Democratic Services MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE AGENDA
THURSDAY 14 AUGUST 2014 7.00pm
COUNCIL CHAMBER CIVIC OFFICES, CENTRAL MILTON KEYNES
DEADLINE FOR REQUESTS TO SPEAK IN OBJECTION TO PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON THIS AGENDA: 12 NOON MONDAY 11 AUGUST 2014
Requests to speak in objection to an application, or on another item on the Agenda, or any written representations, please e-mail:
E-mail: [email protected]
Written Representations to be received no later than 12:00noon Wednesday 13 AUGUST 2014
Any other enquires about this meeting please contact:
Dino Imbimbo, Committee Manager (Tel: 01908 252458).
PLEASE NOTE PARTS OF THIS MEETING MAY BE RECORDED http://cmis.milton-keynes.gov.uk/CmisWebPublic
Membership: Chair: A Geary Vice Chairs: White, Exon Councillors: Bint, Brackenbury, Gowans, Lewis, McLean, Petchey
Agenda can be accessed at: http://cmis.milton-keynes.gov.uk/cmiswebpublic/
Milton Keynes Council Democratic Services Division, Civic Offices, 1 Saxon Gate East, Milton Keynes, MK9 3EJ Tel: Milton Keynes (01908) 691691 Fax: (01908) 252511 Hays DX 31406 Milton Keynes 1 (1) Health and Safety Please take a few moments to familiarise yourself with the nearest available fire exit, indicated by the fire evacuation signs. In the event of an alarm sounding during the meeting you must evacuate the building immediately and follow all instructions provided by the fire evacuation officer who will identify him/herself should the alarm sound. You will be assisted to the nearest designated assembly point until it is safe to return to the building. Mobile Phones Please ensure that your mobile phone is switched to silent or is switched off completely during the meeting. Agenda Agendas and reports for the majority of the Council’s public meetings can be accessed via the Internet at: http://cmis.milton-keynes.gov.uk/cmiswebpublic/ Wi Fi access is available in the Council’s meeting rooms. Recording of Meetings The proceedings at this meeting may be recorded for the purpose of preparing the minutes of the meeting. Comments, Complaints and Compliments Milton Keynes Council welcomes comments, complaints and compliments from members of the public in order to make its services as efficient and effective as possible. We would appreciate any suggestions regarding the usefulness of the paperwork for this meeting, or the conduct of the meeting you have attended. Please use the slip below by detaching it and passing it to the Committee Manager. Alternatively the slip can be returned by post to Democratic Services, Milton Keynes Council, Civic Offices, 1 Saxon Gate East, Milton Keynes, MK9 3EJ, or you can e- mail your comments to [email protected] If you require a response please leave contact details, ideally including an e-mail address. A formal complaints / compliments form is available online at http://www.milton- keynes.gov.uk/complaints/ ------Meeting Attended: Development Control Committee Date of Meeting: 14 AUGUST 2014 Comments:……………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………. ………………………………………………………………………………………………….
...... Contact details:…..……………………………………………………………………………
(2) AGENDA 1. Welcome and Introductions. 2. Apologies. 3. Minutes. To approve, and the Chair to sign as a correct record, the Minutes of the meetings of the Development Control Committee on 26 JUNE 2014 (Item 3a), (Pages 5 to 15) and 17 JULY 2014 (Item 3b) (Pages 16 to 23) and the special meeting of the Development Control Panel on 8 JULY 2014 (Item 3c) (Pages 24 to 43) 4. Declaration of Interests. Members to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests, or personal interests (including other pecuniary interests), they may have in the business to be transacted, and officers to disclose any interests they may have in any contract to be considered.
5. Public Participation: Questions, Deputations and Petitions. To consider the following items in accordance with the written Rules of Procedure for Public Participation in the Determination of Planning Applications: (a) Questions: To receive questions from members of the public, in accordance with Standing Orders, not related to planning applications. (b) Deputations: Any deputations will be reported to the Committee. (c) Petitions: Any petitions will be reported to the Committee. 6. Planning Applications. To consider Planning Applications and receive representations from objectors, of which notice has been given, and replies from applicants in accordance with the Council’s Procedure Rules. The deadline for requests to speak in objection to a planning application and for Ward Councillor requests to speak, either in favour or in objection to a planning application is 12.00 noon on MONDAY 11 AUGUST 2014. Any additional written representations must be received by 12:00 noon on WEDNESDAY 13 AUGUST 2014. 7. Community Facilities S106 Contribution from Development at Former BMG Motors Site, London Road, Stony Stratford To consider Item 7 (Pages 118 to 181) 8. Delegation of Powers under Section 257 Town & Country Planning Act, 1990 in Relation to Calverton Footpath 55 To consider Item 8 (Pages 182 to 185)
(3)
INDEX OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING:
Item Reference Address Ward Town/Parish Report Plan Appendix Page Page Page
App 14/01224/FUL The Premier Bletchley East Bletchley & 55 - 62 01 OTHER Academy, Fenny Stratford Saffron Street, Town Council Bletchley
Land NW of Newport Hanslope App 14/01227/FUL Littlewood Pagnell North Parish Council 70 84 90 02 MAJOR Farm, Tathall And Hanslope End, Hanslope
App 14/01236/FUL 98 107 111 Stony Stony 03 MINOR Russell Street Stratford Stratford Town School, Council Russell Street, Stony Stratford
(4) ITEM 3a
Minutes of the SPECIAL meeting of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE held on THURSDAY 26 JUNE 2014 at 7.00 pm.
Present: Councillor A Geary (Chair) Councillors: Brackenbury, Exon, Gowans, Green (Substituting for Councillor McLean), Lewis, Middleton (Substituting for Councillor White) and Petchey.
Officers: D Hackforth (Interim Assistant Director, Planning and Transport), A Horner (Head of Development Management), N Wheatcroft (Team Leader Strategic Applications Team), J Kirkham (Senior Planning Officer), J Cotton (Solicitor, Case Manager Planning), S Bridglalsingh (Head of Legal Service, Procurement, Planning, Property), A Swannell (Senior Engineer), P Caves (Engineer, Development Management [Highways]), M Dolling (Head of Capital & Infrastructure) and D Imbimbo (Committee Manager).
Apologies: Councillors Bint, McLean and White
Number of Public Present: 110
Also Present: Councillor D Hopkins, S Wells, Fire Service DCC11 SUSPENSION OF PROCEDURE RULES
Councillor Gowans proposed that in accordance with the Councils Constitution Section 4 ‘Procedure Rules’ paragraph 21.1, procedure rule 23.1 Substitutions on Committees etc. be suspended to allow Councillor Middleton (a Cabinet Member) to sit as a substitute for Councillor White.
This was seconded by Councillor Brackenbury. On being put to the vote the motion was carried.
RESOLVED – That in accordance with the Councils Constitution Section 4 ‘Procedure Rules’ paragraph 21.1, procedure rule 23.1 Substitutions on Committees etc. be suspended to allow Councillor Middleton (a Cabinet Member) to sit as a substitute for Councillor White.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 26 JUNE 2014 PAGE 1 COMMITTEE
(5) DCC12 CHAIRMANS WELCOME
The Chair welcomed Members, Officers and the public and explained the procedures to be adopted. DCC13 DECLARATION OF INTERESTS Councillor M Petchey asked that it be recorded that in respect of Item 6 Use of Land for Moto Cross – 12/00369/UNAUTH he had a prejudicial interest in the matter in so far as he had provided advice and guidance to the Parish Council and would therefore leave the Chamber for this matter. Councillor R Brackenbury asked that it be recorded that in respect of Item 6 Use of Land for Moto Cross – 12/00369/UNAUTH he had a prejudicial interest in the matter in so far as he was a resident in the vicinity of the site and had been involved in actions opposing the use of the land and therefore would take no part in the consideration of the Item and would leave the Chamber for that matter. Councillor Green asked that it be recorded that in respect of Application 03 – 14/00313/FUL she had a personal non prejudicial interest in the matter in so far as she had a grandson who attended the school, but at no time had visited the school or had any contact with connections to the school and held no predetermined view. Councillor Exon asked that it be recorded that in respect of Application 01 – 13/02655/FUL – he was the sitting member for Bradwell Ward and was aware of the level of concern held by residents, however he had an open mind to the matter in so far as he would not object to an application that met all the policy and legislative requirements and saw no reason that he should not participate in consideration of the application. Councillor Lewis asked that it be recorded that in respect of Application 01 – 13/02655/FUL – he was the sitting member for Bradwell Ward and he was on record as having stated his objection to the application and was aware of the level of concern held by residents, however he had an open mind to the matter in so far as he would not object to an application that met all the policy and legislative requirements and saw no reason that he should not participate in consideration of the application.
DCC14 REPRESENTATIONS ON PLANNING APPLICATIONS Mr C Gossop (Chair of Two Mile Ash Environmental Group), Mr R Bradburn(Previous Ward Member) and Ms Sabina Walker spoke in objection to application 13/02655/FUL Phased construction of two storey-building to provide double height 4-court badminton hall and 12 x additional classrooms; single storey extension to existing school to provide 2 x additional classrooms at Two Mile Ash School, The High Street, Two Mile Ash for Two Mile Ash School. M Dolling (MKC Head of Capital & Infrastructure) and Ms Sarah
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 26 JUNE 2014 PAGE 2 COMMITTEE
(6) Bennett (Head Teacher Two Mile Ash School) exercised the right of reply. Councillor D Hopkins (Ward Member representing Wavendon Parish Council) spoke in objection to application 14/00703/OUT Residential development for up to 53 homes together with open space, strategic landscaping, supporting infrastructure (including gas, electricity, water, sewerage, telecommunications), new vehicle and pedestrian/cycle access onto Newport Road, demolition and ground remodelling (outline application) at Frosts Landscape Construction, Newport Road, Wavendon for Frosts Family LLP. Mr D Lock (Agent) exercised the right of reply.
DCC15 PLANNING APPLICATIONS 13/02655/FUL PHASED CONSTRUCTION OF TWO STOREY- BUILDING TO PROVIDE DOUBLE HEIGHT 4- COURT BADMINTON HALL AND 12 X ADDITIONAL CLASSROOMS; SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO EXISTING SCHOOL TO PROVIDE 2 X ADDITIONAL CLASSROOMS AT TWO MILE ASH SCHOOL, THE HIGH STREET, TWO MILE ASH FOR TWO MILE ASH SCHOOL Members heard from the Officer that since the agenda was published a site inspection has been undertaken attended by Councilors Geary, Exon, Green, Gowans, Lewis and Petchey. Members heard that an updated report had been published detailing some amendments to conditions, the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions as amended. Members heard representations in objection to the application highlighting concerns in respect of the following issues: The proposal presents a potential for parking problems resulting in potential conflict with pedestrians and safety concerns for children. Traffic concerns and an inadequate transport statement which is not accompanied by a transport assessment as required by government guidance. Failure to recognise the effects of the increased traffic volume Bus services having been suspended due to
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 26 JUNE 2014 PAGE 3 COMMITTEE
(7) ongoing traffic problems Impact on the wellbeing and amenity of residents affected by the congestion caused. Shortfall of additional parking spaces. The ‘staggered start/finish’ arrangements only apply when there are after school clubs this equates to approximately 70% of the time rather than 100%. During inclement weather there is an increase in traffic beyond predicted levels, this is usually when dusk approaches and further increases safety risks. Traffic calming measures (cones) have displaced the existing problems to other parts of the estate rather than resolved the problems. Insufficient crossing patrols to cater for children approaching from areas drop off are displaced to. Members heard from the Head of Capital & Infrastructure and the Head Teacher from Two Mile Ash School that the Council had a statutory duty to provide school places and was the reason for the application. The application was in accordance with the Councils policy to expand existing schools attaining relevant Ofsted grading and represented good investment for the Council due to the funding arrangements being agreed between the Council and the School. The Expansion had been approved by the Secretary of State for Education. The Head of Capital & Infrastructure told the committee that the application had been made to meet policy requirements for parking and traffic management. Members heard from the Head Teacher of Two Mile Ash School, that the proposal sought to address the requirement for school places in Milton Keynes, the Committee heard a summary of the achievements the school had demonstrated. The Officer told the Committee that the application did contain a transport statement and the concern relating to the adequacy of this where covered in the updated papers. The officer also advised the
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 26 JUNE 2014 PAGE 4 COMMITTEE
(8) application exceeded the parking standards in respect of staff parking but failed to meet the parking standards in respect of the requirements for set down and drop off provision. Councillor Exon told the Committee that he had invited a representative of the Bucks and Milton Keynes Fire Authority to attend so that questions could be put to them regarding the traffic considerations, the committee heard that the procedure rules did not allow for questioning of outside bodies. Councillor Geary proposed that that in accordance with the Councils Constitution Section 4 ‘Procedure Rules’ paragraph 21.1, the committee agree to suspend Annex A of the Access to information Procedures to allow questions to be put to the representative of Bucks and Milton Keynes Fire Service. This was seconded by Councillor Exon before being put to the vote at which point it was carried. Members heard that any scheme should include the installation of sprinklers in any development areas. There would also be a desire to see a traffic management plan to ensure no congestion prevented the safe access and egress for emergency services to both the site and the estate as a whole. It would also be desirable to ensure that there were supplementary emergency water supplies made available for the event of an emergency. Members heard that there had been no previous access issues for the emergency service, however, the Fire Service took a pro-active approach to ensuring problems do not occur. Members expressed concerns about elements of the scheme in respect of traffic congestion, parking arrangements and drop off and pick up arrangements, recognizing at the same time that there was a need to provide additional school places and that Two Mile Ash School was an ideal school based on performance to see an expansion. Members recognized that the existing situation was not one that could be considered in determining the application; however, it was clear that the new application would itself create congestion to a level that was not acceptable.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 26 JUNE 2014 PAGE 5 COMMITTEE
(9) Members recognized that the NPPF and the Core Strategy both required the Committee to give weight to the need to expand schools to provide needed school places, it was clear these were needed. However it was also noted that Policy T10 of the Local Plan states that a development should be refused if it is likely to generate motor traffic that exceeds the environmental or highway capacity. It was commented that the assessment of how many pupils would attend by car was flawed by virtue of the likelihood that the increased capacity of the school will not be filled by children from the estate but rather from further afield and will be driven to school as they will be younger age groups. Members having attended the Site Inspection recognized the existing problems regarding safety for children due to parking issues for drop off and pick up of pupils, and that the proposal will see an increase in vehicle movement and will exacerbate the safety concerns. Members raised some concern about the proposal to build on the playing fields, however, the Committee was reminded that there was an additional playing field available. Councillor Lewis proposed that the application be refused on the grounds of Parking, Congestion and Highway safety as it failed to address Policy T10 in so far as it was likely to generate motor traffic which exceeds the environmental or highway capacity of the local road network and causes significant disturbance, noise pollution and risk of accidents. This was seconded by Councillor Exon, on being put to the vote the proposal was carried. RESOLVED: - 1. That the Councils Constitution Section 4 ‘Procedure Rules’ paragraph 21.1, be invoked thereby the committee agree to suspend Annex A of the Access to information Procedures to allow questions to be put to the representative of Bucks and Milton Keynes Fire Service. 2. That the application be refused on the grounds of Parking, Congestion and Highway safety as it failed to address Policy T10 in so far as it was likely to generate motor traffic which exceeds the environmental or highway capacity of the
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 26 JUNE 2014 PAGE 6 COMMITTEE
(10) local road network and causes significant disturbance, noise pollution and risk of accidents.
14/00703/OUT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR UP TO 53 HOMES TOGETHER WITH OPEN SPACE, STRATEGIC LANDSCAPING, SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE (INCLUDING GAS, ELECTRICITY, WATER, SEWERAGE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS), NEW VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN/CYCLE ACCESS ONTO NEWPORT ROAD, DEMOLITION AND GROUND REMODELLING (OUTLINE APPLICATION) AT FROSTS LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION, NEWPORT ROAD, WAVENDON FOR FROSTS FAMILY LLP Members heard from the Chair of Wavendon Parish Council that the recommendation to reject the application, made by the Officer, was in his view correct and based on Local and National Policy. He asked that Members noted that there was no need for the development, the Core Strategy and the 5 year residential supply policy. There was a need to ensure that the public had a clear understanding of where development was to take place. Members heard that the highway infrastructure was not adequate to support the additional 53 households proposed under the application and that the development was not supported by either the Parish Council or the Ward Members. Members heard from the applicants agent that the application sought to enhance the ability of a local business to develop their business further by facilitating a move to new premises within Milton Keynes, thereby leaving this site redundant but suitable for development, being previously developed land as advocated within the NPPF. Members were told by the Agent that whilst this was clearly a ‘Brown Field’ site as it fell outside the settlement boundary and was therefore designated as open countryside. The Applicants agent questioned the validity of the Housing numbers calculations within the Core Strategy as the assessment was based on a method of assessment which was not adequate.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 26 JUNE 2014 PAGE 7 COMMITTEE
(11) The Officer told the Committee that application was outline for 53 dwellings in open countryside and was therefore not sustainable. The recommendation to refuse was based on policy for the reasons as set out in the committee report. Members heard that the Council was confident the housing allocation numbers were accurate and exceeded the 5 year standard requirements for the Council. Members heard from the applicants agent an explanation of the difference between the ‘Liverpool’ and ‘Sedgefield’ calculations Members heard from the Interim Assistant Director, Planning and Transport that the assessment of housing need was made by independent consultants. Due to the large scale and number of houses and planning projects Milton Keynes experiences the method of assessment employed was considered the most appropriate. Councillor A Geary proposed that the Officer recommendation be agreed, this was seconded by Councillor Exon. Members recognised that the case made by both the objectors and applicants agent held merit but ultimately the Core Strategy set the policy of the Council and unless there was good reason to deviate from policy there was no basis to approve an application of this nature. There was no evidence that the application was exceptional in any respect. Members noted that this application, unlike others of a similar nature considered by the Committee in recent times, does not have any local support and that was a matter that should be taken account of. The motion to refuse the application for the reasons set out in the committee report was put to the vote and was carried. RESOLVED:- That planning permission be refused for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development, by virtue of its location outside the settlement boundaries of either Wavendon or Woburn Sands would be unjustified and intrusive development in the open countryside detrimental to the rural character of the area. The
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 26 JUNE 2014 PAGE 8 COMMITTEE
(12) proposal is therefore contrary to Policy S10 (Open Countryside) of the Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan and Policies CS2 Housing Land Supply) and CS9 (Strategy for the Rural Area) of the Adopted Core Strategy.
