APP 02
Application Number: 17/03233/OUT
Description An outline proposal with all matters reserved for development of land to the south of the A5 and east of the A4146, Milton Keynes for up to 500 homes, including 40% affordable homes; a 1 Form Entry Primary School; a local Centre, open space and associated works
AT Land At Levante Gate, Galley Lane, Little Brickhill,
FOR The Guinness Partnership
Target: 30th June 2018
Extension of Time: Yes
Ward: Danesborough And Walton Parish: Little Brickhill Parish Council
Report Author/Case Officer: Nicola Thompson Senior Planning Officer Contact Details: [email protected]
Team Manager: Sarah Hine - 01908 252283, [email protected]
1.0 RECOMMENDATION (The decision that officers recommend to the Committee)
It is recommended that permission is granted subject to conditions set out in this report and completion of a s.106 agreement.
2.0 INTRODUCTION (A brief explanation of what the application is about)
2.1 The site
2.1.1 The application site is located on land to the south of the A5 and east of the A4146 to the south east of Milton Keynes adjacent to the approved Eaton Leys development. The site measures approximately 30.7 ha.
2.1.2 The site, known as Lavente Gate, is located immediately to the east of the Eaton Leys development. The Eaton Leys development comprises an edge of settlement site that measured approximately 109ha that straddled both the Milton Keynes and Aylesbury Vale districts. The relationship of the application site with the approved Eaton Leys development to the immediate west, confirms that the site lies adjacent to approved development that now comprises the urban edge of Milton Keynes in
the Case Officer’s opinion. Land to the north, the other side of the A5/A4146 roundabout is proposed for employment development in the emerging PlanMK.
2.1.3 The site is located approximately 1.5km beyond to the south east of Fenny Stratford train station and a wide range of retail and employment opportunities. The centre of Little Brickhill village lies approximately 700 metres to the east which also has a range of additional facilities including local shop, community hall, public houses and place of worship.
2.1.4 The Eaton Leys approved development includes a community centre, health centre, local centre and primary school.
2.1.5 The application site in planning terms lies within the open countryside and comprises agricultural fields subdivided by hedgerows and a number of individual trees. A public bridleway crosses the site in an east west direction. The site is defined and contained by the A5 and Hunters Farm Shop and the A5 Service Area to the north. The A4146 lies to the west with Eaton Leys immediately beyond. Existing hedgerows define the site on its southern side. The site lies within an Area of Attractive Landscape as designated in the 2005 Local Plan Proposals Map. A wildlife corridor running parallel with the A5 lies on the northern edge of the application site. The site lies beyond any Conservation Area, away from listed buildings and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The site lies in Flood Zone 1.
2.1.6 The village of Little Brickhill lies to the east on higher land comprising the Brickhills Greensand Ridge. In contrast, the application site lies at a lower level on generally flat land characterised by a gentle rise in the topography from west to east. The site is not visible from within Little Brickhill or its Conservation Area. The site is visually contained by the built-up area of Milton Keynes to the west, including the approved Eaton Leys development that has yet to commence, the Hunters Farm complex together with service area to the immediate north and the densely wooded Greensand Ridge on higher land to the east and north-east.
2.1.7 Some northern parts of the site (along the A5) lie within a wildlife corridor, and within or adjacent to an Archaeological Notification Site. There is a High Pressure Pipeline Buffer adjacent to the site along the A4146. Parts of the site are with a Minor Groundwater Vulnerability Zone. The site is within an Area of Attractive Landscape.
2.2 The Proposal
2.2.1 The application seeks outline planning permission (with all matters reserved) for residential development on the site for up to 500 homes, including 40% affordable homes; a 1 Form Entry Primary School; a local centre, open space and associated works.
2.2.2 The application was supported by a comprehensive suite of reports explaining the proposals in more detail in relation to specific issues. The reports are:
• Site Surveys
• Planning Statement (Including affordable housing and S106 Heads of Terms), • Design and Access Statement, • Statement of Community Involvement, • Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment • Transport Assessment • Travel Plan • Ecological Surveys and Ecological Appraisal • Biodiversity Management Plan • Open Space Strategy • Agricultural and Greenfield Land Assessment • Geo-Physical Survey Report • Geo-Environmental Desk Study • Sustainability Assessment • Sustainable Construction Statement • Utilities Assessment • Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy; and • Land Contamination Assessment.
2.2.3 Although it is not a matter for determination at the current outline planning application stage, the application is accompanied with an indicative layout to demonstrate how the site could be satisfactorily developed with up to 500 dwellings and other associated development.
2.2.4 The application is for outline planning permission with all matters reserved but an Illustrative masterplan has been submitted showing a series of residential development blocks, indicative areas of open space and suggested road layout within the site. The illustrative masterplan shows the location of the local centre, land reserved for a school, local and neighbourhood play areas, footways and cycle routes within the site and the vehicular access to the site from the A4146.
2.2.5 The application masterplan and illustrative masterplan are appended to this report. However, it should be noted that the application masterplan and illustrative masterplan has been submitted for illustrative purposes only and do not form part of the proposals for approval as part of this outline planning application.
2.2.6 The application masterplan has been prepared in discussions with officers of the Council leading up to the submission. The areas set aside for residential development up to 500 dwellings have had regard to the Council's Residential Design Guide, car parking standards, open space requirements including buffers, as well as the Landscape Visual Impact Assessment and highway considerations. The outcome of this Masterplan exercise is a land use budget setting out the component parts of the proposal in respect of different land uses.
2.2.7 Land use budget as set out below:
2.2.8 The application is supported by a Utilities Report which indicates that there are no services or utilities that represent an overriding constraint to the development of the site. Existence of a gas main along the A4146 corridor has been reflected in the Application Masterplan which incorporates a sufficient development set back designed to take its existence into account. Connections to water, gas, telecommunications and electricity services will be made as part of the proposed development.
2.2.9 The application has been amended and/or further information provide during the application process, including:
Updated Transport Assessment Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
2.3 Reason for referral to committee
The application is referred to the Development Control Committee for determination as a result of the level of public opposition to the proposal and that the proposal is a departure from the development plan.
3.0 RELEVANT POLICIES
3.1 National Policy
National Planning Policy Framework (2012) Paragraphs 6,7,8 and 14 - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Paragraphs 11-16: Presumption in favour of sustainable development Paragraph 17: Core Planning Principles Section 1: Building a Strong Competitive Economy Section 4: Promoting Sustainable Transport Section 6: Housing
Section 7: Design Section 8: Promoting Healthy Communities Section 10: Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change & Flooding Section 11: Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment Paragraph 173: Ensuring Viability and Deliverability Paragraphs 187 &187: Positive Approach to Decision Taking Paragraphs 196 & 197: Determining Applications Paragraphs 203-206: Conditions and Obligations
In addition, the National Planning Practice Guidance is a material consideration.
3.2 Local Policy
3.2.1 Neighbourhood Plan
The application site does not currently form part of a designated neighbourhood plan area.
3.2.2 Core Strategy
CSA Presumption if Favour of Sustainable Development CS1 Milton Keynes Development Strategy CS9 Strategy for the Rural Area CS10 Housing CS11 A Well Connected Milton Keynes CS12 Delivering Successful Neighbourhoods CS13 Ensuring High Quality Well Designed Places CS17 Improving Access to Local Services and Facilities CS18 Healthier and Safer Communities CS19 The Historic and Natural Environment CS21 Delivering Infrastructure
3.2.3 Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 (Saved Policies)
S10 Open Countryside S11 Areas of Attractive Landscape D1 Impact of Development Proposals on Locality D2 Design of Buildings D2A Urban Design Aspects of New Developments D4 Sustainable Construction HE1 Protection of Archaeological Sites NE1 Nature Conservation Sites NE2 Protected Species NE3 Biodiversity and Geological Enhancement NE4 Conserving and Enhancing Landscape Character H2- H5 Affordable Housing H7 Housing on Unidentified Sites H8 Housing Density H9 Housing Mix T1 The Transport User Hierarchy
T2 Access For Those With Impaired Mobility T3,T4 Pedestrians and Cyclists T5 Public Transport T10 Traffic T11 Transport Assessments and Travel Plans T15 Parking Provision T17 Traffic Calming L3 Open Space Standards of Provision PO4 Percent for Art
3.2.4 Supplementary Planning Guidance
Milton Keynes Parking Standards 2016 Planning Obligations SPG for Education Facilities (2004) Planning Obligations SPG for Leisure, Recreation and Sport Facilities (2005) Social Infrastructure Planning Obligations (2005) The Milton Keynes Drainage Strategy - Development and Flood Risk Supplementary Planning Guidance Sustainable Construction (2007) Affordable Housing (2013) New Residential Development Design Guide (April 2012)
4.0 MAIN ISSUES (The issues which have the greatest bearing on the decision)
4.1 It is important to re-iterate that the application is in outline form, with all matters reserved. Although the main consideration in the determination of the application relates to the land use principle of residential development on the site, this issue requires some discussion on other matters which would normally be considered (in full) at reserved matters stage. The issues to consider are as follows:
a) Principle of Residential Development on the Site b) Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area c) Archaeology d) Access and Highway Matters e) Best and Most Versatile Land f) Residential Amenity g) Ecology h) Surface Water Drainage / Flooding i) S106 Contributions and Affordable Housing j) Cumulative Impact k) Sustainable Development
5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have led to the officer recommendation)
5.1 Principle of Residential Development on the Site
Local Plan Policy
The Council’s Spatial Strategy is set out in the Milton Keynes Local Plan, 2001- 2011 and the Milton Keynes Core Strategy 2013. Emerging Development Plan Documents include draft Plan: MK, Milton Keynes Site Allocations Plan: October 2016 (SAP) and the Hanslope Neighbourhood Plan. Plan: MK is at a relatively early stage towards adoption, little weight can be attributed to its policies. Whilst the SAP is more advanced, having reached examination, it only addresses allocations within the urban area, as the Council considers that rural areas are to be managed through Neighbourhood Plans. However, the application site does not currently form part of a designated neighbourhood plan area.
5.2 The application site comprises agricultural fields and land. Its western boundary fronts onto the A4146 lies to the west with Eaton Leys immediately beyond, the A5 to the north, and its southern boundaries adjoining other parcels of agricultural land. The site is wholly outside the development boundary of Milton Keynes (or any other settlement) and in the open countryside, as defined by the Local Plan Policies Map and is unchanged within the Core Strategy. In practical terms, the approved Eaton Leys development is considered to now form part of the urban edge of Milton Keynes in the Case Officer’s opinion, albeit that development has not been physically constructed yet.
