 x sign panel and 1 x post mounted sign. Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.

1.3 The proposed development essentially replaces the existing signage and updates the company branding. The principle difference between the proposed and the existing is a new illuminated totem at the site’s entrance, a non- illuminated post mounted welcome sign and an additional overhead illuminated reception sign at the entrance.

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

2.1 National Policy National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012)

(237) Paragraph 67: Impact of adverts.

Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007 (6 April 2007).

2.2 Local Policy

Adopted Outdoor Advertising Policy 2005

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

3.1 1. The impact of the proposal on amenity of the surrounding properties. The proposed signage is considered to be similar to the existing and a sufficient distance from the adjacent residential properties so as not to adversely affect the amenity.

2. The impact of the development on highway safety. The new signage is located a sufficient distance from the main highway and subject to the relevant conditions is not anticipated to result in any adverse impact on highways safety.

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

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

5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have lead to the officer Recommendation)

5.1 Impact of the proposal on amenity The signage is considered to be appropriate to the character of the commercial surroundings and appropriate in the context of the site and its use.

The proposal details signage (excluding the totem sign) which is predominantly located on the elevations of the premises, is set back from the curtilage of the site and replaces existing similar signage in these terms is not considered to adversely impact on amenity.

The application also proposes the replacement of the existing non-illuminated totem sign with an illuminated totem. It is considered that this sign is a sufficient distance from the residential properties on the adjacent side of Stratford Road and subject to a condition limiting the luminance will not create an adverse impact in terms of amenity.

It is therefore considered the proposed application is acceptable in terms of amenity.

5.2 Impact of the proposal on highway safety The proposed signage is not anticipated to result in any adverse impact on

(238) highways safety given that this is located a sufficient distance from the highway and is therefore supported subject to the conditions detailed below.

6.0 CONDITIONS (The conditions that need to be imposed on any planning permission for this development to ensure that the development is satisfactory. To meet legal requirements all conditions must be Necessary, Relevant, Enforceable, Precise and Reasonable ) 1. The light source of illuminated signage must be shielded such that they are not directly visible to motorists using the public highway.

Reason: To avoid glare which could lead to danger to highway users.

2. The maximum luminance of the fascia signs shall not exceed 600 cd/m2.

Reason: To avoid glare which could lead to danger to highway users.

(239)

(240)

(241)

(242)

(243)

(244)

(245) Appendix to 13/02283/ADV

A1.1 None.

A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS

(Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)

A2.1 None.

(246)

Comments Officer Response

A3.1 Ward - Wolverton - Cllr Miles No comment received. Noted.

A3.2 Parish - Wolverton & Greenleys The council object to this application as the signs are too Noted discussed in paragraph 5.1. large.

A3.3 Ward - Wolverton - Cllr Middleton No comment received. Noted.

A3.4 Ward - Wolverton - Cllr Middleton No comment received. Noted.

A3.5 Ward - Wolverton - Cllr Marland No comment received. Noted.

A3.6 Highways Development Control No objection raised. Noted.

A3.7 Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application: Murco Service Station, Stratford Road, Wolverton

No resident representations were received.

(247)