2. The location of the site is considered to be divorced from services and facilities and therefore unsustainably located and would encourage reliance on unsustainable methods of transport to access such services and facilities in conflict with Policy CS11 and Policy CS13 of the Adopted Core Strategy. 14/00313/FUL CONSTRUCTION OF TWO STOREY BUILDING TO PROVIDE 13 X ADDITIONAL CLASSROOMS, DINING HALL AND ANCILLARY ACCOMMODATION; SINGLE STOREY LEAN TO EXTENSION TO EXISTING SCHOOL TO PROVIDE 1 X ADDITIONAL CLASSROOM AND 3 X ADDITIONAL CLASSROOMS PROVIDED BY INFILLING EXISTING UNDERCROFTS AND PROVISION OF 38 ADDITIONAL CAR PARKING SPACES AT OAKGROVE SCHOOL, VENTURER GATE, MIDDLETON FOR OAKGROVE SCHOOL Members heard from the Officer there was no update on the Committee report however it was recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report with the following amendments to conditions 19 and 20 as below; Condition 19 to read: The external materials to be used in the development shall be in accordance with samples to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any work is commenced. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality Condition 20 to read: No part of the development shall be occupied until a scheme for the provision of a contribution towards the Council's Carbon Offset Fund has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 26 JUNE 2014 PAGE 9 COMMITTEE
(13) implemented in accordance with the details and timetable specified within the approved scheme. Reason: To ensure the development complies with the Council's objective for Sustainable Development in accordance with Policy D4 of the Local Plan. Councillor A Geary proposed that the Officer recommendation be agreed, this was seconded by Councillor Exon. On being put to the vote the proposal to grant the application was carried unanimously RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report as amended above. DCC16 EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC AND PRESS
RESOLVED – That the public and press be excluded from the meeting by virtue of Paragraph 5 (Information in respect of which a claim to legal privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, in order that the Development Control Committee may consider: Use of land for Motor Cross Item 6 DCC17 USE OF LAND FOR MOTOR CROSS - 12/00369/UNAUTH Councillors Brackenbury and Petchey left the meeting having declared interests in this matter. Members considered a report and verbal update that set out details of the actions and options in respect of the enforcement action and ensuing appeal relating to the unauthorised use of land for moto cross. RESOLVED – 1. That the current position, and the risks of continuing to defend the Enforcement Notice at the Inquiry, including the financial risks, are noted; 2. That the Council should continue to defend the Appeal at Inquiry; 3. Delegated Powers are given to the Head of Development Management, in consultation with the Chair to: Remove or vary the current requirements of the Enforcement Notice for the removal or redistribution of the earth mounds, restoration of the land, and
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 26 JUNE 2014 PAGE 10 COMMITTEE
(14) To vary the timescales for compliance with the Enforcement Notice subject to Counsel advising that such proposals could increase the Council’s prospects of succeeding at the Inquiry and that a Report is brought back to advise Members if this Delegated Power is exercised. 4. That a report is brought back when the outcome of the Appeal is known and for Members to consider what further options are available to the Council at that stage.
THE CHAIR CLOSED THE MEETING AT 8;50PM
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 26 JUNE 2014 PAGE 11 COMMITTEE
(15)
ITEM 3b
Minutes of the meeting of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE held on THURSDAY 17 JULY 2014 at 7.00 pm.
Present: Councillor White (Vice Chair, in the Chair) Councillors: Brackenbury, Exon (Vice Chair), Green (Substituting for Councillor Bint), Gowans, Lewis, McLean and Petchey.
Officers: D Hackforth (Interim Assistant Director, Planning and Transport), A Horner (Head of Development Management), N Wheatcroft (Team Leader Strategic Applications Team), S Hine (Planning Officer), A Swannell (Senior Highway Engineer), N Sainsbury (Head of Urban Design and Landscape Architecture), J Cotton (Case Manager Planning – Legal Services) and D Imbimbo (Committee Manager).
Apologies: Councillors Bint and A Geary
Number of Public Present: 13
Also Present: Councillor D Hopkins
DCC10 CHAIRMANS WELCOME The Chair welcomed Members, Officers and the public and explained the procedures to be adopted. RESOLVED – That Councillor White (Vice-Chair) chair the meeting in the absence of Councillor A Geary (Chair). DCC11 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS RESOLVED – That the Minutes of the meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 19 June 2014 be approved as an accurate record subject to the inclusion of the word ‘not’ between the words had and involvement in the declaration of interest made by Councillor A Geary under minute DCC06 DCC12 DECLARATION OF INTERESTS None were made.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 17 JULY 2014 PAGE 1 COMMITTEE CHAIR’S INITIALS …………….
(16) DCC13 REPRESENTATIONS ON PLANNING APPLICATIONS Councillor Jeffries (Woburn Sands Town Council) and Mr D Lock spoke in objection to application 13/02381/OUTEIS Outline planning permission for mixed-use development for up to 410 dwellings, one primary school, mixed use local centre comprising of A1 retail and C3 residential uses, multi-functional green infrastructure including parkland, children's play areas, informal open space, allotments, woodland, landscaping and surface water attenuation, vehicular access point from A421 via new roundabout junction, future connections to the adjoining development land to the west and east and internal streets, footpaths and cycle ways at Land At Eagle Farm, Cranfield Road, Wavendon for Gallagher Estates. Mr Knott (Applicants Agent) exercised the right of reply. Councillor D Hopkins (Chair of Wavendon Parish Council), (Ward Member) spoke in support of the application. DCC14 PLANNING APPLICATIONS 13/02381/OUTEIS OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION FOR MIXED- USE DEVELOPMENT FOR UP TO 410 DWELLINGS, ONE PRIMARY SCHOOL, MIXED USE LOCAL CENTRE COMPRISING OF A1 RETAIL AND C3 RESIDENTIAL USES, MULTI- FUNCTIONAL GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING PARKLAND, CHILDREN'S PLAY AREAS, INFORMAL OPEN SPACE, ALLOTMENTS, WOODLAND, LANDSCAPING AND SURFACE WATER ATTENUATION, VEHICULAR ACCESS POINT FROM A421 VIA NEW ROUNDABOUT JUNCTION, FUTURE CONNECTIONS TO THE ADJOINING DEVELOPMENT LAND TO THE WEST AND EAST AND INTERNAL STREETS, FOOTPATHS AND CYCLE WAYS AT LAND AT EAGLE FARM, CRANFIELD ROAD, WAVENDON FOR GALLAGHER ESTATES Members heard from the Chair of Woburn Sands Town Council that whilst the Town Council did not object to the application in principle, Members of that Council was concerned that the proposed housing density of the development which exceeded the average of 35 per hectare as set out in the Development Framework, this element was not supported by the Town Council who was concerned this could set a precedent for the remaining developments intended for this area. Members also heard from an objector that the failure of proposals to the include carriageway
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 17 JULY 2014 PAGE 2 COMMITTEE CHAIR’S INITIALS …………….
(17) corridors compliant with the Strategic Land Allocation Framework would not allow for future proofing for public transport corridors and ought to be rejected. Members heard from the Applicants Agent that it was the view of the developer, and supported by Officers, that the proposed width was adequate and complied with all policies and the Core Strategy. Members heard from the applicants agent that the application was an outline application with a maximum number of dwellings indicated, there remained a prospect that when coming to a reserved matters application the final number of dwellings would be less. The Officer reminded the Committee that the application was an outline application for up to 410 dwellings with all matters reserved for subsequent approval. Members heard that the application had been previously deferred to get clarification on the origin of the figure of 80 meters for Grid Road width. This matter was dealt with in depth in the report from paragraph 5.59 to paragraph 5.73. The figure has been established to have derived from the ‘Planning Manual’, a Milton Keynes Development Corporation document that has no status in planning policy terms. Likewise the Development Framework was a guidance document but did not form policy. Members also heard that Legal Advice had been provided which recommended the removal of condition 44 which was not required in ‘outline Consent’. The Officer reported an error in the report at paragraph 5.72, where the figure of 75 meters should read 60 meters. The Officer reported that the recommendation remained to approve the application subject to the conditions as detailed in the Committee report with the deletion of condition 44. Members heard from the Chair of Wavendon Parish Council that the Parish Council fully supported the application, Members heard that the Parish Council would be concerned if the proposal was for a 70mph Grid Road that might require an 80 meter corridor, through the centre of a housing
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 17 JULY 2014 PAGE 3 COMMITTEE CHAIR’S INITIALS …………….
(18) development but were reassured by the content of the report. Members were asked to recognise that the application was one of a series of applications in respect of the Strategic Land Allocation (SLA) and that whilst all needed to be considered in Isolation it was of benefit to the Committee to take account of the whole development area and the relationship between the applications. The Parish Council asked that the Committee be mindful of the need for GP services on the Eastern flank of Milton Keynes. Likewise the Committee was asked to take account of the proposal to downgrade the A4130 and the need to protect hedgerow and mature treelines in the vicinity of the SLA and the inclusion of Fast Broadband from the outset of the development. The Parish Council also sought to see the developers use appropriate signage to ensure deliveries and construction traffic is not directed unnecessarily through established residential areas. Councillor White proposed that the Officer recommendation be agreed. This was seconded by Councillor Exon. Members heard that the Highways Engineer was satisfied that the carriageway width of 41.5 meters was adequate to accommodate the roads through the development. Members acknowledged the concerns raised in respect of the prospect of a full Grid Road being built through the centre of an estate and recognised that the proposed corridor width would facilitate a dual carriageway but understood that lower speed limits would apply. The Officer told the Committee that it was her view that the proposals satisfied policy CS11 of the Core Strategy to extend the Grid Road system into new development areas. Members also heard that paragraph 1.24 of the Development Framework provided for a facility to move away from strict policy to accommodate the needs of a specific planning application. The Highways Engineer explained that the 80 meter corridors were introduced to cater for the design speed of the roads to be introduced and DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 17 JULY 2014 PAGE 4 COMMITTEE CHAIR’S INITIALS …………….
(19) that the design speed that required an 80 meter corridor was far in excess of speeds required through the SLA and therefore a narrower corridor was acceptable. Members also heard that it was incumbent on the applicant to ensure that underpasses or bridges for cycle routes were provided in the final design, this was a matter for consideration at the reserved matters stage. The Legal Services Officer advised the Committee that following a thorough review of the application it was clear that the corridor width was not a matter to be considered at the Outline Planning Stage but would be something to be considered when the reserved matters application was received. The motion to approve the outline application subject to the conditions as detailed in the report with the deletion of condition 44 was put to the vote and it was carried RESOLVED: - That outline planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the report with the deletion of condition 44
14/00645/REM RESERVED MATTERS PURSUANT TO OUTLINE APPLICATION 12/02258/OUT FOR THE LAYOUT, SCALE AND APPEARANCE OF THE BLOCK OF FLATS; ACCOMMODATING 9 FLATS AND DETACHED CYCLE AND BIN STORE, WITH ACCESS THERE-TO AND LANDSCAPING OF THE SITE AT LAND TO SOUTH AND EAST OF COMMUNITY CENTRE, BRIAR HILL, STACEY BUSHES FOR PLACES FOR PEOPLE HOMES LTD The Chair told the Committee that a letter had been received from Wolverton and Greenleys Town Council requesting a deferral of consideration of the application as the Town Council had not yet had opportunity to debate the matter and form a view. Members noted that the Town Council had submitted representations as referred to in the Committee Report under paragraph A3. It was proposed by Councillor White that as it was clear that the Town Council had been aware of the application and had been given opportunity to comment and make representations that the matter be considered by the Committee and not deferred, this was seconded by Councillor Brackenbury. On
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 17 JULY 2014 PAGE 5 COMMITTEE CHAIR’S INITIALS …………….
(20) being put to the vote the motion to consider the application was carried unanimously. The Officer reported that she could confirm that the Town Council had initially been provided with a consultation notification on 11 April 2014 and that a further consultation notification was issued on the 4th June to notify consultees of revisions to the submitted plans in response to comments in respect of the location of the bin and cycle storage. The Town Council had objected to the siting of the Bin and Cycle Storage. Members heard that since the Committee report had been published comments had been received from the Council’s Countryside Officer confirming that he had no objection to the application. The Officer reported that her recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions as detailed in the Committee report. Councillor White proposed that the Officer recommendation be approved. This was seconded by Councillor Exon. Members recognised that the bin storage facility was not ideal and in other areas had a detrimental impact on the amenity of residential developments when they started to deteriorate, however on balance this was not considered to outweigh the reasons to support the application. On being put to the vote the officer recommendation to approve the application subject to the conditions as set out in the report was carried unanimously. RESOLVED:- That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report together with the two additional conditions as detailed above. DCC15 WESTCROFT RESERVE SITE 3 DEVELOPMENT BRIEF Members considered a report in respect of the Westcroft Reserve Site 3 Draft Development Brief. Members heard from the Head of Urban Design and Landscape Architecture that as part of the consultation process it was necessary to engage with the Development Control Committee and asked that Members make comment on the Draft brief.
Members commented that the would welcome the content of Development Briefs to include matters that might be considered controversial and highlight any issues.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 17 JULY 2014 PAGE 6 COMMITTEE CHAIR’S INITIALS …………….
(21) Members recognised that the Development Brief made reference to Milton Keynes Council having identified a specific site as suitable for a care home, Members sought clarification as to who had made this determination and asked that in future details be included of where such recommendations come from.
It was also noted that the Development Brief referred to a recommendation to unblock the underpass on Snelshall Street at the junction with Cranbourne Avenue and that this was not within the site referred to within the Development Brief.
Members heard from the Head of Urban Design and Landscape Architecture that the determination of the recommended usage of part of the site had come from the Council’s Housing Department who have had discussions with Milton Keynes Development Partnership.
Members also heard that the underpass was outside the site boundary but the Parish Council had expressed concerns about how narrow roads were in the area for access, opening the underpass would provide an additional access route and reduce congestion. It was recognised that this was a matter that should be considered separately to the Development Brief and it was proposed by Councillor White that a recommendation be made to the relevant Cabinet Member to seek to pursue this matter, this was seconded by Councillor Brackenbury and on being put to the vote was carried.
Members noted that the brief referred to buildings being of an exceptional design and that this was a matter would or could be determined at the application stage and was a matter of judgement for the Committee.
RESOLVED – 1. That the report and Development Brief be noted; 2. That future reports accompanying the Development Brief be written to include any identified issues of conflict and options; 3. That where a Development Brief makes reference to a decision on suitable land use the source of that decision be indicated, and; 4. That a recommendation be made to the relevant Cabinet Member to seek to secure the opening of the Snelshall underpass.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 17 JULY 2014 PAGE 7 COMMITTEE CHAIR’S INITIALS …………….
(22) THE CHAIR CLOSED THE MEETING AT 8:10PM
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 17 JULY 2014 PAGE 8 COMMITTEE CHAIR’S INITIALS …………….
(23) ITEM 3c
Minutes of the SPECIAL meeting of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL held on TUESDAY 8 JULY 2014 at 7:00 pm.
Present: Councillor White (Chair) Councillors: Bint, Eastman, Lewis, and McLean
Officers: A Horner (Head of Development Management), A Harrison (Team Leader Minor Applications), S Dossaji (Planning Officer), S Hine (Planning Officer), D Hird (Planning Officer), M Crawford (P and E Team Legal Services) and D Imbimbo (Committee Manager).
Number of Public Present: 36
Also Present Councillor Webb
DCP01 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor McLean asked that it be recorded that;
In respect of application 14/00876/FUL he was a Member of the Parish Council but had not been present at any meetings or taken part in any discussions in respect of this matter
DCP02 REPRESENTATIONS ON PLANNING APPLICATIONS Mr G Forster (Applicant) spoke in support of application 14/00342/FUL, Change of use from training venue (Use Class B1/D1) to children’s soft play area (Use Class D2) at 3 Carters Lane, Kiln Farm, Milton Keynes. The application having been recommended for refusal. Ms A Bircham and Mr J Boobyer spoke in objection to application 14/00244/FUL Conversion of stable/garage to annexe at 28 Weathercock Lane, Woburn Sands, Milton Keynes The applicants Mr and Mrs G Marshall exercised the right of reply. Ms T Richardson-Hawkes spoke in objection to application 14/00571/FUL Two storey side extension with loft accommodation (Resubmission of 13/01335/FUL) at 5 Lenborough Court, Woolstone, Milton Keynes. The applicant Ms R Hackett exercised the right of reply. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 8 JULY 2014 PAGE 1 PANEL CHAIRS INITIALS ………..