5.3 Saved Policy S10 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan states that planning permission will only be granted for development in the open countryside where it is essential for agriculture, forestry, countryside recreation and other development which is wholly appropriate to a rural area and cannot be located within a settlement. In addition, Core Strategy Policies CS1 and CS9 seek to focus development in the rural area within the development boundaries of the main and adjacent to the most sustainable towns or key settlements, Milton Keynes being at the top of the hierarchy.
5.4 The proposal would be in the open countryside and would not be for any of the exceptions within Policy S10 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011, and therefore contrary to that policy.
5.5 The application site would not be located within the ‘main areas for development’ in Milton Keynes as outlined in Policy CS1 of the Core Strategy, namely, Central Milton Keynes, Uncompleted City estates, District centres, City Expansion Areas and Strategic Land Allocations, and other selective infill, regeneration and redevelopment. Although adjacent to the urban edge of Milton Keynes (Eaton Leys development), the proposed development would be contrary to the Council’s development strategy outlined in Policy CS1 of the Core Strategy.
Housing Land Supply
5.6 As concluded in a number of recent appeal decisions within the District, including the appeal decision at Long Street, Hanslope, the Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. For the avoidance of doubt, Local Planning Authorities can only rely on a 3 year housing land supply in rural areas (Written Ministerial Statement of 12 December 2016) if the proposed development lies within a Neighbourhood Plan (area) which has been made, and contains housing allocations. The application site does not currently form part of a
designated neighbourhood plan area. Together with its location adjacent to the urban edge of Milton Keynes, this weighs significantly in favour of the application.
5.7 Where the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, paragraph 49 of the NPPF is engaged, and states "housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites". It must therefore be considered whether the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, as outlined in paragraph 14 of the NPPF which is also engaged (referred to as ‘the tilted balance’ in favour of sustainable development). Policies for the supply of housing should be given less weight where these circumstances apply.
5.8 It has been established through recent appeals that policies CS1 and CS9 are considered to be policies which relate to the supply of housing, whereas policy S10 does not. Policy S10 implicitly recognises the character and beauty of the countryside, in accordance with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework, by seeking to protect it. However, strict adherence to the defined development boundaries (outlined in policies CS1 and CS9) would be likely to greatly limit the extent to which shortfalls in housing land supply could be addressed, contrary to the aims of the Framework. It follows under the terms of the NPPF that policies CS1 and CS9 should not be considered up-to-date and therefore less weight given to them, and that there is an element of conflict between policy S10 and the aims of the NPPF.
5.9 Clearly therefore, the Council’s current housing land supply position significantly weighs in favour of the proposed development. Whether the proposal is considered to be sustainable development will depend on other matters discussed below.
5.10 The application site is in single ownership and control under an option agreement with The Guinness Partnership. The Guinness Partnership are a well-established registered provider of new homes who have a track record in delivering housing schemes.
5.11 The applicant is committed to the delivery of this scheme and has confirmed that they intend to build it out following the grant of planning permission. In this regard they have confirmed to the Council the acceptance of a two year reserved matters condition in order to fast track the deliverability of the scheme to meet important housing needs in the immediate future. The proposal is therefore considered to be deliverable.
5.12 Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area
Landscape
The site is located within an Area of Attractive Landscape (AAL).
5.13 Layout, scale, appearance and landscape (amongst other issues) would be assessed at the reserved matters stage. Whilst the design and layout of the development can be assessed at that point, clearly the introduction of up to 500 new homes and ancillary works into open countryside will have a visual impact on the locality. Given the location of the development the proposal would have an urbanising effect on and detract from the rural character of the countryside. There are a number of public footpaths/bridleways within and nearby the site, and view from the highway which will also be affecting by the proposal in visual terms. Given the harm caused would be irreversible and permanent, is therefore important to discuss the level of harm caused to enable adequate judgement when considering the planning balance.
5.14 Policy NE4 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 sets out that where proposals are acceptable in principle in accordance with the plan development in the open countryside should respect the particular character of the surrounding landscape. Whilst it is noted that the principle of the development may not be supported by the Local Plan it is considered that policy NE4 of the Local Plan should still be applied in the overall assessment on impact.
5.15 The application scheme is supported by a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) which, in consultation with the Council, has identified a number of key viewpoints and assessed the visual impact of the proposal on the existing landscape and surrounding area. The proposal has been informed by this landscape visual impact assessment. The LVlA also includes recommended mitigation proposals that will reduce the impact and degree of visual change/harm. These have been incorporated into the application masterplan.
5.16 The application site lies within the Local Character Area (LCA) 4b Wavendon Clay Lowland Farmland in Milton Keynes. Distinctive qualities of this area are open arable fields with some remnant historic feel patterns, but also a mix of urban development on the edge of Milton Keynes. The main condition of the landscape is described as poor due to the presence of busy A roads, large distribution centres and on-going development along the urban edge. The landscape pattern is fragmented and native hedge rows had been replaced by conifer hedges around the villages and are a prominent feature. There is a lack of visual cohesiveness in the landscape due to a variety in the build form. Accordingly the relative quality of the landscape that the application site sits in is not high which weighs in favour of the application given the Council’s land supply position. The site does not form part of a valued landscape (out of the ordinary) as outlined in the NPPF.
5.17 Nevertheless, it is considered that the proposal would cause moderate harm to the character of the immediate area due to the scale of the development and significance of change, but less so from further afield. In this respect it would conflict with the objective of Local Plan Policies S10 and NE4 to protect the countryside.
5.18 Density
The proposed development will have an overall average gross density of 37.5 dwellings per hectare (dph). In net terms, this will equate to approximately 16.2dph.
5.19 Similar to densities building heights will vary throughout the site. The proposals will vary between 1 storey up to a maximum of 3 storeys. The location of the different types of buildings have been informed by the Landscape and Visual Assessment and discussions with the Officers leading up to the application submission.
5.20 The application site lies within Zone 4 of the Council’s housing density plan. Policy H8 of the Local Plan states that the Council seek an average net density for housing developments in Zone 4 of 30 dwellings per hectare. The proposal for up to 500 dwellings on 30.7 ha which gives rise to a density of 37.5dph. Whilst this is 7.5 dwellings per hectare are above the net density standard for this area when calculated in terms of gross the density considering all of the open space provision within the site results in a density of only 16.2dph. Both calculations are very similar to the approved Eaton Leys scheme that lies immediately to the west. Moreover, the pre-application discussions with the Council confirmed that the proposal should reflect more than density of development on the neighbouring Eaton Leys site. In addition, the proposals vary densities within the scheme, as illustrated above, that reflect conversations with the Council’s urban designer and landscape architect where the higher densities are to be located in the centre of the site with a gradual reduction in density out towards the edges of the site, in particular on the northern, southern and eastern sides.
5.21 The density requirements of policy H8 all ensure that new housing development is in keeping with the character and appearance of the area (in line with paragraph 47 of the NPPF). The similarities with Eaton Leys confirms the compatibility of the proposal in character and appearance terms. Finally, the ultimate densities delivered on the site will be dependent upon number of factors such as detailed design constraints when designing the reserved matters layout in accordance with the Council’s new residential, parking standards and design guide. That said the land use budget supporting the application masterplan has had regard to these considerations in order to ensure that the proposal for up to 500 dwellings on the site represents a realistic and deliverable number.
5.22 Accordingly, the proposal for up to 500 units can be accommodated on the application site. It will positively contribute to an appropriate mixed and balance community in accordance with the requirements of the Core Strategy, in particular policy CS10. These detailed matters are in any event left for consideration at the reserved matters stage.
5.23 Open Spaces and Mitigation
5.24 The proposals include a variety of open spaces throughout the proposed development as illustrated on the application masterplan.
5.25 In terms of both broad masterplan principles and layout, the proposals have had regard to the designation of the site as an Area of Attractive Landscape (AAL) and the importance of the application Greensand Ridge which lies to the north east and east of the site. Although landscape is a reserved matter, the masterplan seeks to protect the immediate setting of this landscape feature. The application provides a willingness for this to be done in a number of ways in terms of location of the broad
residential areas, variations in density and heights of buildings and the landscape strategy for the site both within it and on its edge. The landscaping/green fringes proposed on the perimeter of the site will help reduce the impact of the development in the wider landscape and in views of this site from surrounding road and footpath networks.
5.26 The application illustrates that the alignment of streets and open spaces could ensure that views from within the site and the beyond of the wooded Greensand Ridge can be retained. Equally, the extensive and open views from the wooded Greensand Ridge towards Milton Keynes could also largely be preserved which would be consistent with the recommendations set out in the Milton Keynes Landscape Character Assessment (2015).
5.27 The Milton Keynes Landscape Character Assessment (2015) also identifies the presence of the A5 within the setting of the Greensand Ridge as a detracting feature from the area. The application provides an opportunity to mitigate the impact of the road through landscaping proposals. These comprise an extensive new landscape buffer incorporating a landscape bund as illustrated within the submitted details. Adequate space would be retained to ensure that the proposed development would be screened effectively from the road and the road could also be absorbed more sensitively into the landscape, one of the benefits arising from the proposals.
5.28 In terms of open spaces, the proposal is considered to be consistent with Core Strategy Policy CS10 and the objective of providing high-quality new residential areas the proposal includes a variety of open spaces within the scheme, including Neighbourhood Play Area and Local Play Areas. Offsite provision in respect of Playing Fields and District Parks are to be provided by way of an offsite contribution. These matters could be secured at the reserved matters stage, by condition or by way of s106 agreement.
5.29 The submitted masterplan framework secures the retention of existing landscape features within the site as well as providing new landscaping on the edges of the site, in particular to the north adjacent to the A5 to create an attractive setting to the development, both within and on its edge.
5.30 The illustrative plans indicate that there would be no change to the alignment of the bridleway that runs through the application site but clearly its character would change as a result of the proposed development from a rural route through open agricultural land to one passing through an open landscaped linear corridor with development either side. The perception of users of the bridleway would change but important views through to the Greensands Ridge preserved. Consequently, although the impact would be localised, limited in extent and mitigated as far as possible there would not be such a change that would detract from the amenities and recreational value of the path as it exists today, apart from its more rural setting currently. Again this matter can be agreed at the reserved matters stage.
5.31 Archaeology
Policy HE1 provides justification for archaeological investigations to be undertaken when dealing with scheduled sites. Furthermore paragraph 128 of the NPPF sets out that:
‘…. Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation.’
5.32 The application site lies beyond any heritage assets in respect of either Conservation Areas or Listed Buildings.
5.33 The application is however supported by an archaeological report which assesses the archaeological value of the site and confirms that further archaeological investigation beyond desktop and field surveys can be conditioned and carried out prior to of development.
5.34 Both the Council’s Archaeologist and Heritage England confirm that the application site has high potential for significant buried archaeological remains, and that an appropriate field evaluation needs to be carried out prior to commencement. Without the provision of an archaeological field evaluation is not possible to demonstrate the sustainability of the development proposal in relation to heritage assets of archaeological interest (buried archaeological remains).
5.35 The Case Officer agrees that a field evaluation needs to be carried out, but is mindful that the application is in outline form with all matters being reserved. Although potential archaeological findings may dictate how those reserved are dealt with, this matter can be adequately dealt with at that stage. It is however considered to be appropriate to include a condition to ensure that a field evaluation is carried out to better inform the reserved matters process.
5.36 Subject to such a condition, the proposals are therefore consistent with policy HE1 and guidance in the NPPF.
5.37 Access and Highway Matters
Access
Whilst Access is a matter to be reserved it is anticipated that the principal vehicular means of access will be from the A4146 opposite a similar means of access to the approved Eaton Leys development.
5.38 Pedestrian and cycle access will also be along east west corridors to the A4146. The subsequent reserved matters application will address the details of the accesses and the crossing of the A4146.
5.39 Access is a reserved matter and will therefore be subject to a future reserved matters application. The planning application is accompanied by a Transport
Assessment and Travel Plan. The Transport Assessment addresses the issues associated with additional traffic generation from the development and its impact on the surrounding road network. This is in particular to the capacity of the local highway network including the A4146 and the A5 roundabout.
5.40 The Traffic Assessment confirms that the proposal can be accommodated satisfactorily on the A4146. In this regard, the Transport Assessment confirms:
1) It is proposed that vehicular access into the site will be located off the A4146, forming one arm of a four-arm signalised crossroads which will also provide access to the Eaton Leys development to the west. 2) New pedestrian and cycle facilities will be provided at the new junction arrangement enabling connectivity with the new redways that are proposed at Eaton Leys development. New bus stops are also proposed on the A4146 as part of the Eaton Leys development. 3) It is estimated that the proposed development could generate an additional 421 vehicles on the A4146 during the morning peak hour (8am to 9am) and 356 vehicles during the evening peak hour (5pm to 6pm). It is estimated that 93.5% of this traffic would route north towards the A5/A4146 roundabout with 6.5% routing south towards the A4146/Stoke Road roundabout.
5.41 As to the A4146 and its junction with the A5 (Kelly Kitchen roundabout), this is to be improved as part of the adjacent Eaton Leys development which will secure capacity at this junction for up to 1,800 additional dwellings. The improvements to this junction were discussed and agreed with Highways England. They will comprise changes to the A5 roundabout which would effectively provide a "circulatory through–about" for A5 south to A5 north and A5 north to A4146 south. These improvements will commence when Highways England conclude that the capacity of the roundabout is affected by the Eaton Leys development. On the basis that approval has only been granted for 600 dwellings there is spare capacity at this improved junction for a further 1,200 dwellings. The proposal is for up to 500 dwellings. With these improvements in place there should be no adverse highway capacity impacts arising at this junction. Moreover, utilising this spare capacity is a characteristic of sustainable development which reinforces the suitability of this location for additional much-needed residential development. The final detail on exactly what and the amount of improvements are required to the roundabout can be agreed at the reserved matters stage.
5.36 The proposals comply with policies D1 and T10 of the Local Plan and CS13 of the Core Strategy in this regard. The proposals will not result in additional traffic generation that will overload the existing network or cause undue disturbance, noise or fumes.
5.37 Parking Standards
The Application Masterplan indicates a development area for up to 500 dwellings supported by a land use budget. During pre-application discussions, the area set aside for residential development to support this level of development has been tested having regard to the Council’s Parking Standards 2016. Accordingly, the scale of the proposal is realistic and deliverable within the planning application site.
Notwithstanding this, car parking will be a matter for consideration when dealing with a reserved matters application for the layout of the site. It will be at this stage that there will be a need to ensure that car and cycle parking are provided in accordance with the Council’s standards for each individual home and any on street visitor parking generated by the scheme.
5.42 The application masterplan and image above shows how the existing bridleway that runs in and east west direction through the site will be retained within a new linear area of open space. In addition, a series of new pedestrian routes within the site designed to link up with existing footpaths to the west within the Eaton Leys development are planned. This will include new pedestrian and cycle facilities provided at the new junction arrangement into Eaton Leys enabling connectivity with the new redways that are proposed at the Eaton Leys development. New bus stops are also proposed on the A4146 as part of the Eaton Leys development which will be connected to by new footpaths within the application site.
5.43 Access is a reserved matter and as such additional pedestrian crossing(s) of the A4146 will be subject to a future application, which will detail the exact location and specification of the cycle/footpath crossing(s).
5.44 The east-west movement corridors in respect of vehicular, pedestrian and cycling will provide sustainable linkages between the proposed development and the neighbouring Eaton Leys neighbourhood and the existing urban area of Milton Keynes beyond.
5.45 Public Transport
The Transport Statement details the extension of bus routes 1 and 70 through the application site and the neighbouring Eaton Leys scheme. The proposed route highlighted above confirms that the high-frequency bus service planned will be within 400m of all the proposed homes consistent with the Council’s aspirations for public transport accessibility. The application submission is also accompanied by a Travel Plan.
5.46 On the basis that this is an outline application with all matters reserved it is considered that this matter can be addressed within a future application.
5.47 Overall the proposed development is considered acceptable with regard to its access. All highway matters will be controlled through subsequent reserved matters application.
5.48 The matter of highway works required to mitigate the proposed development has been the subject of discussions with the applicant.
5.49 The works offered by the applicant to mitigate for the proposed development are as follows: -
Redway along A4146 between the site access and the A5/A4146 R/b Redway along Watling Street between the A5/A4146 R/b and Fenny Stratford (or other point to be agreed)
Contribution to Redway on Brickhill Street Contribution to highway improvements at V10/H10 R/b Contribution to PT services serving the site Commitment to a second pedestrian and cycle crossing of the A4146 (i.e. additional to the one at the site access); type and location to be agreed
5.50 These matters can be secured within any s106 agreement.
5.51 Best and Most Versatile Land
Paragraph 112 of the NPPF states:
‘Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use area of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality.’
5.52 The planning application is accompanied by an Agricultural Land Classification Survey which demonstrates that part of the site includes Grade 2, 3a and 3b land. A large proportion of the site classified as Grade 2 and 3a will remain undeveloped when compared with the Application Masterplan. In this regard the proposal is sensitive to the agricultural classification of the site.
5.53 Nevertheless given the sustainable location of the site, and the benefits of the scheme in light of the identified housing need it is considered that an assessment of the likely impact to the rural economy/ability to provide food and non-food crops for future generations locally, and the best quality agricultural land would not be used in the development, would not outweigh the benefits that arise from the proposed development.
5.54 Residential Amenity
As previously mentioned, layout and scale, amongst other matters, are not under consideration in this application.
5.55 Saved policy D1 of the adopted Local Plan and the guidance in the New Residential Design Guide seek to ensure that the amenity of both existing and future residents will not be compromised, thus reflecting the requirements of Paragraph 17 of the NPPF. The impact that the proposal would have on residential amenity is an important consideration of this planning application. Residential amenity includes noise, odour, vibration through construction and overshadowing and overlooking from the dwellings once built. No residential property has the right to a view, however, outlook from a residential property that would normally be considered to be expected in a residential area, in accordance with New Residential Design Guide would be a material planning consideration.
5.56 The application site is presently located some distance from existing residents that lie further to the west beyond the River Ouzel. The proposals will therefore have no direct impact upon these communities. The future residents at Eaton Leys will lie on
the far side of the A4146 and separated by corresponding landscape buffers. As a result, there will be no direct impact upon these future residents either.
5.57 The proposed development does not seek direct vehicular access through existing residential areas, provides education, retail and community facilities on site such that the impact on neighbouring residential areas and settlements will be limited. Furthermore, the proposal will provide additional public open space on site together with offsite financial contributions to improve existing formal open spaces which will also ensure limited impact on neighbouring residential areas and settlements.
5.58 The application scheme is also well separated from the village of Little Brickhill. There will be no physical relationship with this outlying village, whilst the landscape containment of Little Brickhill will remain intact with no views from within the village of the proposal. Furthermore, as illustrated on the density plan, the proposal ensures that development will be of a lower density on the eastern side to respect the rural edge of the development and the setting of Little Brickhill. The proposal remains at a lower level, not extending up the ridge where the village lies. As a result, the proposal will not impact upon longer distant views from the ridge which are in any event characterised by views of Milton Keynes. The proposals will not therefore have any impact on the residents of Little Brickhill in terms of their standard of living and environment.
5.59 A full assessment against the Milton Keynes Residential Design Guide SPD will take place at the reserved matters stage when design, layout and scale will be considered. However, the proposed Application Masterplan and associated Land Use Budget confirm that the proposals for up to 500 dwellings can be accommodated on the application site consistent with the Council’s Residential Design Guide, open space standards, highway guidance and parking requirements. As demonstrated below in respect of open space, the future residents will enjoy a high-quality new residential environment set amongst high-quality areas of open space, including a Linear Park through the centre of the development, a sensitively placed Neighbourhood Play Area and Local Play Areas, together with a central green open space as well as woodland edges and landscaped streets.
5.60 In respect of air-quality and noise issues, the proposal is set back from the A5 and A4146 to ensure that there is little risk of any air-quality/noise objectives being exceeded. These matters will in any event be addressed at the reserved matters stage, and a noise impact assessment can be condition which will help inform the layout of the scheme, as recommended by the Council’s Environmental Health Officer. In terms of ground contamination, the Council’s Environmental Health Officer is satisfied that the risk to the future occupants of the development is low, but requests a condition relating to unforeseen contamination be placed on any planning approval.