(24) Ms P Tarshish and Mr S Sandhu spoke in objection to application 14/00824/FUL Installation of dormer window to new roof of side extension and the provision of a balcony (part-retrospective) at 3 Redland Drive, Loughton, Milton Keynes. The applicant Mr Atab exercised the right of reply. Councillor E Price (Hanslope Parish Council) spoke in objection to application 14/00394/OUT Outline planning permission for the construction of bungalow in rear garden at Rear of 7 Gold Street, Hanslope, Milton Keynes. The applicant Mr R May exercised the right of reply. Mr G Bennett and Councillor Webb (Ward Member) spoke in objection to application 14/00623/OUT Outline planning permission for the construction of bungalow in rear garden at Rear of Stoke Road, Bletchley, Milton Keynes. The applicant Ms K Wheeler exercised the right of reply. Councillor D Stabler (Great Linford Parish Council) spoke in objection to application 14/00193/FUL Installation of garage doors to existing carport at 15 Hill Pastures, Redhouse Park, Milton Keynes. The applicant Mr R May exercised the right of reply Mr J Gould spoke in objection to application 14/00219/FUL Erection of new dwelling and alterations to boundary fences (resubmission of 13/02318/FUL) at 118 Wolverton Road, Newport Pagnell. The applicant Mr M Ashraf exercised the right of reply DCP03 APPLICATIONS
14/00342/FUL CHANGE OF USE FROM TRAINING VENUE (USE CLASS B1/D1) TO CHILDREN’S SOFT PLAY AREA (USE CLASS D2) AT 3 CARTERS LANE, KILN FARM, MILTON KEYNES FOR FORSTER PROPERTY AND LEISURE LTD Members heard from the Officer that it was recommended that the application be refused as it was contrary to Policies E1 and L9 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011. The Panel heard that the site had previously had a combined D1 and B1 use, as detailed within paragraph 1.2 of the officers report, the D1 use of this site was a personal permission given to Milton Keynes College to allow the site to be used as a training venue. Therefore the permission for a D1 use at this site fell away when the college vacated the site.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 8 JULY 2014 PAGE 2 PANEL CHAIRS INITIALS ………..
(25)
The submitted information also disputed the officer’s assessment of the sequential test, in particular with reference to cost, although this can form a factor within a sequential test officers do not consider it to be an overriding consideration Members heard from the applicant that whilst he recognised that the application was contrary to policy the principle of granting an application of this nature had previously been established. Members heard that a new sequential test had been submitted and that this clearly demonstrated that policy requirements were met. The Panel was further told that the proposal would see up to 30 jobs created, and thereby satisfies elements of the NPPF. Councillor White proposed that the Officer recommendation be agreed, this was seconded by Councillor Lewis. Members recognised that the recommendation was based on policy, however, the location and potential for job creation were considered factors that would merit approval of the application. The Sequential test demonstrated that approval contrary to policy could be justified. On being put to the vote the recommendation to refuse the application was lost, Councillor White proposed that the application be granted subject to the conditions below, as the sequential test demonstrated that there were grounds to grant contrary to policy and the proposal would also provide employment that was not otherwise guaranteed. The application to be granted subject to the following conditions; 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To prevent the accumulation of planning permissions; to enable the Local Planning Authority to review the suitability of the development in the light of altered circumstances; and to comply with section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. (D11)
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 8 JULY 2014 PAGE 3 PANEL CHAIRS INITIALS ………..
(26)
2. The premises shall only be used as a children's soft play area; and shall not be used for any other purpose within Use Class D2; nor any other Use Class specified in the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that class in any Statutory Instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order, nor for any other purpose without the prior permission of the Local Planning Authority. (U02) Reason: The D2 use is granted as an exception to policy because of the practical requirements of the applicant, and the premises are not suitable for other D2 uses without the prior consideration and approval of the Local Planning Authority. 3. The development shall not be occupied until the car parking area (and turning area) shown on the deposited plan has been constructed, surfaced and permanently marked out. The car parking area so provided shall be maintained as a permanent ancillary to the development and shall be used for no other purpose at any time.(P01) Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision at all times so that the development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or the conditions of general safety along the neighbouring highway. This was seconded by Councillor Lewis, on being put to the vote the motion was carried unanimously, and it was; RESOLVED:- That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in above. 14/00244/FUL CONVERSION OF STABLE/GARAGE TO ANNEXE AT 28 WEATHERCOCK LANE, WOBURN SANDS, MILTON KEYNES FOR MR GLEN MARSHALL Members heard representations from objectors expressing concerns that the proposed development would detract from the amenity of the conservation area, would potentially overlook other properties, would necessitate the removal of an established cherry tree and have a negative impact on views currently enjoyed.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 8 JULY 2014 PAGE 4 PANEL CHAIRS INITIALS ………..
(27) Objectors were concerned that guttering for the development would overhang the boundary and could not be maintained without gaining access other than through neighbouring properties. Members heard from the applicant that there was no intention to remove the cherry tree and that the height of the proposed development would not adversely impact on the general amenity of the conservation area and that plans had been drafted in consultation with the conservation officer who made no objection. The Applicant indicated that they would be willing to utilise a form of guttering that did not overhang the neighbouring property. The officer reported that there was no update on the panel report, members heard that there was no proposal to remove the cherry tree and that as the site was within a conservation area any such proposal for a mature species would require separate consideration. It was recommended that should Members be minded to approve the application an additional condition to require a form of hidden guttering. Councillor White proposed that the Officer recommendation be agreed, this was seconded by Councillor Lewis. Members sought clarity in respect of maintenance arrangements for any development, the officer advised Members that this was not a planning consideration and would be a civil arrangement. RESOLVED – That Planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the officer report together with an additional condition to read; Notwithstanding the details in the approved plans, no development shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of a revised guttering proposal on the western elevation of the annexe hereby approved. The details shall propose a valley gutter arrangement that does not overhang the common boundary with 31 Russell Street and the works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure development is within the application site and to ensure the development sits
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 8 JULY 2014 PAGE 5 PANEL CHAIRS INITIALS ………..
(28) comfortably in the street-scene. 14/00301/FUL CONSTRUCTION OF DETACHED FOUR BEDROOMED DWELLING (RESUBMISSION OF 13/02031/FUL) AT LAND TO EAST OF NO 2, WESTERN DRIVE, HANSLOPE FOR MR B MCLAUGHLIN Members heard that a request had been submitted by the Ward Member and Parish Council asking that a Site Inspection be conducted before the application was determined, it had not been practical to arrange the inspection in advance of the meeting and it was therefore proposed by Councillor White that determination of the application be deferred until the next meeting of the Panel to enable a Site Inspection to be undertaken, this was seconded by Councillor Lewis, on being put to the vote was carried unanimously and it was; RESOLVED – That determination of the application be deferred until the next meeting of the Panel to allow for a site inspection to be conducted. 14/00480/FUL ERECTION OF DETACHED DOUBLE GARAGE AT 13 THE CRAVEN, HEELANDS, MILTON KEYNES FOR MRS NIKKI ALLEN The Officer reported that there was no update on the Panel report and that her recommendation remained that the application be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the panel report Councillor White proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor Lewis. On being put to the vote the proposal to approve the application was carried unanimously and it was; RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the panel report. 14/00571/FUL TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION WITH LOFT ACCOMMODATION (RESUBMISSION OF 13/01335/FUL) AT 5 LENBOROUGH COURT, WOOLSTONE, MILTON KEYNES FOR MR AND MRS S PORTERFIELD
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 8 JULY 2014 PAGE 6 PANEL CHAIRS INITIALS ………..
(29) Members heard representations from objectors concerned that the development would result In overlooking of neighbouring properties and that the proposal to include obscured glazing would result in an unsightly outcome. Objectors did not believe that the landscaping and natural screening provided by vegetation was adequate. Objectors raised concerns in respect of the separation distances to an approved single story development on a neighbouring property which was 16.5 meters rather than 19 meters as indicated in the report. The Officer reported that there was the 19 meter separation detailed was accurate and was measured to the nearest habitable room at first floor level and that her recommendation remained that the application be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the report. Councillor White proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed, this was seconded by Councillor Lewis. Members expressed concern that the obscured glass as proposed would not provide adequate lighting and may result in applicants seeking to change the condition. The officer told the panel that the window would be top opening only to allow light and ventilation and that there were other light sources from within the premises, and that should the applicant wish to alter the condition the consent of the Council would be required. Members noted the concerns expressed by the applicants but heard from the Head of Development Management that planning issues raised had been addressed within the panel report and he was not aware of a valid reason for refusing the application. On being put to the vote the recommendation to grant planning permission subject to the conditions detailed in the report was carried, and it was; RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the panel report. 14/00479/FUL ERECTION OF OPEN-SIDED GAZEBO (RETROSPECTIVE) AT ABBEY HILL HOTEL, MONKS WAY V4 TO A5, MILTON KEYNES FOR DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 8 JULY 2014 PAGE 7 PANEL CHAIRS INITIALS ………..
(30) MR NAZIM MANJI The Officer reported that a supporting statement was provided from the applicant which had been circulated to Members in th elate papers document. There were no other updates on the Panel report and that her recommendation remained that the application be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the panel report Councillor White proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor Lewis. On being put to the vote the proposal to approve the application was carried unanimously and it was; RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the panel report. 14/00824/FUL INSTALLATION OF DORMER WINDOW TO NEW ROOF OF SIDE EXTENSION AND THE PROVISION OF A BALCONY (PART- RETROSPECTIVE) AT 3 REDLAND DRIVE, LOUGHTON, MILTON KEYNES FOR DR MAHMOUD ATTAB Members heard representations from objectors concerned that the development would result In overlooking of neighbouring properties and that the size and scale of the development had resulted in an eyesore. Objectors recognising that the application was retrospective asked that should the Panel be minded to approve it that the conditioned screening height be adjusted to one meter. Members heard from the applicant that he would agree to the change of condition. The Officer reported that the recommendation remained that permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the report. Councillor White proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed, subject to an amendment to condition 1 to raise the level of the screen to 1 meter and to be done so within 3 months this was seconded by Councillor Lewis. On being put to the vote the proposal to grant permission subject to the conditions as amended below was carried
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 8 JULY 2014 PAGE 8 PANEL CHAIRS INITIALS ………..
(31) Amendment to condition 1 Notwithstanding the approved plans, the screen as proposed in plan 101 D shall consist of a 1 metre parapet wall below a 1 metre obscurely glazed screen and will be constructed and implemented in accordance with these details within 3 months of this decision notice and thereafter be retained at this height. Reason: To preserve the amenity and privacy of the adjoining residential occupiers and it was; RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the panel report as amended above. 14/00285/FUL SUBDIVISION OF EXISTING DWELLING INTO TWO FLATS, INCLUDING AMENDMENTS TO WINDOWS AND DOORS TO SIDE AND REAR ELEVATIONS AT 21 OLIVER ROAD, BLETCHLEY, MILTON KEYNES FOR MR AND MRS A PIACQUADIO The Panel was advised that due to an administrative error objectors were advised of an incorrect deadline for registering to speak, requests were received after the correct deadline but due to the lateness of the requests the applicants agent was unable to attend to exercise a right of reply and therefore in the interests of fairness it was recommended that determination of the application be deferred until the next panel meeting. it was therefore proposed by Councillor White that determination of the application be deferred until the next meeting of the Panel to enable all parties to be present and address the panel should they so wish, this was seconded by Councillor Lewis, on being put to the vote was carried unanimously and it was; RESOLVED – That determination of the application be deferred until the next meeting of the Panel to enable all parties to be present and address the panel should they so wish. RESOLVED – DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 8 JULY 2014 PAGE 9 PANEL CHAIRS INITIALS ………..
(32) That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the panel report.
14/00394/OUT OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUNGALOW IN REAR GARDEN AT REAR OF 7 GOLD STREET, HANSLOPE, MILTON KEYNES FOR MR R MAY Members heard representations from the representative of the Parish Council, that the application should be rejected on the grounds that the site fell within a conservation area and saved policy HE6 required any application to be full rather than outline and that whilst the Parish Council objected in principle to the development it was unable to fully evaluate the proposals on the application submitted which on the surface suggested that the proposal was for a two storey property, the Parish Council had concerns about the impact of the proposed development on the character of the conservation area. Members heard from the applicant that neighbours had not objected to the proposal which sought to enable the applicant to downsize and remain in a neighbourhood they had lived in for 36 years, it was proposed that the development . The Officer reported that her recommendation remained to grant the outline permission to agree the principle of development and that a full application could be assessed thereafter. Councillor White proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor Lewis. Members recognised that the proposal was contrary to policy HE6 which required applications within a conservation area to be full rather than outline and could not identify any issues to make an exception, due to the lack of detail and concerns raised by the Parish Council it was not felt that this application could be approved in light of the requirements of policy HE6 On being put to the vote the proposal to grant the application was lost. Councillor White proposed that the application be refused as it was contrary to policy HE6, this was seconded by Councillor Lewis and on being put to DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 8 JULY 2014 PAGE 10 PANEL CHAIRS INITIALS ………..
(33) the vote the proposal was carried unanimously and it was; RESOLVED – That planning permission be refused as an outline application failed to satisfy policy HE6 as the Council was therefore unable to adequately assess the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the conservation area. 14/00623/OUT OUTLINE PERMISSION FOR ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY BUNGALOW IN REAR GARDEN AT 27 STOKE ROAD, BLETCHLEY, MILTON KEYNES FOR MR AND MRS MARTIN WHEELER Members heard representations from the Chair of the Mill Road Residents Association and the Ward Member, expressing concerns in respect of the potential congestion in Mill Road and at the rear of the development site. Members were told that the residents association had entered into a verbal agreement with the Council to restrict the number of dwellings on the waterside development. The Objectors raised concerns regarding parking allocation being facilitated in a narrow access road The Officer reported that there was no update on the Panel report. The panel heard that there was no known formal agreement as indicated by the objectors, however the waterside development had a condition limiting numbers of dwellings, the site of this application did not fall within the scope of the waterside development. Members also heard that the application was outline, to establish the principle of development and it was only when the full application was received that consideration could be given to whether proposals met policy and parking standards. The Officer told the committee that the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions as detailed in the report. Councillor White proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor Lewis. Members recognised the concerns about parking and congestion but also accepted that this was a matter that would be considered at the full application stage.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 8 JULY 2014 PAGE 11 PANEL CHAIRS INITIALS ………..
(34) The proposal to grant the application subject to the conditions as detailed in the officer report was put to the vote and was carried unanimously, and it was; RESOLVED – That outline planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the panel report. 13/02569/OUT OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE ERECTION OF 5 X DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS WITH ALL MATTERS EXCEPT LAYOUT AND ACCESS RESERVED AT LAND AT LIMBAUD CLOSE, CHASE AVENUE, WALTON PARK FOR GOLDCREST DEVELOPMENTS (CAMPBELL PARK) LTD The Officer reported that there was no update on the Panel report and that his recommendation remained that the application be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the panel report Councillor White proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor Lewis. On being put to the vote the proposal to approve the application was carried unanimously and it was; RESOLVED – That Outline Planning Permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the panel report. 14/00818/CLUE CERTIFICATE OF LAWFULNESS FOR THE EXISTING ENCLOSURE OF AMENITY LAND FOR THE CONTINUED USE AS A GARDEN AT 1 THORNCLIFFE, TWO MILE ASH, MILTON KEYNES FOR MR RICHARD JUDD The Officer reported that It had been brought to the Officer attention that Circular 10/97 (Enforcing Planning Control: Lawfulness and the Lawful Development Certificate (LDC)) was cancelled and replaced by the Planning Practice Guidance Suite on the 6th March 2014. This application had originally been assessed on the cancelled circular however; the test remained the same that on the balance of probabilities the development had been in place for 10 years or more. Therefore when
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 8 JULY 2014 PAGE 12 PANEL CHAIRS INITIALS ………..
(35) tested against the Planning Practice Guidance the recommendation remained the same and that officers were satisfied from the evidence submitted that the enclosure of the amenity land had been in place for 10 years and was therefore immune from enforcement action and that a certificate should be issued. The Panel also heard that there was an error on page 161 paragraph 5.2 of the officers report which refers to a single storey front extension and should read fence On being put to the vote the proposal to approve the application was carried unanimously and it was; RESOLVED – That Listed Building Consent be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the panel report 14/00873/FUL CONVERSION OF EXISTING DWELLING INTO TWO FLATS WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AT 89 OLDBROOK BOULEVARD, OLDBROOK, MILTON KEYNES FOR MR SCORER The Officer reported that there was no update on the Panel report and that his recommendation remained that the application be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the panel report Councillor White proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor Lewis. On being put to the vote the proposal to approve the application was carried unanimously and it was; RESOLVED – That Planning Permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the panel report. 14/00797/FUL INSTALLATION OF A FOOTBALL PITCH WITH 3M HIGH FENCING (RESUBMISSION OF 14/00201/FUL) AT BARLEYHURST PARK PRIMARY SCHOOL, FORFAR DRIVE, BLETCHLEY FOR BARLEYHURST PARK PRIMARY SCHOOL The Officer reported that there was no update on the Panel report and that her recommendation remained that the application be granted subject to DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 8 JULY 2014 PAGE 13 PANEL CHAIRS INITIALS ………..