5.61 To conclude the proposals at this outline stage do not conflict with saved policy D1 of the Local Plan or Core Strategy policy CS10 in respect of high-quality, ground conditions, and residential amenity (outlook, overbearing, daylight/sunlight and privacy), subject to further assessment at the reserved matters stage.
5.62 Ecology
A primary aim of the NPPF is to contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment and requires decision-makers to not only conserve but enhance biodiversity. Policies NE3 of the local plan and CS19 of the Core Strategy reflect this national guidance locally by requiring net gains in biodiversity.
5.63 Part of the application site lies within one of the Council's Wildlife Corridors that runs parallel with the A5. This has a width of approximately 60 metres. As evident from the illustration below this currently has limited wildlife and ecologically interest. Criterion iii of policy NE1 states that development likely to harm the conservation value of these local wildlife corridors will only be permitted if the importance of the development outweighs the local value of the site.
5.64 The application is supported by ecological surveys and strategies.
5.65 The ecological report confirms that the corridor in its current form has limited value. As illustrated below, the proposals for this corridor comprising a new landscape bund and buffer area. These will significantly enhance the value and quality of the local wildlife corridor thereby ensuring that the proposals are compliant with policies NE3 of the Local Plan and CS19 of the Core Strategy.
5.66 The proposal includes substantial areas of green infrastructure providing significant opportunities to enhance the biodiversity value of the site leading to the proposal resulting in a net gain for biodiversity.
5.67 The proposed development framework illustrated on the Application Masterplan incorporates a strong linear open space through the centre of the site either side of the existing bridleway. In addition, the Application Masterplan also highlights and preserves the existing pattern of field hedgerows and higher quality trees on site to provide development compartments framed by these existing landscape features which will preserve and enhance the biodiversity value of the site.
5.68 The creation of new woodland/landscape buffet edges of up to 20 metres in depth will also create significant opportunities for biodiversity enhancements.
5.69 Finally the ecology report also assesses the potential effects on Kings & Bakers Woods & Heaths SSSI and finds no detrimental impact. An issue of air quality was raised by Natural England in relation to the impact of the Eaton Leys development on this SSSI. However, a detailed air quality assessment was carried out for the Eaton Leys scheme which concluded that effects on the SSSI would not be significant. The ecologist have drawn on this work and concluded that as the application scheme is for considerably fewer dwellings it is unlikely to have a significant effect on the SSSI. This is confirmed at paragraphs 3.1.11 to 3.1.12 of the ecological report.
5.70 Collectively it is evident that the proposed development will enhance the biodiversity value of the site and contribute to the environmental objectives in the NPPF and Development Plan policies NE1, NE3 and CS19 of the Core Strategy, in ecology terms.
5.71 Surface Water Drainage / Flooding
The NPPF states that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. This guidance is echoed in Policy D1 of the Local Plan which advises that planning permission will be refused where inadequate drainage is identified.
5.72 The application site lies in Flood Zone 1 such that the proposals will have no direct impact upon any floodplain or the characteristics of the River Ouzel.
5.73 The application is supported by a Flood Risk Assessment which also highlights the sustainable urban drainage strategy for the site and how it is incorporated into the design of the masterplan comprising of several forms of attenuation swales and ponds.
5.74 Development of the site will provide an opportunity to improve the risk from flooding by providing a formal drainage strategy, managing surface water overland flow and discharging surface water runoff from the development. It is recommended that an existing culvert within the channel of the ordinary watercourse along the site’s southwestern boundary, which will no longer be required as a watercourse crossing when the site is developed, is removed and the channel is opened up to increase the channel capacity at this location. Furthermore, it may be possible to de-silt the off-site structures, thereby restoring the pipes to their original design capacity and reducing the risk of water backing up, subject to consultation with the Lead Local Flood Authority.
5.75 An undeveloped buffer/maintenance strip will be located between the proposed development and the watercourse to ensure that the proposed development is located outside of any risk of fluvial, surface water and potential groundwater flooding. It is also recommended that additional storage/landscaping is provided within the site’s western buffer to mitigate against the risk of backing of up waters at structures outside of the site boundary. In addition, the site is considered to be at very low risk from reservoir flooding and there are no historical records of flooding within the site, including sewer flooding. The proposals for residential development constitute a ‘More Vulnerable’ Classification, which is considered appropriate within Flood Zone 1. Furthermore, the site is not subject to either the Sequential Test or Exception Test.
5.76 The Surface Water Drainage Strategy for the proposed development demonstrates that surface water can be accommodated on site up to the 1 in 100 annual probability event, with allowance for climate change. The site will continue to drain through three catchments and, as such, surface water runoff generated from the site will be discharged into three locations: the ordinary watercourse, the western field drain and the northern field drain. Surface water will be discharged via strategically located attenuation basins and/or swales. The purpose of the Surface Water Drainage Strategy is to provide workable options for the management of surface water runoff on-site which can be further refined at the detailed design stage.
5.77 The Surface Water Drainage Strategy also outlines maintenance and adoption requirements for the drainage system proposed on site. The Surface Water Drainage Strategy has been designed to meet the requirements of Milton Keynes Council, the Bedford Group of Internal Drainage Boards and to be in line with industry best practice.
5.78 Mitigation measures for the site include setting finished floor levels at least 150mm above surrounding ground levels and setting site levels to direct overland flow away from dwellings if the SuDS features were to surcharge during an event of higher magnitude than the 1 in 100 annual probability event, with allowance for climate change.
5.79 The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has not identified any significant on or off site flood risk implications arising from the proposals that could be regarded as an encumbrance to the development. It is therefore recommended that the proposals set out within the FRA will ensure that the proposed development will be compliant with the requirements of planning guidance and contemporary flood risk management.
5.80 A Detailed Drainage Strategy will be required to be submitted to the Lead Local Flood Authority for approval as part of any reserved matters stage, but no further information is required at this time. Given the above assessment, the proposal complies with Policy D1 of the Local Plan in terms of drainage matters.
5.81 S106 Contributions and Affordable Housing
5.82 Policy CS21 of the Core Strategy requires that development of the scale proposed adequately addresses impact on local infrastructure. The calculation set out in paragraph A3.19 of this report for these impacts are derived from the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Documents.
5.83 Saved Policy H4 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011 and The Affordable Housing SPD seeks 30% Affordable Housing (25% Affordable Rent of which 5% of the development should be at levels broadly equivalent to Social Rent and 5% Shared Ownership in Accordance with the Affordable Housing SPD. A greater amount of 40% has been offered in this application, and agreed.
5.84 The applicant is committed to entering into a Section 106 agreement with Milton Keynes Council to address obligations required by planning policy to support the proposed development. Draft heads of terms include matters relating to: • Affordable Housing (40%) • Education • Leisure, Recreation and Sport • Social Infrastructure • Highways and Transport (including Redway linkages / second pedestrian and cycle crossing of the A4146) • Carbon Offsetting
5.85 The application proposes the development of a new 1 Form Entry Primary School on site which has been confirmed in pre-application discussions by the Council’s education sufficiency planning officers as acceptable. The applicant agrees to the provision of the primary school and the provision of education contributions in accordance with the Council’s SPD in respect of secondary pupils and post 16 pupils. Accordingly, the proposals will offset the development proposals impact in terms of education provision consistent with Development Plan policy.
5.86 The Case Officer can confirm that they meet the tests for obligations as outlined at paragraph 204 of the NPPF and are in accordance with CIL Regulations 122 and 123. These have also all been agreed and form part of the heads of terms for the S.106 agreement.
5.87 If Members are minded to grant permission it should be noted that a decision will not be issued until the s106 has been completed in accordance with the above requirements.
5.88 Cumulative Impact
The Parish Council and a large number of the third party objectors raise concerns regarding the cumulative effect of this development and other developments recently approved in the locality, namely at Eaton leys.
5.89 In terms of the impact of the development on infrastructure, as with the Eaton Leys development, should planning permission be forthcoming for the current application, it would be subject to section 106 agreements to secure infrastructure and other improvements to offset the impact of the development.
5.90 Turning to the open character of the countryside, whilst there are policies seeking to protect the countryside as addressed above, population growth in sustainable locations because they lie in open countryside, when the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, in their own right is not a justifiable planning objection and would be contrary to the expectation in the NPPF for planning to seek to significantly boost the supply of housing.
5.91 Sustainable Development
Recent planning approvals for residential development within the locality at Eaton Leys establish the area as a sustainable location. With the approval of the Eaton Leys development, the site is affectively located on the urban edge of Milton Keynes.
5.92 However, the NPPF identifies that there are 3 dimensions to sustainable development: social; economic; and, environmental. These are assessed below along with the public benefits of the scheme.
Social Benefits
5.93 The social benefits of the scheme would include a significant contribution towards making up the shortfall in housing site already identified. Thereby it would facilitate
the Government’s aim of boosting significantly the supply of housing. This can be attributed substantial weight in favour of the application.
5.94 In addition, under the terms of the section 106, 40% of the proposed units would contribute towards meeting the need for Affordable Housing in the District, exceeding the requirements of Local Plan Policy H4 (30%) and the aims of the NPPF. Substantial weight can be given in favour of the application to the provision made for Affordable Housing.
5.95 Although introduced as a mitigating measure, provision of contributions towards upgrading cycle networks and road junctions (shared with the Eaton Leys development) would benefit the whole community. Moderate weight is given to this however, as much of this is required to ensure the development is policy compliant in highway/access terms.
Economic Benefits
5.96 The economic benefits of the scheme would include the creation of construction jobs and associated expenditure, albeit in the short term which is likely to be associated with the build out of the site. Whilst expenditure of future residents of the site would also be likely to boost the local economy, the Council has not been provided with evidence to show that it is necessary to secure the viability of local services. Under the circumstances, the case officer gives the economic benefits claimed by the applicant only limited weight.
Environmental Benefits
5.97 Given the nature of the application and limited matters to be considered, there has been indication that the scheme would include a net gain to biodiversity, which to some extent is another benefit of the proposals. Features such as new planting areas, bat and bird boxes, amongst other things, could lead to a net gain to biodiversity, in keeping with the aims of the Framework. These matters could be secured through the imposition of conditions related to landscaping and biodiversity and the reserved matters stage. Given the limited information available at this time, the Case Officer gives this limited weight.
5.98 However, overall, the Case Officer considers that the public benefits of the scheme weigh heavily in its favour.
Harm
5.99 The proposal would be likely to cause less than substantial harm to the significance of designated heritage assets nearby scheduled Roman town of Magiovinium, albeit negligible given the scope for appropriate layout, mitigation and recording at the reserved matters stage. The NPPF indicates that where a development will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, that harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Notwithstanding that great weight is attributed to the assets’ conservation, considering the likely negligible harm caused if a suitable layout, mitigation and recording is secured, it would be significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the
public benefits of this scheme, which, having considered the availability of housing sites, is needed to help boost the supply of housing.
5.100 Whilst the scheme would result in the loss of an area of agricultural land, it does not comprise the best and most versatile agricultural land, which the NPPF seeks to safeguard. Limited weight against the development can be given to the loss of agricultural land.
5.101 In addition to the harm to the significance of designated heritage assets and harm associated with the loss of agricultural land, the Case Officer considers that the scheme would harm the character of the local area and would conflict with the Council’s spatial development strategy. With particular reference to these matters, the proposal would conflict with the Development Plan taken as a whole.
5.102 However, policies CS1 and CS9 should not be considered up-to-date and therefore less weight given to them, and that there is an element of conflict between policy S10 and the aims of the NPPF. As concluded by the Inspector in the recent appeal decision at Long Street (and others), adherence to the defined development boundaries would be likely to greatly limit the extent to which shortfalls in housing land supply could be addressed. The Council’s current housing land supply position significantly weighs in favour of the proposed development.
Deliverability
5.103 The application site is in single ownership and control under an option agreement with The Guinness Partnership. The Guinness Partnership is a well-established registered provider of new homes who have a track record in delivering housing schemes.
5.104 The applicant is committed to the delivery of this scheme and have confirmed that they intend to build it out following the grant of planning permission. In this regard they have confirmed to the Council the acceptance of a two year reserved matters condition in order to fast track the deliverability of the scheme to meet important housing needs in the immediate future.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
6.1 With the Councils current inability to demonstrate a five year housing land supply, the strategic policies of the development plan are out of date as outlined by the National Planning Policy Framework. Having weighed all other matters, the proposed development is considered to represent a sustainable form of development in terms of its social, environmental and economic functions and the proposed development is therefore acceptable in principle. All detailed matters will be considered under future reserved matters applications at a later date. In light of the report set out above approval is recommended.
6.2 There would be some harm from development in the countryside, the resulting adverse impacts would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits that arise from these proposals when assessed against the policies in the NPPF
taken as a whole, then the proposals would comprise sustainable development and planning permission should be granted subject to conditions and s106 agreement.
7.0 CONDITIONS
1) Details of the access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development takes place and the development shall be carried out as approved.
Reason: Outline Planning Permission only is granted in accordance with the application submitted.
2) Applications for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than 2 years from the date of this permission. The development hereby permitted shall take place not later than 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.
Reason: To comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
3) The development hereby permitted shall not exceed 500 dwellings (Use Class C3). The use classes are those set out in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2010 or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking or re-enacting that order with or without modification.
Reason: To ensure development conforms to the outline planning permission.
4) Prior to the commencement of any phase or part of the development an Access and Movement Plan and Phasing Plan including pedestrian and cycle links, public transport infrastructure and a timing programme of works for that phase or part of shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. There shall be no occupation in any development phase or part until the highways infrastructure to serve that phase or part has been constructed and opened to traffic in accordance the approved plan.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of connection through the site and to the surrounding highway networks is provided at an appropriate time.
5) If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained approval in writing from the Local Planning Authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.
Reason: To protect and prevent the pollution of controlled waters from potential pollutants associated with current and previous land uses in line with the National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 109, 120 and 121 and Environment Agency Ground Protection: Principles and Practice.
6) Reserved matters applications for each phase or part of the development hereby permitted shall include details of the proposed finished floor levels of all buildings and the finished ground levels in relation to existing surrounding ground levels for that phase or part. Development for that phase of part shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved levels.
Reason: To ensure that development is carried out at suitable levels.
7) Prior to the commencement of each phase or part of the development hereby permitted a detailed design, and associated management and maintenance plan, for a surface and storm water drainage scheme, based on sustainable drainage principles for the site (as outlined in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy by DPA, ref: 41105-4003, dated 4th December 2017) shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the local planning authority. The management and maintenance plan shall include a detailed time table for the provision of the surface water drainage scheme. The approved drainage scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved detailed design and in accordance with the approved time table for implementation and be retained and maintained thereafter.
Reason: To ensure satisfactory and sustainable surface water drainage to prevent the increased risk of flooding on or off site.
8) Prior to the commencement of development of each phase or part of the development, a foul water strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No dwellings in that phase or part shall be occupied until the works have been carried out in accordance with the approved foul water strategy for that phase or part.
Reason: To prevent environmental and problems arising from flooding.
9) Reserved matters applications for each phase or part of the development shall include a scheme to provide car parking and cycle parking and manoeuvring of vehicles within the development in accordance with the Milton Keynes Council Parking Standards SPD (2016) or any subsequent parking standards adopted at the time any reserved matters application is submitted and in accordance with the Council's New Residential Development Design Guide (2012) or any further guidance on parking that may be adopted at the time any reserved matters application is submitted. The approved scheme shall be implemented and made available for use for each dwelling prior to the occupation of that dwelling and shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose.
Reason: To enable vehicles to draw off, park, load/unload and turn clear of the highway to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway.
10) Reserved matters applications for each phase or part of the development, an open space specification which includes the details and specification for all areas of open space including the Neighbourhood Play Area shall be submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The open space specification shall also include the timing for laying out of all areas of open space including any Play Areas and the long term management and maintenance arrangements for all open space and play facilities. The development shall be provided in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure that adequate provision of open space/play areas is made within the development in accordance with saved Policy L3 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.
11) Reserved matters applications for each phase or part of the development hereby permitted shall include a landscaping scheme with detailed drawings showing which trees and hedgerows are to be retained and which trees and hedgerows are proposed to be felled or lopped. The landscaping scheme shall also show numbers, types and sizes of trees and shrubs to be planted including their locations in relation to associated infrastructure and a species list to include native species and species beneficial to wildlife. Any trees and shrubs removed, dying, severely damaged or diseased within 2 years of planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with trees or shrubs of such size and species to be agreed with the local planning authority in writing.
Reason: To protect the appearance and character of the area and to minimise the effect of development on the area in accordance with Saved Policy D2 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.
12) Prior to the commencement of any works on site all existing trees and hedgerows to be retained in the site shall be protected according to the provisions of BS 5837:2012 ‘Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction- recommendations’.
Reason: To protect the appearance and character of the area and to minimise the effect of development on the area in accordance with Saved Policy D2 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.
13) Any protected species survey report in excess of three years old at the time of the commencement of development of each phase or part of the development shall be updated and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development of that phase or part of the development. Natural England derogation license(s) shall be obtained for any protected species likely to be harmed by works on the site prior to the commencement of the development.
Reason: To safeguard protected species and biodiversity in accordance with saved Policy NE2 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.
14) Prior to the commencement of any phase or part of the development hereby permitted a Biodiversity Enhancement and Management Scheme detailing the net gain, specification and locations of biodiversity enhancements and their long term management including bird and bat boxes incorporated into the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
submitted scheme shall be in accordance with the recommendations proposed in the Ecological Appraisal by Aspect Ecology (Ref: 5167-EcoAp.vf/LN/DS, dated 1st December 2017). The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the development and retained thereafter.
Reason: To ensure development includes biodiversity enhancement measures in accordance with saved Policy NE3 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2005.
15) Reserved matters applications for each phase or part of the development hereby permitted, shall include details of the proposed boundary treatments for that phase or part. The approved boundary treatments shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details for that phase or part and be completed prior to the first occupation of each dwelling or first use of such phase or part of the development.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance for the development in the interests of visual amenity and privacy.
16) Reserved matters applications for each phase or part of the development shall include a lighting scheme for all public and private streets and areas, footpaths and parking areas. The lighting scheme shall include details of what lights are being proposed, a lux plan showing maximum, minimum, average and uniformity levels, details of means of electricity supply to each light and how the lights will be managed and maintained in the future. If any lighting is required within the vicinity of current or built-in bat features, it shall be low level with baffles to direct the light away from the boxes and units, thus preventing severance of bat commuting and foraging routes. The approved scheme for each phase or part shall be implemented prior to the first use or occupation of that phase or part.
Reason: In the interests of safety and amenity and in order to comply with saved policy NE2 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.
17) Reserved matters applications for each phase or part of the development hereby permitted shall incorporate measures to minimise the risk of crime in accordance with Secured By Design principles. A written statement identifying how the principles have been incorporated shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the first occupation of each phase or part of the development to which the statement relates.
Reason: To design out crime and promote well-being in the area, in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS19.
18) Reserved matters applications for each phase or part of the development shall be accompanied by a Sustainability Statement for that phase or part including as a minimum details required by saved policy D4 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001- 2011 and accompanying Supplementary Planning Document Sustainable Construction Guide. The approved details shall be implemented for each dwelling prior to the occupation of that dwelling.
Reason: To ensure the development complies with saved Policy D4 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011
19) Prior to the commencement of any phase or part of the development hereby permitted a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP shall include Noise Action Levels (based on a noise survey) and site procedures to be adopted during the course of construction including working hours, intended routes for construction traffic, details of vehicle wheel washing facilities, location of site compound, lighting and security and how dust and other emissions will be controlled. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved CEMP.
Reason: To ensure that there are adequate mitigation measures in place and in the interests of existing and future residents in accordance with Policy CS13 of the Milton-Keynes Core Strategy 2013 and Saved Policy D1 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.
20) None of the dwellings hereby permitted shall be occupied prior to the implementation of the approved Framework Travel Plan by PBA (Ref: 5505/TP, dated December 2017 (or any subsequent Travel Plan updated at reserved matters stage). Those parts of the approved Travel Plan that are identified therein of being capable of implementation after occupation shall be actioned in accordance with the timetable contained therein and shall continue to be implemented as long as any or part of the development is occupied with a minimum of annual reporting for the first 5 years, biennially thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that the development complies with the sustainable aims and objectives of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 and the NPPF.