(36) the conditions as detailed in the panel report Councillor White proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor Lewis. Members expressed concern that the application also included an infrastructure for floodlight columns, as this was seen as pre-empting a decision on a future separate application and could be considered a means to by-pass the usual procedures. It was proposed by Councillor Bint and seconded by Councillor White that the relevant officer within the Council be made aware that the Panel did not believe this was an appropriate inclusion in the application and would not entertain similar future applications which could be perceived as the council attempting to exploit the planning process in an inappropriate manner. On being put to the vote the proposal to make the officer aware was carried. On being put to the vote the proposal to approve the application was carried unanimously and it was; RESOLVED – 1. That Planning Permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the panel report. 2. That the relevant officer within the Council be made aware that the Panel did not believe this was an appropriate inclusion in the application and would not entertain similar future applications which could be perceived as the council attempting to exploit the planning process in an inappropriate manner. 14/00348/FUL ERECTION OF A DETACHED TRIPLE GARAGE (RETROSPECTIVE) AT WINDMILL COTTAGE, 5 MILL LANE, BRADVILLE FOR MR S PAVITT The Officer reported that there was no update on the Panel report and that his recommendation remained that the application be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the panel report Councillor White proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor Lewis. On being put to the vote the proposal to approve the application was carried unanimously and it
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 8 JULY 2014 PAGE 14 PANEL CHAIRS INITIALS ………..
(37) was; RESOLVED – That Planning Permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the panel report.
14/00583/FUL TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION (RESUBMISSION OF 13/02238/FUL) AT 35 HAREBELL CLOSE, WALNUT TREE, MILTON KEYNES FOR MR AND MRS P WENHAM The Officer reported that there was no update on the Panel report and that his recommendation remained that the application be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the panel report Councillor White proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor Lewis. On being put to the vote the proposal to approve the application was carried unanimously and it was; RESOLVED – That Planning Permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the panel report. 14/00819/FUL TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION AT 23 TALLIS LANE, BROWNS WOOD, MILTON KEYNES FOR MRS ANITA BRAIM The Officer reported that there was no update on the Panel report and that his recommendation remained that the application be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the panel report Councillor White proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor Lewis. On being put to the vote the proposal to approve the application was carried unanimously and it was; RESOLVED – That Planning Permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the panel report. 14/00793/FUL ALTERATIONS TO WINDOW AND DOOR OPENINGS, PROVISION OF ACCESS RAMPS AND INSTALLATION OF ATM AT THE WISHING DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 8 JULY 2014 PAGE 15 PANEL CHAIRS INITIALS ………..
(38) WELL, TATTENHOE LANE, BLETCHLEY FOR SPIRIT PUB COMPANY (LEASED) LTD The Officer reported that there was no update on the Panel report and that his recommendation remained that the application be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the panel report Councillor White proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor Lewis. On being put to the vote the proposal to approve the application was carried unanimously and it was; RESOLVED – That Planning Permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the panel report. 14/00193/FUL INSTALLATION OF GARAGE DOORS TO EXISTING CARPORT AT 15 HILL PASTURES, REDHOUSE PARK, MILTON KEYNES FOR MISS REBECCA LANE The Panel heard from the representative of the Parish Council that the enclosure of the car port would result in a deficiency in the available on street parking allocation and would thereby not conform to policy or the residential design guide. It was also of concern that this could result in other vehicles being parked in positions that would reduce visibility for drivers entering or leaving the courtyard. The Panel heard from the applicant that the car port was allocated to her property but was positioned so that she could not see into it and feared for the security of her vehicle when left unattended, the panel heard that she had on occasion found youths using the port to shelter when smoking. The Officer reported that there was no update on the report, he explained that the recommendation to approve the application was in the light of a recent appeal in a similar situation, and reported that the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions as detailed in the panel report. Councillor White proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 8 JULY 2014 PAGE 16 PANEL CHAIRS INITIALS ………..
(39) Councillor Lewis. Members sought clarity in respect of which on street parking places were allocated to which premises and in whose ownership the land was. Members heard that the information was not available and a deferment would be required to establish the information. Councillor McLean proposed that determination of the application be deferred to enable plans to be obtained and land ownership established, this was seconded by Councillor White before being put to the vote. On being put to the vote the proposal to defer determination was carried and it was; RESOLVED – That determination of the application be deferred to enable amended plans to be obtained to include the area of proposed parking and for land ownership to be established. 14/00876/FUL VARIATION OF CONDITION 2 (LIMITED PERIOD) ATTACHED TO 11/01155/FUL FOR AN ADDITIONAL 3 YEARS PERMISSION AT 8B CHURCH ROAD, SHERINGTON, NEWPORT PAGNELL FOR SHERINGTON COMMUNITY SHOP LTD The Officer reported that there was no update on the Panel report and that his recommendation remained that the application be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the panel report Councillor White proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor Lewis. On being put to the vote the proposal to approve the application was carried unanimously and it was; RESOLVED – That Planning Permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the panel report. 14/00219/FUL ERECTION OF NEW DWELLING AND ALTERATIONS TO BOUNDARY FENCES (RESUBMISSION OF 13/02318/FUL) AT 118 WOLVERTON ROAD, NEWPORT PAGNELL FOR MR MAZAR ASHRAF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 8 JULY 2014 PAGE 17 PANEL CHAIRS INITIALS ………..
(40) Members heard representations in respect of the negative impact on neighbouring properties the development was likely to have due to the size of the proposed development which was proposed extended beyond the current footprint of the existing building. Neighbours held concerns this would also lead to overlooking of their property. The officer reported that reported that the Ward Member had asked that a condition be placed on the proposed development to limit the size of the rear extension to not go beyond the existing build line. Members heard that such a condition was not appropriate and should Members feel that there was a need the matter should be deferred to allow revised plans to be submitted. The Officer told the Panel that the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions as detailed in the report. Councillor White proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor Lewis. Members identified that the report failed to clearly indicate what the intention was in that it was unclear whether the intention was a complete demolition of the existing building and a rebuild or a renovation of the existing building, this combined with a lack of clear plans did not allow for a full assessment of the impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties. It was proposed by Councillor Bint that determination of the application be deferred to allow for full plans to be submitted. Members noted that it had been confirmed that Japanese Knotweed had been identified on the site and asked that a condition in respect of the disposal of any waste be included in the reason to deferral. The proposition to defer the application for full plans to be submitted and the conditions revised to take account of the need to ensure that correct disposal of waste relating to Japanese Knotweed was undertaken was seconded by Councillor Eastman before being put to the vote and it was carried unanimously. RESOLVED – That determination of the application be deferred to allow full plans to be submitted and a condition DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 8 JULY 2014 PAGE 18 PANEL CHAIRS INITIALS ………..
(41) to ensure that Japanese Knotweed waste was correctly disposed of be drafted. 14/00399/ADV ADVERT CONSENT TO DISPLAY 1 X FASCIA SIGN AND 1 X PROJECTING HANGING LOGO SIGN AT READING ROOM, STRATFORD ROAD, WOLVERTON FOR BBH (BARTLE BOGLE HEGARTY) The Officer reported that there was no update on the Panel report and that his recommendation remained that the application be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the panel report Councillor White proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor Lewis. On being put to the vote the proposal to approve the application was carried unanimously and it was; RESOLVED – That Planning Permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the panel report. 14/00400/LBC LISTED BUILDING CONSENT TO ERECT 1 X FASCIA SIGN AND 1 X PROJECTING HANGING LOGO SIGN AT READING ROOM, STRATFORD ROAD, WOLVERTON FOR BBH (BARTLE BOGLE HEGARTY) The Officer reported that there was no update on the Panel report and that his recommendation remained that the application be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the panel report Councillor White proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor Lewis. On being put to the vote the proposal to approve the application was carried unanimously and it was; RESOLVED – That Planning Permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the panel report. 14/01099/ADV ADVERT CONSENT TO DISPLAY 4 X NON- ILLUMINATED FREE STANDING SIGNS (WALTON PARK ROUNDABOUT) AT LAND AT, WALTON PARK ROUNDABOUT, MILTON KEYNES FOR PROPERTY SERVICES MKC DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 8 JULY 2014 PAGE 19 PANEL CHAIRS INITIALS ………..
(42) The Officer reported that there was no update on the Panel report and that his recommendation remained that the application be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the panel report Councillor White proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor Lewis. On being put to the vote the proposal to approve the application was carried unanimously and it was; RESOLVED – That Planning Permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the panel report.
THE CHAIR CLOSED THE MEETING AT 9:45PM
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 8 JULY 2014 PAGE 20 PANEL CHAIRS INITIALS ………..
(43) A Guide to Application Reports
Introduction
The following reports have been prepared by case officers from the Development Management Section of the Council’s Planning and Transport Department. In preparing the reports the case officers have taken into account all the planning issues relating to the application including:
All National and Local planning policies and legislation. All other relevant National and local policies and legislation. Relevant case law All comments received from statutory and non statutory consultees (including neighbours and other local people). The physical features of the property/site. The details of the proposal.
Clearly there is a lot of information to be considered. To keep reports to a readable length and to make sure that the important issues are fully covered, some of the more generic considerations are not explicitly referred to in the report or are only mentioned briefly. However, all the Councillors who sit on the Development Control Committee have been trained in all aspects of considering planning applications and are aware of the underlying issues which may not have been referred to directly in the report.
What is in the report?
In respect of policies, legislation and case law, those which provide the most important advice/guidance on the issues under consideration are referred to in the report.
In respect of comments from statutory and non statutory consultees, these are not normally reported in full. Although all relevant comments received are reported, they are usually summarised. Comments that have been received relating to matters which are not material planning issues are not normally reported. If they are reported for any reason, the fact that they are not material planning issues is clearly stated in the report.
In respect of the physical features of the site and the details of the proposal, the most significant features/details and those which can not easily be seen in the plans attached to the report are described in the report.
In the Considerations section of the report, the Case officer sets out the pros and cons of the application in relation to the relevant polices, legislation and case law and the comments received from everyone who has responded to the application.
(44)
The importance of planning policy
The most important factor that the Committee must consider is the relevant planning policies. Firstly there is the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) produced by the Government, which sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. Secondly there are the Council's own planning policies, particularly the policies in the Council’s Adopted Core Strategy and Adopted Local Plan, but including other policy documents such as Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG). Planning legislation requires that all planning decisions should be in line with the relevant policies.
Further Information
You can find all the information submitted with the application, together with all the comments that the Council received at www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/publicaccess.
You can find all the Council’s planning policies at www.milton- keynes.gov.uk/planning-and-building/planning-policy.
You can find national planning legislation, guidance and advice at www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding.
(45) AMENDED PLANNING USE CLASSES
Class A1. Shops Use for all or any of the following purposes: (a) for the retail sale of goods other than hot food. (b) as a post office. (c) for the sale of tickets or as a travel agency. (d) for the sale of sandwiches or other cold food for consumption off the premises. (e) for hairdressing. (f) for the direction of funerals. (g) for the display of goods for sale. (h) for the hiring out of domestic or other personal goods or articles. (i) for the washing or cleaning of clothes and fabrics on the premises. (j) for the reception of goods to be washed, cleaned or repaired. (k) as an internet café; where the primary purpose of the premises is to provide facilities for enabling members of the public to access the internet where the sale, display or service is to visiting members of the public.
Class A2. Financial & Professional Services Use the provision of: (a) financial services. (b) professional services (other than health or medical services). (c) any other services (including use as a betting office) which it is appropriate to provide in a shopping area, where the services are provided principally to visiting members of the public.
Class A3. Restaurants & Cafes Use for the sale of food and drink for consumption on the premises.
Class A4. Drinking Establishments Use as a public house, wine-bar or other drinking establishment.
Class A5. Hot Food Takeaways Use for the sale of hot food for consumption off the premises.
Class B1. Business Use for all or any of the following purposes: (a) as an office other than a use within Class A2 (financial and professional services). (b) for research and development of products or processes. (c) for any industrial process, being a use which can be carried out in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit.
Class B2. General Industrial Use for the carrying on of an industrial process other than one falling within class B1 above.
Class B8. Storage or Distribution Use for storage or as a distribution centre.
Class C1. Hotels Use as a hotel or as a boarding or guesthouse where, in each case, no significant element of care is provided.
(REVISED 25.05.10)
(46) Class C2. Residential Institutions Use for the provision of residential accommodation and care to people in need of care (other than a use within Class C3 (dwelling houses).
Use as:
(a) a hospital or nursing home (b) a residential school, college or training centre
Class C2A. Secure Residential Institutions Use for the provision of secure residential accommodation, including use as a prison, young offenders institution, detention centre, secure training centre, custody centre, short-term holding centre, secure hospital, secure local authority accommodation or use as military barracks.
Class C3. Dwellinghouses Use as a dwellinghouse (whether or not as a sole or main residence) by: (a) a single person or by people to be regarded as forming a single household; (b) not more than six residents living together as a single household where care is provided for residents; or (c) not more than six residents living together as a single household where no care is provided to residents (other than a Use within Class C4) For the purposes of Class C3(a) “single household” shall be construed in accordance with section 258 of the Housing Act 2004(3).”
Class C4. Houses in Multiple Occupation Use of a dwellinghouse by not more than six residents as a ‘house in multiple occupation”. For the purposes of Class C4 a “house in multiple occupation” does not include a converted block of flats to which section 257 of the Housing Act 2004 applies but otherwise has the same meaning as in section 254 of the Housing Act 2004.”.
Class D1. Non-Residential Institutions Any use not including a residential use: (a) for the provision of any medical or health services except the use of premises attached to the residence of the consultant or practitioner. (b) as a crèche, day nursery or day centre. (c) for the provision of education. (d) for the display of works of art (otherwise than for sale or hire). (e) as a museum. (f) as a public library or public reading room. (g) as a public hall or exhibition hall. (h) for, or in connection with, public worship or religious instruction.
Class D2. Assembly & Leisure Use as: (a) a cinema. (b) a concert hall. (c) a bingo hall (d) a dance hall. (e) a swimming bath, skating rink, gymnasium or area for other indoor or outdoor sports or recreations, not involving motorised vehicles or firearms.
Sui Generis Any use which does not fall within the definition of one of the classes as specified in the Use Classes Order.
(REVISED 25.05.10)
(47) DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE CODE OF GOOD PRACTICE FOR PLANNING MATTERS - GUIDANCE SUMMARY
This Code applies to all Members but particularly members of the Development Control Committee, their substitutes, and officers associated with planning cases.
GENERAL
1 The Development Control Committee (DCC) is a quasi-judicial body.
2 DCC members must therefore act totally impartially at all times from as soon as they first become acquainted with a planning application or potential planning application until the final decision is taken.
3 They must declare the nature and extent of any personal interest they have in any planning matter and must cease to be involved in any planning matter in which they have a prejudicial interest as soon as they realise that they have such an interest.
4 Insofar as possible DCC members should avoid contact with applicants, agents, objectors, and - in particular - decline all offers of gifts and hospitality. Before an application is made they should have an officer present if possible when meeting any of the above and keep a record of the meeting.
5 They should take their decisions in accordance with the Council's planning policies unless there are clear and compelling planning reasons for not doing so.
6 All Members must not disclose or use to their own advantage any confidential information.
7 Members of the DCC should not become associated in the public mind with any vested interest in planning matters.
OUTSIDE THE COMMITTEE BEFORE OR AFTER RECEIPT OF A PLANNING APPLICATION
8 DCC members should not offer any opinion on a planning application until it has come to Committee and they are satisfied that they have all the relevant planning information.
9 This includes all applications arising within their wards - which should be handled by other councillors.
10 DCC members are advised not to allow themselves to be lobbied but, when they are, they must give equal time and opportunity to both applicant and objector.
REVISED VERSION ADOPTED BY COUNCIL - 14 JANUARY 2005
L:\Committee\2012-13\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE\ADMIN\AGENDA PROCEDURE PACK\3. Guidance Summary.doc
(48) 11 DCC members should normally only meet applicants and objectors with a Council officer present.
12 All such contacts must be reported to the assistant Director (Planning, Economy and Development).
13 All Members must not put pressure on any officer associated with planning matters in order to influence their recommendations on a particular application one way or the other (see 19 below)
14 All Members must follow the Council's guidelines on procedure at site visits.
IN COMMITTEE OR CABINET
15 Members must base their decisions only on material planning considerations. No others are permitted.
16 Members must not speak or vote on any planning matter in which they have a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest could be a disclosable pecuniary interest, or a personal interest which a member of the public, looking on may consider so significant that it would prejudice their judgement in carrying out their role as a Member. However, where a Member holds a conflict of interest described above, before retiring he or she may first exercise the ability to address the meeting as a member of the public in accordance with the Access to Information Procedure Rules.
17 They must declare if they have any relevant information on a planning application or have been lobbied in respect of it.
18 They must list their planning reasons for any departure from the Council's planning policies (see 5 above); and take a recorded vote on any such decision.
OFFICERS
19 Officers are required at all times to give objective, professional and non- political advice on all planning matters.
20 Additionally the guidelines above apply as appropriate to all officers associated with planning matters.
REVISED VERSION ADOPTED BY COUNCIL - 14 JANUARY 2005
L:\Committee\2012-13\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE\ADMIN\AGENDA PROCEDURE PACK\3. Guidance Summary.doc
(49)
ANNEX A
PROCEDURE FOR THE DETERMINATION OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (a) Council Procedure Rule 9 does not apply to the Development Control Committee and the Development Control Panel when determining planning applications.