21) Reserved matters applications for each phase or part of the development hereby permitted shall be accompanied by a noise impact assessment. The recommendations for noise mitigation set out in any noise impact assessment shall be incorporated into the details submitted under any subsequent reserved matters application.
Reason: In the interests of the amenities of future occupiers of the dwelling houses.
22) Details of the external materials to be used in the development hereby permitted shall accompany the reserved matters application(s). The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To protect the appearance and character of the area and to minimise the effect of development on the area in accordance with Saved Policy D2 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.
23) No building shall be occupied in any phase of part of the development until the estate road which it provides access to from the existing highway has been laid out and constructed in accordance with the approved details under the reserved matters application(s).
Reasons: To provide satisfactory highway connections to the local highway network.
24) Reserved matters applications for each phase or part of the development hereby permitted shall be accompanied by details of ground surface areas around the buildings, including roads, drives, parking areas, kerbs, footways, patios, terraces and other amenity surfaces, including areas for earth moulding and contouring. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interest of highway and pedestrian safety within the development and nearby highway network.
25) Reserved matters applications for each phase or part of the development hereby approved shall include details of the location and type (mix and tenure) of Affordable Housing pursuant to the development phase or part for which the approval is sought. Each phase or part of the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure that the development provide an adequate amount and variety of affordable homes which complies with the sustainable aims and objectives of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 and the NPPF.
26) Reserved matters applications for each phase or part of the development shall include timing of delivery of all associated Green Infrastructure. This includes footpaths, and the created elements of the landscape management strategy. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved delivery plan prior to the occupation of any dwelling within that phase.
Reason: To ensure that the development provides green infrastructure in a timely manner to take account the increase in recreational pressure.
27) Prior to the commencement of each phase or part of the development hereby permitted a programme of archaeological field evaluation comprising trial trenching shall be completed. The programme of archaeological evaluation shall be detailed in a Written Scheme of Investigation submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. On completion of the agreed archaeological field evaluation for each phase or part a further Written Scheme of Investigation for a programme of archaeological mitigation in respect of any identified areas of significant buried archaeological remains shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include an assessment of significance and research questions – and: i) the programme and methodology of site investigation and recording; ii) the programme for post investigation assessment; iii) the provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording; iv) the provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation; v) the provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation; vi) the nomination of a competent person or persons/organization to
undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation.
No development in any phase or part shall take place other than in accordance with the approved Written Scheme of Investigation. The development hereby permitted shall not be first occupied until the site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed in accordance with the programme set out in the approved Written Scheme of Investigation and the provision made for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition has been secured.
Reason: To ensure that a proper record is produced of any archaeological remains affected by the development pursuant to paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
28) Notwithstanding the submitted illustrative scheme and prior to the submission of any applications relating to the Reserved Matters, a Design Code shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted Design Code shall set out the proposed vision and key design principles for the Development to include (but not limited to) the following details: building height, building massing, building materials, key elevational and architectural principles, sustainable construction, access and servicing, location of entrances, weather protection, extent of active and/or animated frontage, public realm materials including footways, landscaping, street furniture, and linkages to the surrounding public realm. The Design Code shall include an assessment of how it has taken into account: existing and emerging national, local and neighbourhood planning policy and supplementary planning guidance and documents; the approved Parameters Plans; and the Site's location at a prominent location within Central Milton Keynes and the setting of the grade II listed Shopping Building. The details submitted for the Reserved Matters shall be in accordance with the approved Design Code and the Development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Design Code.
Reason: To ensure that the development hereby permitted suitably addresses its location at a prominent location within Central Milton Keynes, the setting of the grade II listed Shopping Building and to ensure that the development is of sufficient quality and standing to offset the loss of The Point, which is a landmark building for Milton Keynes.
Planning Obligations
40% Affordable Housing - tenure split will be 33.2% affordable rent (of which 6.64% will be social rent) and 6 .64% will be shared ownership Offsite provision in respect of Playing Fields and District Parks are to be provided by way of an offsite contribution As set out in section A3.19
Appendix to 17/03233/OUT
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)
None
A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS (Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)
None
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) A3.1 Little Brickhill Parish Council
Little Brickhill Parish Council believes the proposed development to be wholly inappropriate and should be refused for the following reasons: Little Brickhill is a small village of just 140 homes and the development of 500 homes would swamp our village and permanently destroy its rural nature and the character of the surrounding area.. The Parish Council believes that the application is contrary to the approved development strategy as set out within the Core Strategy 2013. Policy CS1 of the approved Core Strategy 2013 seeks to concentrate development firstly in and on the edge of Milton Keynes City and the key settlements of Newport Pagnell, Olney and Woburn Sands. There are numerous permissions (22,000 units) that developers have not yet commenced; Milton Keynes should bring pressure to bear on the land banking developers rather than allowing opportunistic developers making applications for inappropriate permissions. The site has not been allocated for development and the site lies in an area of attractive landscape within open countryside and to which established policies of rural restraint apply. The site has previously been considered and ruled out for development by Milton Keynes Council The development is contrary to Local Plan policy S10 which states that in open countryside planning permission will only be given for development that is essential for agriculture, forestry, countryside recreation or other development which is wholly appropriate to a rural area and cannot be located within a settlement. The open views from Little Brickhill and the Greensand Ridge, towards Milton Keynes, will be compromised which is contrary to the Milton Keynes Landscape Character Assessment of 2016.
The existing traffic volume is already excessive and the increased volume
that the Eaton Leys development will create will cause significant issues
and delays. The addition of Junction 11a to the M1 has also caused
increased traffic on the A5. The increased volume of traffic will encourage
vehicles to use Great Brickhill Lane as a ‘rat run’ from the A4146 to access
the A5. This is already an increasing problem in the village and this
development combined with Eaton Leys will make the problem intolerable.
The proposed highways improvements will fail to mitigate the impact of the
applicant’s proposal.
The Parish Council considers that the site should be reserved until the
precise route of the Oxford to Cambridge expressway is finalised.
Little Brickhill has existed as an independent settlement for over 2000 years. We
were a Roman settlement and subsequently a Saxon village producing floor tiles
for towns and villages across England. We are mentioned in the Doomsday book
and have remained an established rural community ever since.
Little Brickhill Parish Council implores the council to refuse this application; if it was to be permitted our village life and our independence would be permanently compromised. In addition to providing homes for incoming residents, Milton Keynes has an obligation to protect the way of life of small rural communities and Little Brickhill Parish Council trusts that they will continue to honour that obligation.
Woburn Sands Town Council A3.2 This area of land appears as Open Space in both the existing Milton Keynes Core Strategy and in Plan:MK which is to replace it. It is a highly speculative development on land which is not scheduled anywhere in planning documents for housing development.
The area in question is part of the approach to the Greensand Ridge, an area which is protected from development by its designation as an area of attractive landscape. This area performs a vital function for the whole of Milton Keynes as an area for leisure pursuits and is highly significant ecologically.
Developers are targeting similar land right the way through from the outskirts of Little Brickhill to Woburn Sands and Aspley Guise. This continual southwards creep of the built up are of Milton Keynes right up to the Greensand Ridge must be halted.
The rural area in which this application is located relies entirely on travelling to facilities at a distance thus threatening to add to the congestion on local roads which already exists. No secondary schooling or medical facilities are within reasonable reach of such a sizeable settlement.
Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council A3.3 No comment
Bow Brickhill Parish Council A3.4 Bow Brickhill Parish Council (BBPC) would like register it's strong objection to the above planning application for the reasons outlined below.
The development is located at the foot of an area designated AAL (area of attractive landscape). The Greensands Ridge provides one of the most important green spaces within Milton Keynes with its impressive established Woodland recognised as a haven for wildlife and also a place for outdoor leisure activities. The effects of both the development itself and the traffic created by it would cause a severe reduction in both the attractive view of and from the area and irreversible damage to ecology and wildlife at both the proposed development site and the Greensand Ridge. This land is classified as open countryside, it is not included in the existing plan (Core Strategy) nor is it in the emerging Plan:MK as land for development.
Working farmland is a vital and shrinking resource in the food chain and is recognised as such within NPPF. The combination of flood land to protect and prevent widespread local damage and the ability to grow food locally must be of far greater benefit to both Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire in terms of sustainability than the development could achieve.
Bow Brickhill is already experiencing serious traffic problems with the main road through the village attempting to cope with in excess of 10000 vehicles per day. The frequency of trains using the Bletchley to Bedford Line has risen and the level crossing now closes at least twice hourly (not including freight use) for up to 15 minutes at a time. Network Rail have noted it is unlikely to find a solution to bridging the crossing. The expansion of Woburn Sands by 50% combined with potential traffic volumes from the recently approved Eaton Leys site and the proposed site would place unacceptable pressure on the existing road network of Fenny Stratford, Stoke Hammond, Little Brickhill, Great Brickhill, Bow Brickhill and Woburn Sands.
It is understood that MK Council is confident it has a five-year land supply, but even if this is proven not to be the case the final version of the Site Allocation Plan is understood to identify 21 sites across MK that can be called upon to meet any shortfall. Levante Gate is not one of those sites.
Whilst Councillors accept the need for additional homes, such a vast development on working farmland at the foot of an Area of Attractive Landscape with a road network unable to cope and already struggling with existing numbers the proposal is clearly highly unsuitable. BBPC would therefore respectfully request the application be refused.
Bedford Borough Council A3.5 No comments
Highways England A3.6 Initial representation requested that further information was submitted. A revised Transport Assessment was subsequently submitted to address the concerns raised.
Formal representations have not been received in relation to the revised Transport Assessment, at the time of writing this report. Highways England do not object to the scheme, but they wish to consider how best to mitigate against the impact of the development (at the Kelly Kitchen roundabout) whether by condition or within the s106 agreement. However further comments received will be reported to members at the Development Control Committee.
Council’s Highway Engineer A3.7 Initial representation requested that further information was submitted. A revised Transport Assessment was subsequently submitted to address the concerns raised.
No objection subject to the following should be included in the s.106: Redway along A4146 between the site access and the A5/A4146 R/b Redway along Watling Street between the A5/A4146 R/b and Fenny Stratford (or other point to be agreed) Contribution to Redway on Brickhill Street Contribution to highway improvements at V10/H10 R/b Contribution to PT services serving the site Commitment to a second pedestrian and cycle crossing of the A4146 (i.e. additional to the one at the site access); type and location to be agreed
However, recommends that a decision is not made until Highways England have made representations on the revised Transport Assessment.
Lead Local Flood Authority A3.8 No objection subject to conditions relating to a detailed surface water drainage scheme, and phase specific surface water drainage schemes, and a whole life maintenance plan for the drainage systems.
Network Rail A3.9 The Transport Assessment states, “Rail Bletchley Rail Station is the site’s closest link to the rail network situated approximately 2km to the northwest of the site. This station features direct and frequent services to Birmingham, Bedford and London. Central Milton Keynes, located approximately 8km northwest of the site, is also accessible via Bletchley Rail Station. There are an estimated three services per hour that operate between Bletchley and Central Milton Keynes with an approximate journey time of five minutes. Access to Bletchley Rail Station is achievable via bus service 162 which terminates at the adjacent bus station. In addition, cycling 3.5 miles to the station via Route 6 of the National Cycle Network would take approximately 30 minutes from the A4146. Therefore, this represents a viable option to undertake a linked-trip with the rail services operating from Bletchley.”
Consideration should be given to developer funding for:
Increased cycle storage facilities at Bletchley Railway Station Potential increase in vehicles from the development requiring parking in the vicinity of the station.
Consideration should be given in the Transport Assessment for the potential of increased footfall at Bletchley Railway Station. Location of the proposal, accessibility and density of the development, trip generation data should be considered in relation to the station. Where proposals are likely to increase footfall and the need for car parking at Bletchley Railway Station, the council should consider developer contributions (either via CIL, S106) to provide funding for enhancements.
Any proposed development at this location should include a Transport Assessment that takes into consideration the level crossing with the developer fully funding any mitigation measures.
Natural England A3.10 In summary:
Based upon the information provided, Natural England advises the Council that the proposal is unlikely to affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes. We have not assessed this application and associated documents for impacts on protected species.
Additional Considerations The Lavente Gate linear park currently runs along a right of way towards the Eaton Leys development. According to the Eaton Leys Master Plan a linear park runs through Eaton Leys, on the Aylesbury Vale side of the development, along a drain towards the Ouzel river. This linear park is currently further south than the Lavente Gate linear park, ie they don’t link up. In the final lay out please ensure that the linear parks line up. It would be ideal if a road underpass could be provided for pedestrians and wildlife to access the full length of the park all the way to the river. We would also like to see a firm commitment to >50% greenspace to be consistent with Eaton Leys and also provide green infrastructure (GI) in line with the Milton Keynes GI strategy.
Advice on ecology and landscape enhancements.
Anglian Water A3.11 In summary:
The foul drainage from this development is in the catchment of Cotton Valley Water Recycling Centre that will have available capacity for these Flows.
Requests a condition requiring the drainage strategy.
The Local Planning Authority should seek the advice of the Lead Local Flood Authority or the Internal Drainage Board.
Landscape A3.12 In summary:
Objection on grounds of the loss of open countryside would set a precedent for other development proposals which cumulatively would have an adverse effect on the landscape character and the wider environment.
A3.13 Tree Officer
The layout appears to retain virtually all of the hedgerows and the trees which is laudable. The trees and hedgerows on site should be retained and protected in accordance with BS 5837:2012.
Some of the trees surveyed are in poor structural condition and have been graded as U – Remove. The survey schedule notes of these trees that; ‘If retained, avoid increasing frequency of land use in target area or any works within RPA’, this provision should be followed. As some of these U category trees are large old Veteran Trees, they are important biological/ecological features and should be retained with sufficient provision made for public safety, and with sufficient provision for protection during the construction phase.
Suggests conditions for tree/hedge protection.
A3.14 Heritage England
In Summary:
The application does not comply with the National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPF) in that insufficient information is provided to allow adequate understanding of the significance of the heritage assets which may be affected. This applies both to the undesignated and designated heritage assets and includes the adjacent scheduled monument, the Roman town of Magiovinium. Historic England objects to this application on heritage grounds.
Support for comments made by MKC Archaeologist, who recommends:
Applicant to carry out and report on archaeological field evaluation comprising geophysical survey (100% detailed magnetometry) and trial trenching in line with para. 128 NPPF prior to the determination of the application. This is necessary to better characterise the significance and extent of these remains, in line with NPPF 128 and to allow for all options for their mitigation including avoidance and/or preservation in situ to be considered.
A3.15 MKC Archaeologist
In summary:
Objection and related request for further information / field evaluation prior to determination.
Applicant to carry out and report on archaeological field evaluation comprising geophysical survey (100% detailed magnetometry) and trial trenching in line with para. 128 NPPF prior to the determination of the application. This is necessary to better characterise the significance and extent of these remains, in line with NPPF 128 and to allow for all options for their mitigation including avoidance and/or preservation in situ to be considered.
The application site has high potential for significant buried archaeological remains yet the applicant has failed to provide an appropriate field evaluation. Without the provision of an archaeological field evaluation is not possible to demonstrate the sustainability of the development proposal in relation to heritage assets of archaeological interest (buried archaeological remains).
A3.16 Sport England
Sport England is supportive in principle of this application and the approach to meeting the demand for sport and recreation. However, Sport England considers that further information is required to support the contributions identified for the specified indoor and outdoor sports facilities, and how these relate to the area’s wider strategic assessments of sporting needs. Sport England is therefore content to support this application subject to a suitable Section 106 agreement to be discussed with Sport England.
A3.17 MKC Conservation
No comments
A3.18 Environmental Health
Contaminated Land
Assessed the Phase I Geo-Environmental Desk Study Report (Geo-Integrity, 2017) submitted with the above planning application and on the basis of this information agrees with the conclusion of report that there are no plausible pollutant linkages a as such it is not necessary to conduct an intrusive investigation. However recommends a condition regarding unforeseen contamination.
Noise
The application documents provide no reference to a noise assessment, this work is required.
Requests a condition as follows:
Prior to commencement of any development a noise assessment shall be carried out to assess the impact of road traffic on the application site. The assessment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. Any recommendations for noise mitigation and layout of dwellings made in the assessment shall then be incorporated into subsequent Reserved Matters applications.
A3.19 Planning Obligations
Based on the council’s adopted SPD/Gs.
The figures below do not include any site-specific highways, redway or
pedestrian requirements, public transport requirements or other matters that may be raised during the consultation process and therefore these will be in addition to the requirements in the table. This is based on 500 units without any specific breakdown of sizes.
Education: Contribution Total Early Years £354,227.30 Primary pupils £1,750,299.60 Secondary pupils £1,883,838.00 Post 16 pupils £408,612.00
Leisure Recreation & Sports: Provision Maintenanc Cost e Cost
Playing Fields £263,062.50 £225,000.00
Local Play £393,750.00 £280,000.00 Neighbourhood Play £375,000.00 £480,000.00 Community Hall £116,090.00 n/a Local Parks £50,000.00 £72,500.00 District Parks £100,000.00 £145,000.00 Swimming Pool £158,491.60 n/a Allotments £46,875.00 n/a Sports Hall £58,281.70 n/a
Social Infrastructure: Contribution Library £113,355.00 Adult Continuing Education £53,815.00 Crematorium/Burial Grounds £45,800.00
Museums and Archives £80,150.00
Health Facilities £784,325.00
Waste Management £129,385.00 Waste Receptacles £50,000.00 Social Care - Day Care £27,480.00 Social Care - Older Persons Housing £168,315.00 Emergency Services £25,190.00 Voluntary Sector £95,035.00 Milton Keynes University £361,820.00 Milton Keynes College £128,240.00 Inward Investment £95,035.00 Public Art - 1% (Estimated) £500,000.00
Carbon Offsetting: Contribution Carbon Neutrality (Estimated) £250,000.00
Total Contribution: £10,068,972.70 Per Unit: £20,137.95
In addition to secure: - Redway along A4146 between the site access and the A5/A4146 R/b - Redway along Watling Street between the A5/A4146 R/b and Fenny Stratford (or other point to be agreed) - Contribution to Redway on Brickhill Street - Contribution to highway improvements at V10/H10 R/b - Contribution to PT services serving the site - Commitment to a second pedestrian and cycle crossing of the A4146 (i.e. additional to the one at the site access); type and location to be agreed
- Affordable Housing at 40% (mix, tenure proposed see table below) – 33% affordable rent (of which 7% broadly equivalent to social rent) and 7% shared ownership
- New 1FE primary school on site
- Some of the play provision will be on site so just maintenance required (Work
in kind)
Councillor David Hopkins A3.20
Objection for the following reasons:
- Open countryside and not identified for development in Plan:MK or Core
Strategy
- Unacceptable levels of traffic on A4146
- The Council has a 5 year housing land supply
Councillor Victoria Hopkins A3.21
Objection for the following reasons:
- Open countryside and not identified for development in the Site Allocations
Plan
The site is remotely situated. - The Council has a 5 year housing land supply -
Urban Design A3.22
In summary:
The detail of the outline application is acceptable in terms of layout and urban design. Some concerns regarding extending the urban area beyond the A4146. However, this plan does indicate that the applicant is prepared to take the necessary mitigation measures should the site be required.
MKC Housing A3.23 The proposed 40% Affordable Housing mix is fully supported as helping to meet current Affordable Housing need in MK.
Internal Drainage Board A3.24 Suggests a condition for storm water drainage design.
Ramblers footpath secretary for Milton Keynes A3.25 Please note that bridleway Little Brickhill / 015 goes through the proposed site and should remain open.
BPA Pipelines A3.26 We are not aware that any of BPA Pipelines apparatus, falls within the vicinity of the above noted location.
Public Representations A3.27 118 public representations were received with the following concerns:
Plans are contrary to current and emerging planning land allocations- open countryside and would therefore have to meet the NPPF conditions for building in rural areas. Policies of rural restraint apply, and therefore
the area should not be developed. Not included within Plan; MK or MK
core strategy. Falls outside of the MK 5 year land supply plan. Compromise the East- West Expressway corridor- proposed within the site. Proposal would result in additional car journeys- not in proximity to train stations, remote from red ways and other safe routes. Result in additional
congestion to A4146, A5 cannot cope with existing volumes.