(b) Members of the public may request the right to speak at any meeting of the Development Control Committee and the Development Control Panel to object to a planning application. The number of requests to speak will be limited to three per application (not including any right of reply). A single objector will be allowed to speak for a maximum of 3 minutes. Where there is more than one objector representing a group or organisation, they will be limited to 3 minutes to present the group or organisation’s objection, but more than one representative may speak on behalf of the group or organisation. Both the number of speakers and the time limit may be extended at the Chair’s discretion.
(c) If an application is deferred any speaker heard by the Committee when an application was first received will not be precluded from being heard again when the application is reconsidered, subject to the speaker submitting a further request to speak in accordance with paragraphs (b) and (g) of this Annex.
(d) Ward Councillors may comment on any application either within their Ward, or which has a significant impact on the residents of their Ward. If a Ward Councillor is objecting to a planning application he/she must advise the Assistant Director (Democratic Services), in order that the applicant can be offered a right of reply. Any request to speak must be submitted in accordance with paragraph (h) of this Annex.
(e) A representative of a Town or Parish Council, nominated by either the Chair or the Clerk of the Town or Parish Council, will be allowed to address the Development Control Committee, or Panel, for a maximum of 3 minutes when an application for a development within that Parish or where at the discretion of the Chair there is a significant impact on another Parish, is to be considered. Any representation will be in addition to the limit on the number of public speakers. If the Town or Parish Council is to speak in objection to, or in favour of, the application the Service Director (Law and Democratic Services) must be advised when submitting the speaking request, and in all cases no less than two clear working days before the meeting, in order that the applicant can be offered the right of reply.
1
(50)
(f) Applicants will be entitled to speak in favour of a planning application where the planning officer has recommended refusal and there have been no requests from members of the public to speak in objection. Any speech in favour will last no longer than 3 minutes.
(g) Any applicants, or their agents, will be informed when a request to speak in objection has been received and will be invited to exercise a right of reply either in writing or orally at the meeting. Any right of reply will not exceed the cumulative time given to objectors to the specific planning application. Applicants, or their agents, may invite witnesses to give evidence within the allocated time available.
(h) Any request to speak (other than exercising the right of reply) must be received by the Assistant Director (Democratic Services) by noon, two clear working days before the meeting.
(i) Depending on the volume of representations the Committee / Panel may wish to either:
(i) receive all representations and consider the related applications at the commencement of the meeting; or
(ii) follow the agenda and receive all representations as the applications are considered; or
(iii) take all representations at the commencement of the meeting and then follow the order of the agenda.
(j) Members of the Development Control Committee and the Development Control Panel may, with the consent of the Chair of the meeting, ask questions of objectors and applicants to clarify matters of fact.
(k) Deputations and Petitions under Council Procedure Rule 9.12 and Public Questions under Council Procedure Rules 9.1 to 9.10 will operate as set out in these Rules, for matters of general policy and issues not directly related to promoting, or objecting to a particular planning application, and will form part of the 30 minutes allocated for public participation.
2
(51) National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
The Impact of the NPPF of the Council's Planning Policies On the 27th March 2012 the Government's National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published and came into force. The NPPF sets out the Government's planning policies for England and replaces the majority of the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) and Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) produced by the Government together with some ministerial advice given in Letters to Chief Planning Officers and a few Circulars, including Circular 05/2005: Planning Obligations. All Local Planning Authorities must take the NPPF into account in plan preparation and it is a material consideration in planning decisions. Like most Local Planning Authorities (LPA), Milton Keynes Council (MKC) has an Adopted Local Plan and a number of other planning policy documents which pre date the NPPF. The Government recognised that this situation would arise and therefore the NPPF contains guidance on how planning authorities should attribute weighting to their existing policies against the policies of the NPPF until such time as the LPA produces revised policies to take into account the policies in the NPPF. The NPPF advocates progressing revision of plans as quickly as possible. The weight to be given to Local Plan Policies In respect of the adoption of the policies of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011, MKC relied on the transitional arrangements in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, it adopted its local plan under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ( the 1990 Act) and paragraph 215 of the NPPF applies. Therefore when considering planning applications MKC must: (a) take the policies contained in the NPPF into account as a material consideration; and (b) only give weight to MKC’s existing planning policies to the extent and the degree with which they conform with the policies in the NPPF; and MKC may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans to the extent and degree with which they also conform with the policies in the NPPF, the stage of preparation of the emerging plan and the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies The weight to be given to Mineral Plan Policies The MKC’s Mineral Local Plan was also adopted under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and so the same paragraph 215 position applies to the determination of mineral plan applications as set out above. On the 27th March 2012 the Government also published Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework. This technical guidance is intended to ensure the effective implementation of the Framework policies in (a) areas at risk of flooding and (b) in relation to mineral extraction. In relation to mineral extraction, the guidance deals with issues such as dust emission, noise and restoration.
(52) Supplementary Planning Guidance and Supplementary Planning Documents In respect of the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) and Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD), the Council must apply the same weighting and balancing considerations to these documents as to the policies they relate to. Therefore SPG or SPD documents that relate to policies in the Local Plan and the Minerals Plan should be considered in accordance with the approach set out in 215 of the NPPF Planning Obligations S106 agreements In addition to these changes the NPPF replaces the previous 5 part test for planning obligations contained in Circular 05/2005. The NPPF test requires that planning obligations/S106 agreements should only be sought where the requirements are: 1) Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. 2) Directly related to the development. 3) Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. Reports to Development Control Committee and Panel Officers are currently reviewing the NPPF and assessing the conformity of the policies contained in the Council's Local Plan and Mineral Plan with those contained in the NPPF. When this review is complete a comprehensive guide to the weight to be given to the Council's policies will be produced. However, until this can be done each report deals with the issue as far as it relates to the considerations relevant to that particular application.
(53) ITEM 6 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
14 AUGUST 2014
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
MAJOR APPLICATIONS
Major Applications – Major applications are those proposing 10 dwellings or more and for all other types of development those proposing 1000 square metres or more of additional floor space.
MINOR APPLICATIONS
Minor Applications – Minor applications are proposed residential dwellings of less than 10 dwellings or other new commercial, industrial, retail office or warehouse proposals of less than 1000 square metres of new floor space.
OTHER APPLICATIONS
Other Applications – Other applications include most changes of use, all householder development, Listed Buildings and Conservation Area Consent applications and a variety of other types of generally small-scale development proposals
(54)
APP 01
Application Number: 14/01224/FUL Other
Removal of conditions 4 (use only as a school and not for hire) and 10 (opening hours) attached to application 11/01192/FUL
AT The Premier Academy, Saffron Street, Bletchley
FOR The Premier Academy
Target: 28th July 2014
Ward: Bletchley East Parish: Bletchley & Fenny Stratford Town Council
Report Author/Case Officer: Sarah Hine Contact Details: [email protected]
Team Leader: Nicola Wheatcroft Team Leader Strategic Applications Team Contact Details: 01908 252274 [email protected]
1.0 INTRODUCTION (A brief explanation of what the application is about)
1.1 The main section of the report set out below draws together the core issues in relation to the application including policy and other key material considerations. This is supplemented by an appendix which brings together, planning history, additional matters and summaries of Consultees responses and public representations. Full details of the application, including plans, supplementary documents, consultee responses and public representations are available on the Council’s Public Access system www.milton- keynes.gov.uk/publicaccess. All matters have been taken into account in writing this report and recommendation.
1.2 The Site The application property, The Premier Academy, educates approximately 500 pupils aged 4 to 11. It is located within a residential area of Bletchley and has a main vehicular and pedestrian access located off Saffron Street, there is a further pedestrian access on the site at Tiffany Close, access through this gate is restricted by a planning condition. A multi-purpose hall and emergency grasscrete access road were granted planning permission in 2011.
1.3 There are 34 car parking spaces within the site, but there is a longstanding history of traffic problems in streets close to the entrance of the school at the beginning and end of the school day. Saffron Street particularly suffers from on street parking and traffic congestion at these times and Tiffany Close is also affected by street parking as children use the footpaths to access the school.
(55) 1.4 Details of the location of the site and its relationship to surrounding properties can be seen in the plans attached to this report.
1.5 The Proposal Planning permission is sought for the removal of conditions 4 and 10 attached to permission 11/01192/FUL. Condition 4 seeks to safeguard neighbour amenity through preventing the hire of the hall and limiting use to activities which are directly associated to the school:
4. ‘The building hereby permitted shall be used only for purposes directly associated with the use of the application site as a whole as a combined school and shall not be hired out for any other purpose.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residential occupiers.’
Condition 10 restricts the hours of use of the hall to between 0700 and 1830 Monday to Friday only and not at all at weekends and Bank Holidays:
10. The opening hours of the hall hereby permitted shall be restricted to between 0700 and 1830 Monday to Friday only and not at all at weekends and Bank Holidays.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the amenity of local residents.
1.6 The multi-purpose sports hall is located on the playing field and is detached from the main school building. The building contains its own toilets; store and entrance lobby.
2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application)
2.1 National Policy National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 72 The need to expand schools
2.2 Local Policy Core Strategy None relevant
Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 The most relevant 'saved' policies within the adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 - 2011 are: D1 - Impact upon Locality; T15 – Parking Provision.
Supplementary Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Guidance - Addendum to 'Parking Standards for Milton Keynes 2005’ adopted April 2009.
(56)
3.0 MAIN ISSUES (The issues which have the greatest bearing on the decision)
3.1 Noise and Disturbance The hiring of the hall is likely to generate two forms of noise, firstly as a direct result of the activities taking place inside and secondly associated to the use of the site for example generated by the comings and goings of vehicles. The proposed conditions seek to protect residential amenity, in these terms the removal of these conditions are considered acceptable.
3.2 Parking Provision The Highways Officer has confirmed no objection to the removal of the conditions restricting hours of use and preventing the hire of the multi-purpose sports hall. In these terms it is considered that the hire of the hall is acceptable subject to the conditions proposed within section 6 of this report including the prevention of the hire of the hall at the same time as the school site is in use to avoid traffic conflicts.
4.0 RECOMMENDATION (The decision that officers recommend to the Committee)
4.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of this report.
5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have lead to the officer Recommendation)
5.1 Conditions 4 and 10 were attached to planning permission 11/01192/FUL in order to afford adequate protection and to safeguard the amenity of nearby residents. Condition 4 which restricted the use of the hall to school purposes only and to prevent hiring seeks to address the potential of the hall to attract additional traffic associated to events outside of school hours. Condition 10 restricting the hours of use of the hall was added to the permission at Councillors request to support highways safety and the amenity of local residents.
5.2 Noise and Disturbance Noise and disturbance created by the hiring of the hall has been identified within public representations as a specific concern relating to the potential additional use of the hall. It is considered that the proposed hiring of the hall could generate two forms of noise firstly through the use of the hall (for example music) and secondly noise which is coincidental to the use of the hall for example the movement of vehicles within the site. It is considered that the impact on neighbouring properties of the noise from the use of the hall can be suitably mitigated by a condition requiring that a noise assessment is completed prior to the hire of the hall and that any mitigation methods identified within this assessment are installed and maintained.
5.3 It is also proposed that in order to protect residential amenity any details of
(57) amplifying equipment to be installed within the hall will require the approval of the Local Planning Authority. Furthermore the playing of music is restricted to between the hours of 8:00am and 10:00pm to prevent any adverse impact on the surrounding residential properties. These conditions are considered to afford adequate protection to residential amenity in respect of noise generated from within the hall. Furthermore it is proposed that the use of the hall shall be supervised at all times to ensure that noise generation within the site is monitored and that no windows or doors etc shall be open when the hall is in use to limit the transmission of noise from within.
5.4 Although it is considered that the noise generated in association to the use of the hall through coming and goings may have some impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties. That said it is considered that the restriction of the capacity of the hall would limit the need for vehicles associated with the use of the hall to migrate into the surrounding area for parking. On this basis it is considered that the majority of noise associated to the hire of the hall would be contained within the site. Residents have noted noise disturbance at peak drop off and pick up times however, it is considered that the proposed vehicles associated with a 200 capacity of the hall would be significantly less than that associated with the school use and furthermore the background traffic at the proposed times of use are likely to be considerably less therefore it is considered that although noise co-incidental to the use of the hall may have some impact on surrounding properties this does not justify a refusal.
5.5 Parking Provision It has been acknowledged within previous applications at this site that local residents clearly suffer considerable disturbance and inconvenience at peak times of day from the coming and goings of children, car parking and traffic movements. That said this application is not seeking to increase pupil numbers and a condition is proposed within section 6 of this report to prevent the hiring of the hall whilst the school site is in use in order to avoid further exacerbating this existing traffic issue. The Highways Officer has confirmed that condition 4 of the previous consent which seeks to prevent the hall from being hired out is not something which would usually be requested on highways grounds. And in these terms no objection is raised to the removal of this condition subject to a condition preventing the hire of this space to external parties during school hours to avoid any traffic conflict between the school and the hall facility.
5.6 In respect of condition 10 which limits the hours of use of the hall, the Highways Officer has confirmed that subject to a condition preventing the hire of the hall during school hours the traffic created from the use of the hall could in the most part be accommodated within the schools on-site parking provision. It is acknowledged that on occasions the hire of the hall will result in additional on street parking within the surrounding streets, the Highways Officer does not object on this basis.
5.7 Parking within the surrounding residential streets at the schools peak drop off and pick up times has been identified as one issue which has a particularly detrimental impact on neighbour amenity. Given that there are currently 34
(58) car parking spaces on the site at present it is proposed that the capacity of the hall for hire should be limited to 200 hundred to minimise the migration of vehicles associated with the hire of the hall into the surrounding area and therefore minimise the adverse impacts of the hire of the hall on the surrounding residential area.
5.8 The school site is currently accessible from a variety of vehicular and pedestrian accesses. It is proposed that access for the hall when in hire should be restricted to the entrance located on Mossmans Close, to limit the impact that the comings and goings related to the site will have on the neighbouring properties, in particular the residents of Tiffany Close. In these terms it is considered that the proposed hire of the hall and extended hours of opening will not adversely impact on the highways and parking situation.
5.9 Other matters During the determination of application 11/01192/FUL for the erection of the multi-purpose sports hall the Councils Environmental Health department requested a condition limiting the hours of use of the sports hall to 7am to 10pm Monday to Friday, 9am to 10pm Saturdays, and 9am to 10pm Sundays and Bank Holidays. This condition sought to protect the amenity of neighbouring properties from the noise and disturbance associated with the use of the hall. The condition was amended by the committee members to 0700 and 1830 Monday to Friday only and not at all at weekends and Bank Holidays. It is considered that on balance reverting back to the originally proposed condition would still afford suitable protection to the amenity of surrounding residential properties whilst allowing flexibility to school use. Given the additional conditions proposed within section 6 of this report it is considered that the use of the hall at these beyond 18:30 and at weekends would not adversely impact on the amenity of residents within the area.
5.10 Conclusion In conclusion it is considered that on balance the potential adverse impacts in respect of the hiring of the hall and increased opening hours can be suitably addressed by conditions and the proposed variations to the conditions is considered acceptable.
6.0 CONDITIONS (The conditions that need to be imposed on any planning permission for this development to ensure that the development is satisfactory. To meet legal requirements all conditions must be Necessary, Relevant, Enforceable, Precise and Reasonable )
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To prevent the accumulation of planning permissions; to enable the Local Planning Authority to review the suitability of the development in the light of altered circumstances; and to comply with section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. (D11)
2. During the hire of the hall access to the site shall using the Mossmans Close entrance only, all other vehicle and pedestrian access shall remained locked.
(59)
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of local residents.
3. The emergency vehicular access from Tiffany Close shall be used only by vehicles belonging to the Police, Fire or Ambulance services as an emergency access. The emergency access may not be used for any other purposes unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of local residents.
4. Details of all sound amplification systems shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to their installation. The use of music and amplified music within the premises shall be limited to between 08:00 and 22:00 hours on any day.
Reason: To ensure that noise levels from the premises do not affect surrounding residents.
5. All windows, roof lights and doors shall remain closed whilst music and amplified music is playing.
Reason: In order to protect the amenities of the surrounding area.
6. No marquees, tents or temporary structures shall be erected on the site in connection with the uses hereby permitted.
Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the area and amenities of neighbouring occupiers.
7. The multi-purpose sports hall shall not be hired or used for any use not directly associated with the school until a parking management plan has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure orderly parking arrangements
8. The times of goods deliveries associated with the hire of the hall shall be restricted to between 16:00-19:00 Monday to Saturday and at no time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
Reason: To limit the effect on adjoining occupiers by reason of noise and disturbance.
9. Prior to the commencement of development, details of the site waste management strategy to be implemented in association with the hiring of the multi- purpose sports hall shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved measures shall be implemented and maintained thereafter.
Reason: To minimise waste and encourage the reuse or recycling of waste materials to protect the amenity of surrounding residents.
(60)
10. A member of the school staff, or responsible person appointed by the school, shall be in attendance at all times to provide supervision while the multi-purpose hall is being used.
Reason: To limit the effect on adjoining occupiers by reason of noise and disturbance from unsupervised activities.
11. Prior to the commencement of hiring of the hall for any use not directly associated with the school a Noise Assessment shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Sound insulation and mitigation methods shall then be installed in accordance with the assessment and maintained thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that noise levels from the hall do not adversely affect the amenity of surrounding occupiers.
12. The use hereby permitted shall not be available to hire at any time when any other part of the school site is in use.
Reason: In order to ensure adequate parking provision and avoid an adverse impact on highways safety.
13. No more than 200 people can attend the building at any one time.
Reason: To ensure that there is adequate car parking provision on the site and in the vicinity to meet the demand for car parking generated by the proposal.
14. The opening hours of the hall hereby permitted shall be restricted to between 7am to 10pm Monday to Friday, 9am to 10pm Saturdays, and at no time on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring residential properties with regards to noise and disturbance.
(61)
Appendix to 14/01224/FUL
A1.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY (A brief outline of previous planning decisions affecting the site – this may not include every planning application relating to this site, only those that have a bearing on this particular case)
A1.1 08/00660/MKCOD3 ERECTION OF MULTI PURPOSE HALL REFUSED 06.06.2008
08/01033/MKCOD3 ERECTION OF MULTI PURPOSE SCHOOL HALL TOGETHER WITH THE CREATION/RETENTION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM TIFFANY CLOSE (RESUBMISSION OF 08/00660/MKCOD3) PERMITTED 17.11.2008
09/00893/FUL CONVERSION OF GRASSED AREA TO CAR PARK PERMITTED 21.07.2009
11/01192/FUL Erection of multi-purpose hall PERMITTED 18.11.2011
12/02697/FUL Proposed new road and strategy for vehicular movements including new exit onto Drayton Road (limited time periods) and additional car parking (re- submission 12/01136/FUL) REFUSED 25.09.2013 (Appeal process ongoing)
13/02594/FUL Proposed school canteen, dance and IT facilities PERMITTED 23.04.2014
A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS
(Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)
A2.1 None
(62)
A3.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS (Who has been consulted on the application and the responses received. The following are a brief description of the comments made. The full comments can be read via the Council’s web site)
Comments Officer Response A3.1 Parish - Bletchley & Fenny Stratford The Town Council object on the following basis. The conditions were implemented by Milton Keynes Council The condition restricting hours of use was recommended to following an Environmental Assessment under application be attached to permission 11/01192/FUL at the request of 11/01182/FUL. As a result of the EA it was deemed that the the Environmental Health department in order to protect residents were entitled to additional protection from noise resident’s amenity, the hours of use were revised at the and traffic obstruction and as such the conditions were request of Councillors during the Development Control imposed as part of the planning permission. The resident’s Committee meeting. situation has not changed in terms of parking, nuisance to Parking is discussed within paragraph 5.5-5.8 of this report. neighbours, noise and environmental impact. It could in fact be argued that the environmental problems experienced by neighbours have increased recently. For the very reason it was deemed necessary to impose the conditions, they should remain. It is further requested that a full traffic survey is carried out The proposed development is not considered to require a prior to determination of the application. The study is carried full traffic survey. The Parish Council has previously been out in and around the school area covering Saffron Street, notified of this position. Tiffany Close and Water Eaton Road. This study should also cover an area including the roundabout at Water Eaton Road/manor Road to provide information on the impact of traffic not just in Saffron Street but also in the feeder streets in the area. It is requested that the survey is carried out covertly as an obvious study may compromise the reality of the situation and therefore not give a true view of the situation. The study should also be completed when the school and all neighbouring schools in the area are fully
(63) open to children and not during the school holiday period. On previous occasions emergency vehicles have not been able to access into Saffron Street due to parked cars (connected to the school) and this has the potential to cause a life threatening delay to residents, which is unacceptable.
A3.2 Environmental Health Manager Any response will be reported
A3.3 Ward - Bletchley East - Cllr Nash Any response will be reported
A3.4 Ward - Bletchley East - Cllr Webb Discussed in paragraph 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.9 As ward councillor for Bletchley east I support the residents and resident association in the following areas Saffron Street, Water Eaton Road, Drayton Road, Hunter Drive north and south of road divide, Celina Close, Tiffany Close and Magenta Close who will affected for around 14 hours a day weekdays and no respite at weekends then for seven days a week having to put up with cars parking, car/van door slamming, cigarette smoking outside of school premises butts littering Tiffany Close along with general rubbish littering the nearby streets, it’s a school for young children events here could lead to syringes, condoms being left and found making their wellbeing unsafe, the change of use of the hall would no longer be for education but entertainment should not be permitted.
A3.5 Highways Development Control Condition 4 (use only as a school and not for hire) I would not normally ask for this type of condition to be attached as sports halls and extensions just operate as
(64) additional space within the normal school environment and then hired out after school hours when there is not (or reduced) background school parking and traffic patterns.
At many schools, during school hours, sports halls will be Discussed in paragraph 5.5, 5.6, 5.7 and 5.8. used by the school and then possibly hired out to community groups at other times i.e. in the evenings, at weekends and during the holidays. I wouldn’t envisage a school would hire out parts of their school during school hours for security reasons but if the condition were removed then there is no guarantee that hire to external groups wouldn’t take place during ordinary school times. There would be significant parking and traffic implications were such occurrences taking place. A compromise to the existing condition might be that hires to external groups can only take place after say 1545 during school term time and any time at weekends, bank holidays and school holidays.
Condition 10 (opening hours) Were the school (or hired out externally if condition 4 is Discussed in paragraph 5.6 removed) to use the hall after 1830 or at weekends and bank holidays is unlikely to cause highway safety issues as the general school traffic and parking will be absent at these times. However, there is no guarantee that parking demand for an event in the evening would be able to be completely contained within the school’s existing parking supply and that some migration to nearby areas is possible.
A3.6 Ward - Bletchley East - Cllr Khan Any response will be reported
(65) A3.7 Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application: 12, 14, 17-20, 23, 34-46 (evens), 52-72 (evens), 80 and 59 Tiffany Close Bletchley 2- 8 (evens) Mossmans Close Bletchley 1-30, 42, 49 - 52 Saffron Street Bletchley 38-52A(evens), 34, 32, 30, 20 and 22 Drayton Road Bletchley 1-4 Appleby Heath Bletchley 21- 49 (odds) Magenta Close Bletchley
A3.8 A total of 190 third party responses have been received and two petitions with 245 and 36 signatures respectively entitled ‘We the undersigned confirm that we are in full support of The Premier Academy’s application number: 14/01224/FUL to remove conditions 4 (use only as a school and not for hire) and 10 (opening hours) in respect of the Academy hall. A3.9 The following points have been raised in support of the application: The application will provide a community facility. Noted Other schools within residential areas are used for Noted non-educational purposes. The restriction of the use of the hall inhibits the ability This is not a material planning consideration of the PTA to fund raise. Removal of the conditions will allow working parents This is not a material planning consideration to attend events at the school. The removal of conditions would give local residents/ Noted sports clubs the opportunity to use the hall. These restrictions do not apply to other schools. This is not a material planning consideration The current restrictions limit the children’s This is not a material planning consideration
(66) educational opportunities and extra-curricular activities. A3.10 The following points have been raised in objection to the application: The additional cars using the hall will exacerbate Discussed in paragraph 5.5-5.8 traffic issues. Potential for increased vandalism. Noted There is no intended plan to resolve the existing Discussed in paragraph 5.5-5.8 traffic issues. The hall was built for educational purposes and The hall would still be retained for education purposes and should be retained for this. would remain ancillary to the school. The use of the hall outside of school hours could Noted result in anti-social behaviour in the area There has been no Environmental Impact Statement The application does not trigger the requirement for an on this site which should have been carried out to Environmental Impact Assessment. An Environmental prevent any further erosion to the residential area. Impact Statement would be supplementary to this application and would not be a document required to validate this application. The use of the controlled entry/exit gate on the street Noted will result in traffic queuing on the highway. The hire of the hall would increase litter in the area. Noted The school hall has a capacity of 600 and there are Discussed in paragraph 5.5-5.8 only 56 parking spaces. It would be impossible for emergency vehicles to gain Discussed in paragraph 5.5-5.8 access to homes or the school when the hall is in use, even though Tiffany is the designated emergency access to the school. Although the school may have provided more parking spaces on-site, the fact remains that a significant number of parents choose not to use them and prefer to park on the street. I cannot see this changing unless parking
(67) restrictions are introduced. Extending opening hours and making the hall available for public hire will simply make this unsatisfactory situation worse, especially as most of the available on-street parking spaces are taken up by residents during the evenings and at the weekend. Tiffany Close is a narrow cul-de-sac with 4 blind 90 Discussed in paragraph 5.8 degree bends and very short straight sections. Vehicles cannot be safely parked on both sides of the road or on the bends, yet parents still do so. Access must not be allowed through pedestrian gate Discussed in paragraph 5.8 on Tiffany Close. There are already 3 similar halls available for hire in Noted the area Even though the school might say that they will only Discussed in paragraph 5.8 open the main gate in Saffron Street, people familiar with the area would also park around the Tiffany Close/Hunter Drive area and walk through This will have a detrimental effect on resident’s Discussed within section 5 of this report quality of life. An entertainment venue will inevitable create noise Discussed in section 5 of this report and inadequate parking in a housing estate. Will increase pollution from increase in traffic Noted This is a fundamental change of use from education The proposal would not constitute a change of use as it to leisure. would be retained for education purposes and would remain ancillary to the school. The Case Officers report for application Discussed in paragraph 5.5- 5.8 13/02594/FUL states at paragraph 1.3 ‘there is a long standing history of traffic problems in the streets close to the entrance of the school at the beginning and end of the school day. Saffron Street particularly
(68) suffers from on street parking and traffic congestion at these times and Tiffany Close is also affected by on street parking’ at 5.7 ‘Currently local residents clearly suffer considerable disturbance and inconvenience from the comings and goings of the children, car parking and traffic movements at the start and end of the school day’ there is no mention of how the traffic generated by the application will be managed. This could result in parking 7 days a week until late in the evening. These conditions were recently imposed on Each application is considered on its merits, the removal of application 13/02594/FUL how could it be justified to the conditions for the multi-purpose sports hall would not remove the conditions when they have just been necessarily pre-determine an application to remove these attached to a recent permission. This would set a conditions in relation to application13/02594/FUL. precedent for the other building. The onsite parking is insufficient and will lead to Discussed in section 5 of this report noise and parking on surrounding streets. The school has grown out of proportion for its site. Noted Additional cars in the highways could be dangerous Noted for children living in the area. The protection of resident’s amenity was important It is considered that the conditions within section 6 of this enough to instate these conditions the situation has report will still afford adequate protection the amenity of not changed and protection should be continued. surrounding residents. This application would add to the issue of parking in Discussed in paragraph 5.5 – 5.8 the area.
(69)
APP 02
Application Number: 14/01227/FUL MAJOR Development of solar photovoltaic farm
AT Land NW of Littlewood Farm, Tathall End, Hanslope
FOR Camborne Energy (1) Limited
Target: 3rd September 2014
Ward: Newport Pagnell North And Parish: Hanslope Parish Council Hanslope
Report Author/Case Officer: James Kirkham Contact Details: 01908 252039 [email protected]
Team Leader: Nicola Wheatcroft Team Leader Strategic Applications Team Contact Details: 01908 252274 [email protected]
1.0 INTRODUCTION (A brief explanation of what the application is about)
1.1 The Site The site is currently 2 arable agricultural fields (approximately 31hectares) located to the north of the M1. It located approximately 2km south west of Stoke Goldington and 1.1km north east of the edge of Hanslope. Tathall End is located approximately 1km to the south east and is separated from the site by the M1. The site falls towards the M1. Access to the site is from a track to the south west of the site which also serves a number of private dwellings. A public footpath (Hanslope 50) runs through the northern part of the site and a bridleway which forms part of the Swans Way, Midshires Way and Hanslope Circular Route runs along the northern boundary of the site with the right of way being situated within the western field. Details of the location of the site and its relationship to surrounding properties can be seen in the plans attached to this report.
1.2 The Proposal The current application seeks permission for a solar photovoltaic (PV) farm with a potential generating capacity of 14 megawatts. The applicant has stated that the proposal equates to providing power for approximately 3,636 homes per annum and a carbon dioxide saving of approximately 6,492 tonnes. Consent is sought for a period of 31 years, allowing for 6 months for construction and 6 months for decommissioning and an operational period of 30 years. The panels would be mounted on metal frames in east-west rows facing south. There would be gaps of between 2-3 metre between the rows and the frames and panels would have a maximum height of 1.6 metres. The site will be enclosed by 2m high fencing which will resemble deer fencing.
(70) 1.3 In addition to the panels a number of other infrastructure requirements are proposed. These include:
- 1 Distribution Network Operator (DNO) substation (h3.1m x w5m x d5.1m). - 1 private substation (h3.1m x w5m x d5.1m) which would be located in a green fibreglass cabinet - 8 transformers (h1.9m x w2.8m x d2.2) - CCTV cameras around the boundary of the site mounted on 2.4m timber posts
1.4 The footpath (Hanslope 50) through the centre of the site would be maintained. This would have fencing either side of it leaving an 8 metres wide track. The panels would be set a further 4.5 metres from the edge of the fencing. A bridleway which forms part of the Swans Way, Midshires Way and Hanslope Circular Route runs adjacent to the northern boundary of the site. This is situated to the north of the hedgerow in the eastern field and then enters the application site for the length of the larger western field. It is proposed leave a 9 metre gap between the existing hedgerow and the proposed fence to the solar farm in the western field. It is also proposed to plant on the southern side of the bridleway in the western field which in time would screen the development. It is also proposed to plant a new native copse in the north west corner of the site and plug gaps in the southern boundary hedgerow with new planting. No permanent external lighting is proposed.
1.5 Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.
2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application)
2.1 National Policy
National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs: 14 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development 17 – Core Planning Principles 28 – Supporting a prosperous rural economy 93-95 – Renewable energy 97-98 – Renewable energy 109 – Conserving and enhancing the environment 112 – Best and most versatile agricultural land 118 – Biodiversity enhancement 128- 129, 131-134– Historic environment
2.2 Local Policy
Core Strategy CSA – NPPF – Presumption in favour of sustainable development CS9 – Strategy for the Rural Area CS19 – The Historic and Natural Environment
(71)
Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 S10 – Open Countryside D1- Impact of Development on Locality D5 – Renewable Energy HE1 – Protection of Archaeological Sites HE5 – Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building NE1 – Nature Conservation Sites NE2 – Protected Species NE4 – Conserving and Enhancing Landscape Character T10 – Traffic
3.0 MAIN ISSUES (The issues which have the greatest bearing on the decision)
3.1 Whether the proposed benefits of the scheme outweigh the harm to the landscape and visual amenity of the area.
4.0 RECOMMENDATION (The decision that officers recommend to the Committee)
4.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions in section 6 of this report
5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have lead to the officer Recommendation)
5.1 Policy
The NPPF advises that local planning authorities should support the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy towards a move to a low carbon future. Paragraph 97 states local planning authorities should recognise the responsibility of all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources. In doing this they should have a positive strategy to promote renewable energy and maximise renewable energy while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily, including cumulative landscape and visual impacts. Paragraph 98 states that applications should not be required to demonstrate overall need for renewable energy and local planning authorities should recognise that even small scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse emissions. It goes onto state that applications should be approved if its impacts are, or could be made, acceptable. There is therefore support in the NPPF for renewable energy development such as that proposed. However the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) makes it clear that the need for renewable or low carbon energy does not automatically override environmental protections and therefore a balanced judgement needs to be made.
5.2 In terms of the Saved Local Plan, Policy D5 is the most relevant and states that planning permission will be granted for proposals to develop renewable energy unless there would be significant harm to the amenity of residential
(72) areas due to noise, traffic, pollution or odour, significant harm to wildlife or unacceptable visual impact on the landscape. The development also has to be considered against saved policies S10, D1, HE5, NE1, NE2, NE3, NE4, and T10 of the Local Plan and CSA and CS19 of the Core Strategy.
5.3 On this basis it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in principle subject to complying with the relevant local plan and core strategy policies and balancing the benefits of the scheme against any identified harm.
5.4 Landscape and Visual Impact
Policy NE4 of the Local Plan states that where development in the open countryside is acceptable in principle it should respect the particular character of the surrounding landscape. Policy D5 states that renewable energy projects will be granted where there would not result in an unacceptable visual impact on the landscape. Policy CS19 of the Core Strategy states development should protect and enhance the condition and strength of character of the different landscapes of the borough. The NPPF recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and provides for the protection and enhancement of valued landscapes. Paragraph 98 states local planning authorities should only approve application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.
5.5 The application has been accompanied by the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA). This reviews the landscape and visual effects of the proposed development and covers a study area of approximately 3km. Whilst the proposed will have a temporary visual and landscape impact this will be for a relatively long period of 31 years. The LVIA assesses the significance of the effects of landscape and views taking into account the sensitivity of the viewpoint/landscape and then combining this with the magnitude of the effect. This give a significance of effect. These are classed as either ‘major’, ‘major- moderate’, ‘moderate’, ‘minor’ or ‘negligible’.
5.6 The landform of the site and immediate surroundings comprises a gently undulating plateau located between the valleys of the River Great Ouse and the River Tove. The site does not fall within any protected or special landscape designations at the national or local level and the proposal is not considered to significantly impact on any special landscape designations due to distance and landform.