Little ambition for sustainability despite claim for sustainability within the development. In accordance with the NPPF, lack of planning for the infrastructure required to support the proposed development and therefore is defined as unsustainable. Site lies within the Wavendon Clay Lowland Farmland which promotes
landscape character and the creation of woodland and hedgerows.
Add to possibility of flood risk to an area with history of flooding. Would not provide any benefit for the existing community. MK CC has other better land development options.
Destruction of countryside. Concern for safety for access into the housing estate.
Bypass needs to be extended to dual carriageway, traffic light system,
roundabout prior to houses being built. Does not appear on the neighbourhood plans for the affected Parishes. Against the approved development strategy in MK Core Strategy 2013. Affecting villages; Little Brickhill, Great Brickhill, Woburn Sands, Stoke Hammond and Fenny Stratford due to insufficient services- roads,
schools, doctors, dentists, police and old age secure housing.
Affect NHS service, already a lack of hospital spaces, the development would create a further issue. Possible 3000 houses between Bow Brickhill and Wavendon, with no clear plan for additional road infrastructure, threatening untold congestion for Woburn Sands, Aspley Guise and Bow Brickhill.
Noise, light and traffic pollution for the local villages. Significance of site- historically and environmentally. Little Brickhill ancient settlement Schools under pressure, with no plans for an additional secondary school. Developer has not consulted Great Brickhill Parish Council despite
bordering the area. Developer has not adopted the rigour expected by MK
council for wide public consultation and engagement. Individuals will be able to see the development from their homes in Little Brickhill. Over stretched police force, whether there is an adequate number of schools or GPs
A5 historical roman road, archaeological sites in fields that would be destroyed. The Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal (2011) ruled out the inclusion of Lavente Gate due to significant flood risk, impact on archaeology, potential impact on Brickhills Area of Atrractive Landscape and poor connection with the city.
Loss of arable, attractive landscape and diverse wildlife. Questioning the maintenance of the new estate in the long term, particularly in relation to budget cuts. No connectivity with the city therefore unsustainable. Application makes little reference to the Scheduled Ancient Monument-
roman fort on watling street. The remains extend to the development site.
No mention of traffic mitigation measures to lessen the impact on the surrounding villages of Brickhills and Water Eaton. The development is highly visible from the Greensand Ridge, portion at Aylesbury Vale is classified as an Area of Attractive Landscape. Development will degrade the value of the local community asset.
Impact assessment is selective and does not reflect the situation in reality. Development would add pressure to caring for the elderly, social services, vulnerable people and those dependant on travelling by bus.
Area of little Brickhill will lose its identity with the additional homes. Seemingly little thought into the impact of the development, ignored the residents, parish councillors and local MPs. Congestion on A5 and A4146 has shown that Great Brickhill and Little Brickhill have been sued as rat runs. The new development would add to
these difficulties.
The site is classified as agricultural land, the Agricultural Land Assessment estimated 52% of land is very good quality. Traffic pressure from an approved Water Eaton development would cause further congestion, perpetuated by the Levante Gate development if it goes ahead.
Development would have a negative impact on the value of properties in the area. Proposed scheme would be detrimental to the character, identity and facilities of Little Brickhill. The area is not well served by transport links to Milton Keynes and is
already neglected in the provision of other public services, such as street
cleaning, drain clearance and footpath maintenance. The site is not allocated for development and is where policies exist for rural restraint. Water pressure in Little Brickhill is terrible, how can Anglian water provide water for these houses when they cannot service our needs.
The only access road to the proposed development is a narrow single
track lane which passes close to existing properties, such as 27 and 29 The High Street, Stoke Goldington. This would not be suitable for heavy construction traffic or large vehicles. Concern over damage of the structure of no. 27 as shakes when large vehicles pass. Restricted views when pulling out of driveways from the lane, increased traffic would potentially cause accidents.
Privacy compromised, due to the proposed development being constructed on higher ground, which would enable views into rear bedrooms, bathrooms and gardens. Concerns over construction work disturbing watercourses that may result in flooding to existing properties.
Speeding and jumping lights is not uncommon, potentially due to
congestion, in an attempt to avoid queues. More traffic may exacerbate this problem. Internet infrastructure in Bow Brackhill is already inadequate, with more houses putting a further strain on this. The Council has a statutory requirement to notify neighbouring residential
properties by issuing letters and posting site notices. Although an application has been submitted for up to 500 properties within 250m of our homes we have received no written notification and have not had any
notices posted in proximity of our property. We have only become aware
of the application through neighbours in Little Brickhill with less than two days before the submission deadline. This has not allowed sufficient opportunity to fully study the proposal or obtain specialist advice. Upon investigation we have subsequently found the nearest site notice around 1km from our property, travelling away from the development and affixed to the boundary of unrelated land. We do not consider the statutory
consultation requirements to have been fulfilled.
Misrepresentation of the impact upon properties of Russwell Lane in application. 3 residential properties rather than the 1 referred to in the landscape and visual impact appraisal submitted, with views of the agricultural landscape which will be reduced by the proposed development. Development will be visible from the gardens of properties
as they are 250m from development.
Concern over the potential use of Little Brickhill main road becoming a through road to avoid A5 congestion. Number of new houses would require additional medical and education facilities, social care and other services. Upgrade of the railway will cause more trains, and therefore the effect of
the level crossing would cause potential gridlock from the traffic on the A5
roundabout barely clearing between trains. No provision within existing infrastructure plans to support large scale development on the land, meaning that the token efforts promised by the developers, such as a primary school, are meaningless. Extensive scheme was not properly publicised, and not given the local
community appropriate time and platform to comment.
Great Brickhill conservation areas aesthetic is at risk of degradation. Lower way (connects to Galley lane) lacks pavement wand street lighting, dangerous for villagers who walk to the cricket club and playground. Increased traffic would increase these dangers.
Understanding that the area is an AONB, against environmental benefit to
build on the land. 21 sites on the 5 year land supply, Levante Gate is not included in this. Potentially irreversible damage to ecology and wildlife at both the proposed development site and the Greensand Ridge due to removal of habitat.
Reduction in working farmland, which is a vital and shrinking resource.
Lack of active engagement or wider consultation with residents of Great Brickhill and the surrounding area. Sites within an official Area of Attractive Landscape
Dangerous area to walk, particularly for children walking to and from the school bus as is being used as a through route to avoid the congested A5 and A4146.
Consideration of this proposal is also completely inappropriate at this time, since the decision of the route for the planned East-West Expressway has yet to be made by the National Infrastructure Commission. Strain on hospital and doctors surgeries, currently residents in Great Brickhill currently go to Stoke Mandeville due to the strain on the MK hospital. Cannot even get into the local doctors due to over-crowding;
have to go to Woburn Sands in Bedfordshire.
Strain on schools, already large class sizes, have a negative impact on children’s education. Commercial and private vehicles cut through. 2000 year old road of Watling Street ran through and adjacent to the site.
There have been several archaeological finds including interest from pre-
Roman times. I feel that both of these objections could be overcome if a more suitable development site were found for the 500 homes. One that neither desacrated attractive landscape nor disturbed nationally-significant archaeology.
Concerns that if proposal was to go ahead, would set president for other
development within countryside where policies of limitation are applicable. Proposal is in the centre of the buffer between Milton Keynes, Leighton Buzzard and surrounding villages, extension of the urban area over time. Concerns over lack of consultation with parish councils; Great Brickhill and Stoke Hammond. Suggestion for MK Planning work closely with these Parish Councils and AVDC to ensure that the local infrastructure can cope
with these developments? Objection in relation to the Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal (2011) considered and subsequently ruled OUT the inclusion of Lavente Gate (as part of a larger area referred to as MKSA 9) for the following reasons: Significant flood risk, impact on archaeology, potential impact on Brickhills Area of Attractive Landscape (AAL), relatively poor connection with the
city [a significant sustainability issue], site divided by the A5, severe
congestion due to poor transport network. Crime, traffic and services will be stretched further. Roundabout by Hunters- gateway to Milton Keynes from the South, causing further congestion.
The land forms an existing wildlife corridor.
Development should be delayed until the route for the proposed Oxford- MK- Cambridge Expressway is confirmed. Majority of little Brickhill a conservation area, the most striking of characteristics are the views across the countryside and Milton Keynes,
the loss of which would impact on the neighbourhood. Sustainability as defined in the NPPF is not satisfied within the application, in relation to the impacts on the character of Little Brickhill and amenity of
residents, overstretched local transport and local ecology. The view is an
important part of residential amenity to dwelllings. Plan references need for affordable housing, objection in relation to affordable homes for sale in the area that are not selling. Inadequate services- need for a secondary school with development. Bus services poor and infrequent, no safe way to walk to supermarket.
Does not conform to the place making principles for development outlines in Plan: MK SD1 in that it does not enhance the area within which it is located, integrate well with the surrounding natural and built environment, nor enable a high degree of connectivity with them. Green areas are unwanted, bridle ways are wanted to be left as they are to connect the villages
Saved policy S10 states that in open countryside planning permission will only be given for development that is essential for agriculture, forestry, countryside recreation or other development which is wholly appropriate to a rural area and cannot be located within a settlement. Considers the application to be contrary to application. Village house prices will fall, desirability will decrease and community spirit
will be demolished. Sense of community will be compromised by the extent of new people moving to the area in line with the development. Objections in line with the need to protect the scenic landscape which could damage the archaeology and natural beauty of the landscape.
Error was highlighted within the planning portal, application listed as
LavEnte Gate, therefore all the history of the Lavente Gate is not picked up.
A3.28 Ward - Danesborough And Walton - Cllr Bramall
No representation received at the time of writing this report.
A3.29 Ward - Bletchley East - Cllr Webb
No representation received at the time of writing this report.
A3.30 Ward - Bletchley East - Cllr Khan
No representation received at the time of writing this report.
A3.31 Ward - Bletchley Park - Cllr Clancy
No representation received at the time of writing this report.
A3.32 Ward - Bletchley Park - Cllr Wales
No representation received at the time of writing this report.
A3.33 Ward - Bletchley Park - Cllr Rankine
No representation received at the time of writing this report.
A3.34 Ward - Bletchley East - Cllr Gowans
No representation received at the time of writing this report.