5.7 In terms of landscape character at a national level the site lies close to the boundary between the Yardley Whittlewood Ridge character area and the Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire Claylands. The most appropriate character of the area is considered to be the Yardley Whittlewood Ridge area which is described as an area of broad plateau with extensive areas of ancient woodland combined with mixed arable and pasture fields set typically in medium field sizes with full hedges with hedgerow trees. The settlement density is low with few roads apart from some major routes such as the M1. At a local level the site is located within the Hanslope Plateau local character area whose key characteristics are gently undulating plateau landscape with
(73) isolated large mixed woodlands and large arable fields and clipped hedgerows. The site lies in a localised shallow valley. The M1 lies to the south west of the site and cuts through the undulating landform with a series of embanked sections and cuttings. This is a notable feature of the immediate area.
5.8 The site is currently used for arable farming and the highest part of the site is located to the north of the site at 115 AOD. The land falls from this point towards the south and west. The site consists of two fields with a small copse comprising three mature trees in the western field. The two fields which make up the site are separated by a clipped native hedgerow. The eastern boundary comprises a mature clipped hedgerow. The southern boundary has an intermittent hedgerow with an open section which is proposed to be planted. The western boundary comprises intermittent tree and hedgerow planting. The hedgerow along the sites northern boundary is dense and approximately 3 – 4m in height.
5.9 A number of landscaping measures are proposed to help mitigate and screen the site from the surrounding area, including the following:
- A new native hedgerow to the south of the Swans Way Bridleway/Hanslope Circular route to create a vegetated green lane for users approximately 9 metres wide. - A new hedgerow along the southern boundary to plug any existing gaps. - Existing and new hedgerows will be maintained at a height of 1.8 metres - A copse will be planted to the northwest corner of the site with a mixture of native species. - The land will be sown to grassland to allow for grazing. The site compound will also be sown to grassland.
5.10 The applicant has produced a Zone of Visual Influence which illustrates the areas in which it would possible to see the site and from this have identified a number of representative viewpoints. The main areas where the proposal will be visible from includes the site and the areas immediately adjacent to it particularly the area to the west and north west of the site. Further areas of visibility are located to the south and south west of the site towards Hanslope and to the south of Tathall End. The visibility to the north and further to the east of the site is more limited due to the presence of the tall boundary hedge on the north elevation and the pattern of the landform.
5.11 The proposed development will largely retain the existing field boundaries and trees which exist on the site and the topography of the land. However it would introduce large areas of regimented rows of solar panels which would be intrusive utilitarian elements in the countryside. The impact on the landscape character will be largely contained to the Hanslope Plateau local character area which already has the M1 as a notable intrusive feature in the vicinity of the site. The change to the character of the site itself would be major however the impact on the wider landscape character is considered to
(74) be moderate adverse and temporary in nature.
5.12 In terms of visual amenity the low profile nature of the proposals, the existing planting and undulating landform help to restrict the zone of visual influence however the site will be visible from a number of viewpoints and is considered to have a medium geographical influence. It is therefore not as well contained as some sites. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that the zone of visual influence could be zero for some solar farms where screening and topography are favourable. The harm to the visual amenity of the area needs to be weighed against the benefits of the scheme as the appearance of the solar panels and associated infrastructure will form a new element of views from within and from the areas around the site.
5.13 Views to the north of the site are well screened by the existing boundary treatment and the presence of Stokepark Wood. Views to the east would also be relatively well restricted due landform and planting. There is likely to be some limited visibility of the site from the properties at Littlewood Farm however this will be restricted by the existing boundary hedge and would not be overbearing.
5.14 There are two rights of way which run through the site. A footpath runs from Littlewood Farm in a north westerly direction through the northern part of the site. The impact on this footway will be major adverse as the solar farm would be located either side of this footway and whilst a 8 metre gap is proposed to accommodate the footpath, the solar panels and infrastructure (including transformers and CCTV) will dominate the setting and experience of this footpath for a distance of approximately 900 metres across the site. The amenity of this footpath is already impactED upon by the presence of vehicles on the M1 however the proposal would have a further detrimental impact on users of this right of way.
5.15 The bridleway which follows the northern boundary of the site is part of a number of promoted routes including the Hanslope Circular Ride, the Swans Way and Midshires Way and has a high sensitivity to change. The bridleway is within the application site on the western part of the northern boundary. Therefore the proposal will have a major adverse visual impact on this part of the bridleway as it will be highly prominent. To help mitigate its impact in the longer term it is proposed to create a green lane by providing planting to the south of the bridleway to screen the development. This would reduce the impact but not eliminate it as people on horses are likely to view over the hedgerow and the CCTV and security fencing would still be visible. The bridleway then crosses through the hedgerow and runs in an eastward direction outside of the application site and is screened by a tall hedgerow. Therefore from this area some glimpse views would be available of the solar panels and infrastructure however the impact would be more limited.
5.16 Due to the undulating nature of the landscape there would also be views of the development from rights of way outside the site. The main impact to these would exist to the rights of way to the west and north west of the site. Views from the bridleway to the west of the site (viewpoints A and K) would
(75) experience relatively extensive views of the site given the landform of the site rising. The impact on these views would be major-moderate (viewpoint A) and moderate (viewpoint K). The planting of a copse in the north west corner of the site will help to mitigate part of the impact but the proposal will continue to have a similar impact. The presence of the M1 does already impact on the visual amenity and experience of this route as the route crosses the M1 however further harm would be caused by the development.
5.17 Viewpoint J is from a bridleway which forms part of the Hanslope Circular Ride to the north west of the site. This land is elevated and views across the site are available. The proposal would have major moderate impact on this view for users of the bridleway. The new copse which is to be planted in the north west corner of the site would mitigate some of this impact in the future however there would continue to be a major moderate from this viewpoint. Views would also be available from the residential properties, including Forest Heights, to the north of this viewpoint. The property would have relatively extensive views of the solar farm and the impact on this property is considered to be moderate but is not considered to be overbearing.
5.18 Glimpse views of the proposal would also be available from the M1 as vehicles pass by the site however these would be largely screened by existing vegetation and landform. Furthermore users of the M1 would only experience views of the proposal for very limited periods of time as they travel along the M1.
5.19 Further to the west of the site of the M1, there will be effects on the rights of way. Viewpoints L and M are located on rising land the opposite side of the M1 available from a bridleway. Views of part of the site will be screened by existing vegetation and landform however any of these views would include the upper parts of the site. The views already include partial views of the M1 in the mid-ground with vehicles moving along it which detract from these views. Stokepark Wood would continue to be a strong skyline feature. It is considered that there would be a moderate adverse effect from these areas.
5.20 Some views are also likely to be available from the edge of Hanslope of the proposal however these would be limited and only the upper parts of the site are likely to be visible due to landform and vegetation. The proposals would form a small part of a much wider landscape which already has a number of features and therefore the effect is only likely to have a limited effect.
5.21 In conclusion the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the landscape character and visual amenity of the area. Some of these impacts will be significant particularly from the footpaths and bridleways within the site and within 500 metres to the north west and west of the site. The impact from other areas to the north and east would be more limited due to landform and vegetation. The M1 already has a strong presence in the immediate vicinity of the site however the proposal will result in further harm. Therefore the proposal would not accord with NE4 of the Local Plan and CS19 of the Core Strategy which seeks to conserve and enhance the surrounding landscape. This harm has to be balanced against the benefits of
(76) the proposals in the planning balance which is addressed later in this report.
5.22 Cumulative Impact As well as the individual effects of the development the cumulative effects of this development and other renewable energy developments in the surrounding area need to be considered. Cumulative visual effects relate to either ‘combined visibility’ (where the observer is able to see two or more developments from one viewpoint) or ‘sequential effects’ (which occur when an observer sees multiple developments as they move through the landscape but not at the same time).
5.23 In this case there are a number of solar proposals in the surroundings. These include (see attached map):
- Permitted development (not implemented) for a 20mw solar farm at Stonepit Farm to the south of Hartwell (approximately 1km to north west). - Permitted development (not implemented) for 5.8mw solar farm at South Field, Bullshead Farm, Eakley Lanes (approximately 1.5km to norht - Permitted development (not implemented) for 5.8mw solar farm at North Field, Bullshead Farm, Eakley Lanes (approximately 2km to north)
5.24 There would be no combined visibility between the proposal and the other permitted development due to landform and vegetation screening. There would however be sequential visual effect between the sites by people using the local footpaths and bridleways including the promoted routes.
5.25 The Hanslope Circular ride would pass directly south of Stonepit Farm for approximately 900m and then after an intervening gap of approximately a 1km would follow the northern boundary of Littlewood Farm. It would experience significant visual effects in both of these areas. There would also be views of the proposal in the intervening section of this route from the north west of the site (around Forest Farm). Therefore there would be some localised significant sequential effect on this route.
5.26 The Swans Way/Mid Shires Way follows a route from Hanslope Park in the south northwards towards Salcey Forest. The route would follow the northern boundary of the proposal then north towards Salcey Forest. Some views of the Stonepit Farm may also be visible from this route however these are likely to be a greater distance and are not considered to be significant.
5.27 There are also a number of wind turbine schemes which need to be considered from a cumulative perspective. The effects of wind turbines and solar scheme are very different due to their different forms. Views of the M1 and Petsoe End wind farms are available from around the site. However given the distance and different impacts of solar development there is not considered to be a significant cumulative impact associated with these.
(77) 5.28 The Stoke Heights Wind Farm proposal for 15 x 120metre high turbines exists immediately to the north of the application site. The closest turbine is approximately 100m to the north of the site and all 15 turbines are within 1.3km. This proposal is currently under consideration and therefore no certainty exists as to whether the scheme would receive planning permission. The turbines would have major significant effect from a number of viewpoints around the site due to their height and proximity. The cumulative impact of both developments would have significant visual effects where they would be viewed together within the zone of visual influence and a number of viewpoints would be dominated by renewable energy projects. Given that the proposal from the wind turbines are currently pending consideration it is considered that the cumulative harm to the visual amenity of the area can only be given limited weight.
5.29 Ecology
Saved Policy NE2 of the Local Plan stated planning permission will be refused for development if it would be likely to adversely affect animal or plant species or their habitat, specifically protected by law. Paragraph 109 of the NPPF advise the planning system should contribute and enhance the natural environment by minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains for biodiversity. Paragraph 118 goes onto state that opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around development should be encouraged. An Ecological Appraisal has accompanied the application. The site currently consists of arable fields and the existing hedgerows around the site will be retained. A small group of trees exist in the western field which will be retained. Whilst the site is of low ecological value the site and wider area is potentially suitable for a range of protected species. Records exist for a number of protected and notable species in the vicinity of the site.
5.30 The site provides habitat for ground nesting birds and also offers foraging for Barn Owl which has been recorded near to the site. The Councils Ecologist is generally satisfied with the proposal but has raised concerns that the proposal has not detailed the mitigation to some habitat losses or provided biodiversity enhancement. The Councils Ecologist has suggested a number of biodiversity enhancements such as the provision of Barn Owl boxes and species rich grassland between the panels. Alongside details of the proposed hedgerow planting and new copse planting the proposal should provide biodiversity benefits to the site. These should be secured through condition.
5.31 Agricultural Land Classification
The site is likely to comprise of Grade 3 Agricultural Land. The applicant has submitted an Agricultural Assessment which states that given the temporary use of the land and the low invasive nature of the proposal the site could and will be returned to intensive agricultural use and this could be secured by condition. The applicant therefore does not consider that the proposal should be considered as ‘significant development of agricultural land’ as development is reversible. Given the site is likely to be Grade 3 agricultural land the proposal may constitute the best and most versatile agricultural land
(78) (Land in grades 1, 2 and 3A). The Agricultural Assessment states that the site will revert to grazing of animals between the panels so some agricultural use of the site will be retained. This is not considered to be ideal and this needs to be weighed in the planning balance.
5.32 Planning Balance and Conclusion
It is clear from government guidance that the need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections. However the wider benefits of developing renewable energy is a factor which should be given considerable weight in favour of the development.
5.33 The proposed development would lead to some significant benefits in terms of generating renewable energy which would provide sufficient power to 3,636 homes per year. This matter attracts significant weight. There would also be some biodiversity benefits which could be secured through condition and weigh in favour of the development. Other benefits include farm diversification.
5.34 The proposed development would however lead to moderate adverse effect to the character of the landscape by introducing utilitarian structures in an otherwise rural landscaping which would conflict with Policy NE4 and CS19. In terms of visual amenity there would be some significant visual impacts from the rights of way which pass through the site and from areas to the west and north west of the site. These would mainly be experienced from public footpaths and bridleways. A number of these would be from promoted routes and there would be a further adverse impact associated with the cumulative impact of other solar development proposals with planning permission particularly on sequential views from promoted rights of way. The proposal would lead to the loss of agricultural land and it is unclear from the applicants submission whether this represents the best and most versatile agricultural land. However the land would continue to be grazed and could be brought back into more intensive agricultural use after the lifespan of the development.
5.35 The matters are very finely balanced in this application. However the presence of the M1 motorway near the site does already lead to a deterioration of the landscape and visual amenity of the area and the areas identified in the zone of visual influence are relatively well contained and not highly populated. On balance the proposals are not considered to result in unacceptable visual impact on the landscape and the proposals are considered to comply with Policy D5 of the Local Plan and the benefits of the scheme are considered to outweigh the identified harm. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out below.
(79) 6.0 CONDITIONS (The conditions that need to be imposed on any planning permission for this development to ensure that the development is satisfactory. To meet legal requirements all conditions must be Necessary, Relevant, Enforceable, Precise and Reasonable )
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To prevent the accumulation of planning permissions; to enable the Local Planning Authority to review the suitability of the development in the light of altered circumstances; and to comply with section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. (D11)
2. Prior to the installation of any substations, control kiosks or transformers full details of their exact siting and appearance (including materials and colour) shall be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure they are appropriate in terms of design and siting.
3. Prior to commencement of development the developer shall notify the Local Planning Authority of the intended start date of the development. The planning permission hereby granted is for a limited period of 31 years after the date the development commences. At this date the use shall cease and the solar panels and all ancillary equipment shall be removed from the site in accordance with the approved Decommissioning Method Statement.
Reason: To ensure the satisfactory restoration of the land and to preserve the character and appearance of the countryside.
4. Within 4 months of the first export of energy from the development hereby permitted, the site compound shall be removed and the land restored back to its previous use and condition.
Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the area.
5. No other part of the scheme shall commence until such time that details of any works to the public highway necessary to accommodate the movement of the abnormal loads have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No movement of any abnormal load associated with the construction of the development hereby permitted shall take place until the works to the public highway have been constructed in accordance with the approved details. The facility shall not be brought into use until such time that the public highway has been reinstated to the full satisfaction of the Highway Authority.
Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway.
(80)
6. No other part of the development shall begin until such time that a full condition survey of that part of the public highway that forms the access to Littlewood Farm has been carried out for the purposes of Section 59 of The Highways Act 1980.
Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and to ensure that the public highway is properly maintained.
7. Prior to the commencement of the development a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP shall include such measures as: -
- Site Management and Complaints procedure. - Temporary boundary treatments. - Lighting and Security. - Site Facilities. - Means of Access. - Construction traffic routing. - Environmental and Nuisance mitigation measures. - Noise and vibration - Working times. - Management of the existing public highway in relation to access of construction vehicles.
All construction work shall be undertaken in accordance with the agreed CEMP and all contractors shall be contractually required to comply with it.
Reason: To ensure that adequate mitigation measures are in place in the interests of the users of the public highway, the access and local residents.
8. No other part of the development shall commence until such time as details of construction vehicle signing has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No construction vehicles shall be employed on the works until such time as the signing has been erected in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In order to minimise danger, inconvenience and obstruction to users of the highway and of the access.
9. A landscaping scheme, which shall include provision for the planting of trees and shrubs, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any part of the development is commenced. The scheme shall show the numbers, types and sizes of trees and shrubs to be planted and their location in relation to proposed buildings, roads, footpaths and drains. All planting in accordance with the scheme shall be carried out within a time scale to be agreed with the local planning authority as part of the submitted details. Any trees or shrubs or other planting removed, dying, severely damaged or diseased within the lifetime of the development shall be
(81) replaced in the next planting season with trees or shrubs of such size and species as may be agreed by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To protect the appearance and character of the area and to minimise the effect of development on the area.
10. Prior to the commencement of development a biodiverstiy mitigation strategy and plan and biodiversity managment plan shall be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure the proposal provides biodiversity enhancment and mitigation in accordance with the NPPF and Saved Policy NE2.
Advisory: It is recommended this information be developed based on BRE National Solar Centre: Biodiversity Guidance for Solar Developments (2014)
11. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the Avian Ecoloy Report - Littlewood Farm (report number 13-CAM-024).
Reason: To protect biodiversity and habitats on the site.
12. Any plant (including substations, transformers and invertors) to be used in pursuance of this permission shall be so installed prior to the first use of the development hereby permitted and be so retained and operated that the noise generated at the boundary of the nearest neighbouring property shall not exceed Noise Rating Curve 25, as defined in BS8233:1999 Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings Code of Practice and the Chartered Institute of Building Service Engineers Environmental Design Guide 1999. Details of the scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the first use of the equipment hereby permitted.
Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents from noise
13. If any of the solar panels cease to export electricity to the grid for a continuous period of 12 months, a scheme shall be submitted to the local planning authority for its written approval within 3 months from the end of the 12 month period for the removal of the solar panel(s) and associated equipment and the restoration of (that part of) the site to agricultural use. The approved scheme of restoration shall then be fully implemented within 3 months of that written approval being given.
Reason: To ensure the removal of unnecessary panels that are no longer generating electricity and the satisfactory restoration of the land.
14. No later than 12 months prior to the end of this permission a Decommissioning Method Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This shall include details of a site restoration scheme back to the original use and timescales for the restoration
(82) works. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure the satisfactory restoration of the land and to preserve the character and appearance of the countryside.
(83)
(84)
(85)
(86)
(87)
(88)
(89) Appendix to 14/01227/FUL
A1.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY (A brief outline of previous planning decisions affecting the site – this may not include every planning application relating to this site, only those that have a bearing on this particular case)
A1.1 14/00194/EIASCR - Screening opinion request for the development of a solar photovoltaic (PV) farm for the purposes of commercial electricity generation on land at Yew Tree Farm – EIA not required
A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS
(Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)
A2.1 Highways Access to the site for construction and maintenance traffic will be from the existing farm track from Gayhurst Road which is approximately 2km and serves a number of dwellings. The track will be upgraded in places using compacted stone. Visibility to the west of the site access is limited and as such speed surveys have been undertaken and found that based on the 85th percentile speed the 180m visibility is adequate. The highway engineer has stated that as part of the access bell mouth is public highway and a pre- condition survey should be undertaken to ensure any abnormal wear can be assessed. It is proposed this be conditioned The highway engineer has also requested a Construction Environment Management Plan to be conditioned to ensure adequate provision is made for vehicles entering and leaving the site as there is insufficient room for a vehicle to enter the site whilst another is leaving.
A2.2 Part of the access is shared with public rights of way and therefore temporary signage will be put in place along the footway and bridleway to alert users of potential construction vehicles.
A2.3 A temporary construction compound will be used for parking and storage. Construction is expected to take 12-16 weeks and a vehicle swept path analysis has been undertaken to show that articulated vehicles required for construction can safely enter and leave the site. During construction approximately 50 staff will arrive and depart between 08:00 and 1800. Large vehicles will exit the M1 at junction 15 then along the A509, then north on the B526 through Lathbury and Gayhurst to avoid large vehicles going through Tathall End. The highway engineer is generally satisfied with the proposal subject to a number of conditions.
A2.4 Following construction the amount of vehicles associated with the use will be limited generally to one vehicle a fortnight for maintenance.
A2.5 Flood Risk The site is located within Flood Zone 1 meaning the annual risk of flooding is less than 0.1%. The area beneath the panels will remain grassland and series of swales will be used across the site to ensure surface water run off
(90) does not increase. The Environment Agency has raised no objection to the application.
A2.6 Archaeology An archaeological assessment has been undertaken on the site. The site would lead to some intrusion to the ground by virtue of piles to secure the panel frames and trenches for cabling. The hedgerow which forms the northern boundary is considered ‘historic’ under the Hedgerow Regulations however this will be retained by the proposal. The assessment acknowledges that the potential exists for unrecorded archaeological remains to exist on the site associated with the remains of a roman setting which was found to the south of the site. A Geophysical Survey was therefore undertaken on the site. This identified some potential areas of underground archaeology however the development has been design so as not to impact on these. The Councils Senior Archaeological Officer has been consulted and has raised no objection to the application.
A2.7 Heritage There are no designated heritage assets within 1km of the site. A number of listed buildings exist in Tathall End however these are separated from the site by the M1 and also intervening vegetation so the proposal is not considered to adversely impact on their setting. Hanslope Conservation Area is screened by a combination of modern urban form on its north-eastern boundary and partly by topography. Stoke Goldington Conservation Areas is completely screened by local topography. Furthermore given the distance between the proposals and these heritage assets, the presence of intervening vegetation and low lying nature of the proposals, the development is not considered to adversely impact on their setting.
A2.8 Noise When operational the solar panels will not produce noise however the invertors and substations will produce some noise via cooling fans. Officer in Environment Health has stated they have been made aware of noise concerns relating to solar farms in other parts of the country. In this case due to the motorway there are already high background noise levels in the area and subject to a condition it is not considered that the proposal would result in residential amenity issues for nearby residents.
(91)
A3.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS (Who has been consulted on the application and the responses received. The following are a brief description of the comments made. The full comments can be read via the Council’s web site)
Comments Officer Response
A3.1 Hanslope Parish Council No objection
A3.2 Landscape Officer The application is supported with detailed and comprehensive landscape assessments that appears to follows good practice methodology guidance. Previous comments raised a number of points that required clarification regarding methodology. These have now been satisfactorily addressed by the provision of further information.
A3.3 The proposed solar farm will in places be visually prominent, essentially from ‘Visual Zone 1’ the area adjoining or very close to the site. All viewpoints within this area; with the exception of viewpoints: F & K have been assessed as ‘Major’ or ‘Moderate/ Major’ which is deemed as having a ‘Significant’ impact. However, views are mainly from public footpaths so the views would be ephemeral within the wider context of walking the footpaths & the visual intrusion of the M1 motorway further draws the eye & adds a competing element within the landscape. Proposed landscape planting would mitigate the visual impact.
A3.4 The application site is not within a locally or nationally area of landscape importance & the LVIA concludes the impact would be ‘moderate/adverse’ upon the District Landscape Character, thus not ‘Significant’. Grazing could continue on site between the panels & the site would be completely reversible at the end of the agreed operational time period.
A3.5 Highways There are no major implications for the public highway and although there are some issues that require further amendments these can be dealt with through the imposition of planning
(92) conditions. No objections subject to the conditions.
A3.6 Access Full visibility to the west of the site access (looking right) cannot be provided however the application has undertaken speed surveys and found the 85%ile speed to be such that the 180m visibility that can be provided is totally adequate. Visibility to the left of the access (looking in a westerly direction) is acceptable. Part of the access bell mouth is public highway. Due the increase in heavy vehicles a pre-condition survey should be carried out in conjunction with Milton Keynes Council highway adoption officers. Upon the completion of the works a dilapidation survey should be carried out in order that any abnormal wear can be assessed in accordance with Section 59 of the Highways Act 1980. This can be conditioned. The remainder of the access comprises a concrete access track that provides sufficient intervisibility between opposing vehicles entering and leaving the site. There are also a number of vehicle passing bays that allow for easier passage of opposing vehicle flows and the Transport Statement reflects that passage of vehicles will not be a problem on the condition that drivers proceed with caution.
A3.7 Vehicles entering the site from Gayhurst Road should be given priority over a vehicle leaving the site in order that the right turning vehicle on the highway is not unduly held up causing inconvenience to other road users. Drawing no. 002 (issue 01) in the Transport Statement shows that there is insufficient room for a vehicle to enter the site whilst another is exiting. The Transport Statement provides information that a banksman will be employed to ensure that vehicles do not depart and arrive at the same time and this should overcome my concern. However the provision of a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) should be be submitted for approval prior to the commencement of any part of the development should planning approval be granted and this should include a section on control of vehicles entering and leaving the site.
A3.8 The Transport Statement provides a breakdown of the numbers of deliveries that will take place over the construction period that is likely to take between 12 and 16 weeks. The numbers of trips including those made by staff working on the project are not excessive and will not cause capacity issues on the public highway. The Transport Statement also provides information on
(93) the routeing of construction vehicles and this shows that all vehicles will be routed to the site from a westerly direction. This is acceptable and is pleased to learn that no vehicles will travel through the settlement of Tathall End during the construction process. The routeing of vehicles should be included in the CEMP. Once construction activities are complete and the site commissioned, only very light traffic will have a need to visit the site for monitoring purposes.
A3.9 The planning application is supported by drawing no. 004 (issue 01) showing temporary signing. Considers this will require reinforcement and additionally no signs asking all drivers to turn left out of the site are included, which is unacceptable. The submission of further signing details can be conditioned as part of any planning consent.
A3.10 Councils Ecologist The proposed application site is comprised of arable fields bounded by hedgerows containing some mature native trees. The Planning, Design and Access Statement states that the majority of habitats within the site are of low ecological interest. However, it is recognised in the Ecological Report that the application site and wider area is potentially suitable for a range of protected species. Both reports acknowledge that records exist for a number of protected and notable species nearby, including species protected under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, species listed on the UK Biodiversity Action Plan and species recorded as amber or red in the list of Birds of Conservation Concern.
A3.11 The Ecological Appraisal states that the arable fields and grassland within the site may provide habitat for ground-nesting birds such as skylark and winter foraging opportunities for winter farmland waders such as lapwing and golden plover. The current site conditions also offer foraging for Barn Owl which has been recorded nearby. Despite records of sensitive bird species and the presence of suitable bird habitats, no Phase 2 Breeding Bird Survey was undertaken and no mitigation for the effects of the development on these bird species has been included in the recommendations.
A3.12 The Planning, Design and Access Statement states that the site’s agricultural character will be maintained by grazing. Improvements in habitats for a number of wildlife species could be achieved by creating species-rich grasslands as recommended in industry guidance. An ideal
(94) management regime for species-rich grassland is to be sheep-grazed.
A3.13 The existing hedgerow and trees offer habitats for birds, small mammals and foraging and navigating opportunities for bat species. A number of trees with bat roost potential have been identified on the site. The Ecological appraisal states that all mature trees on site will be retained and appropriate buffer zones have been incorporated into the design. Some small sections of hedgerow may be lost to the development. However, additional hedgerow planting and the creation of a small copse will compensate for any loss and provide additional hedgerow and woodland habitat.
A3.14 The Ecological Assessment states in 4.2.6 that the implementation of “habitat enhancement measures as part of the proposed development will likely bring about benefits for local biodiversity”. Although this is evident in relation to hedgerow and trees, it is not clear how the loss of grassland habitat will be mitigated for concerning species reliant on it. Ground-nesting bird species such as Skylarks occupy open fields to avoid predators so are unlikely to nest after any solar panel installation as they will probably treat the panels as predator perches.
A3.15 Proposed biodiversity improvements are mentioned but no proposal has been made as yet to mitigate for some habitat losses and there is no firm commitment to the proposals shown on the layout plan. More information is required relating to how these improvements will be achieved and contribute towards the applicant’s obligations to provide net gains for biodiversity and coherent ecological networks as required by Local Plan NE2, NE3 and the NPPF. A Mitigation Strategy and Plan that offers compensation for all species affected and a detailed long-term Biodiversity Management Plan should be developed based on the following document: BRE National Solar Centre: Biodiversity Guidance for Solar Developments (2014)
A3.16 Environmental Health It has been brought to the attention of officers that a number of solar farms around the County are leading to noise complaints. There requests a Construction Management Plan and a noise condition to be attached to any planning consent to protect the amenity of the closest residential properties.
(95) A3.17 Conservation No objection. The site is some distance from any designated heritage assets, and the M1 separates the site from the nearest. The proposal will therefore not impact on the immediate setting of any designated heritage assets, although it may be visible in some wider views. Littlewood farm itself appears to be of some age- it is present on the 1880s maps, so may have some heritage interest, however from photos it has clearly previously been converted and modernised so it retains less of its original historic character. It seems that the proposed solar farm will not have a harmful impact on its significance.
A3.18 Archaeological Officer Satisfied the design and layout of the scheme that has been informed by the Heritage Assessment and Geophysical Survey is acceptable. As such does not object or require any further archaeological investigative or mitigation works.
A3.19 Environment Agency No objection to this proposal. Having reviewed the information submitted and consider the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) the proposals are acceptable for the scale and nature of the development at this location. The FRA demonstrates that the development will be safe during extreme events and surface water drainage has been considered appropriately for this location. Through the inclusion of cut off swales within the development design the applicant has mitigated for the potential of the solar panels concentrating the run off such that occurrences of overland flow are increased. If not mitigated for this had the potential to increase the rate and volume of surface water being discharged from the site.
A3.20 Internal Drainage Board No comments to make.
A3.21 Ramblers The current proposals for maintaining footpath 050 and bridleway 001 seem to be adequate provided the rights of way remain open at all times. Other rights of way in the area may also be affected by the construction work, but I do not raise any objections at this stage provided they remain open and sufficient care is taken to ensure that there is no danger to the public.
(96)
A3.22 Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application: Annexe At Wheatfields, Yew Tree Farm Yew Tree Farm Barn, Yew Tree Farm House Bramble Barn, Yew Tree Farm Annexe At Orchard Barn, Yew Tree Farm Orchard Barn, Yew Tree Farm Wheatfields , Yew Tree Farm Yew Tree Farm House, Tathall End Forest Heights, Forest Road
Site notices were also placed at various points on footpaths and bridleways around the site.
A3.23 7 letters of comments have been received including 6 letters of support and 1 letter of objection.
Objection
- Cumulative impact of all the other solar farms and wind projects will have a serious adverse effect on the amenity of the countryside. - Industrialisation of the countryside - Adverse impact on footpaths and character and appearance of the area. Support
- Energy needs to be found from environmental sources and solar energy appears to be the most sensible and efficient way. - The site can be returned to agriculture in the future and is safe. - Site can be used for grazing between the panels. - The proposed site makes it relatively unobtrusive and accessible. - Substations along the track would be preferable in natural stone with slate roofs.
(97) APP 03
Application Number: 14/01236/FUL MINOR
Demolition of Horsa building and erection of Early Years Unit and alterations to the existing school building
AT Russell Street School, Russell Street, Stony Stratford
FOR Milton Keynes Council
Target: 4th September 2014
Ward: Stony Stratford Parish: Stony Stratford Town Council
Report Author/Case Officer: Nicola Thompson Senior Planning Officer Contact Details: 01908 252932 [email protected]
Team Leader: Nicola Wheatcroft Team Leader Strategic Applications Team Contact Details: 01908 252274 [email protected]
1.0 INTRODUCTION (A brief explanation of what the application is about)
1.1 Introduction
The main section of the report set out below draws together the core issues in relation to the application including policy and other key material considerations. This is supplemented by an appendix which brings together, planning history, additional matters and summaries of consultees’ responses and public representations. Full details of the application, including plans, supplementary documents, consultee responses and public representations are available on the Council’s Public Access system www.milton- keynes.gov.uk/publicaccess. All matters have been taken into account in writing this report and recommendation.
1.2 The Site
The application site is Russell Street School, located on a confined urban site within Stony Stratford. The sites lies adjacent Stony Stratford conservation area. It is bounded by residential to the north and west, to the south is Russell Street with further residential properties and to the east is an access road serving private garages and a car repair workshop. The school has rights of access along this shared road. Details of the location of the site and its relationship to surrounding properties can be seen in the plans attached to this report.
(98) 1.3 The Proposal
The current application seeks permission to extend the school to increase its pupil capacity. Currently the school has 180 pupil places plus 30 nursery places and proposes to increase to 270 pupil places plus 39 nursery places. The extension is to the rear of the existing school and single storey with a covered external play area. The HORSA (post war school) building gained demolition consent on 09 July 2014. It is proposed to alter the existing staff car park and increase the parking spaces to 13. Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.
2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application)
2.1 National Policy
National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs: 7 – Sustainable development 14 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development 17 – Core planning principles 29, 32, 35, 36 – Transport 39 – Parking 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 64, 65, 66 – Design 72 – Schools 74 – Playing fields 95 – Sustainable buildings 109, 118 – Biodiversity 123 - Noise 126, 129, 131, 134, 135 – Heritage assets
2.2 Local Policy
Core Strategy CS11 – A Well Connected Milton Keynes CS13 – Ensuring High Quality, Well Designed Places CS15 – Delivering Economic Prosperity CS17 – Improving Access to Local Services and Facilities CS18 – Healthier and Safer Communities CS19 – The Historic and Natural Environment Appendix D: School Place Planning
Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 The most relevant 'saved' policies within the adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 - 2011 are: D1 – Impact upon Locality D2A – Urban Design Aspects of new Development D4 – Sustainable Construction NE3 – Biodiversity and Geological Enhancement T1 – The Transport Hierarchy T10 – Traffic
(99) T15 – Parking Provision HE6 – Conservation Areas
Supplementary Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Guidance - Addendum to 'Parking Standards for Milton Keynes 2005’ adopted April 2009.
3.0 MAIN ISSUES (The issues which have the greatest bearing on the decision)
3.1 Parking Provision and Access. The proposal involves additional staff car parking spaces within the existing staff parking area. No drop off/ pick up spaces have been provided for the additional 90 pupils, a parking survey which accompanied the planning application confirmed on-street car parking spaces and public car parks near the school would be available and have sufficient capacity for the parents to use.
3.2 Impact of Development Upon Neighbouring Properties. The proposed extension is sited within the existing school grounds. The closest neighbouring dwelling is approx. 30 metres away. This is considered to be a sufficient distance from the neighbouring properties not to significantly impact on their residential amenity.
3.3 Design of Building. The extension takes account of the design and massing of the existing buildings and would not be visually dominant in the street scene. Conditions regarding materials and roof lights should be included.
4.0 RECOMMENDATION (The decision that officers recommend to the Committee)
4.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of this report.
5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have led to the officer Recommendation)
5.1 Principle
Policy CS15 of the Core Strategy states that Milton Keynes will develop as a major city with key projects including the delivery of a substantial number of primary and secondary schools as part of the growth plans.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) para. 72 states that ‘the Government attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities. Local Planning Authorities (LPA’s) should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement, and to development that will widen choice in education. They should:
(i) Give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools; and
(100) (ii) Work with schools promoters to identify and resolve key planning issues before applications are submitted.’
The Core Strategy and NPPF are therefore strongly supportive of development at schools that ensure sufficient choice of school places is available. Therefore these benefits should be given great weight in determining planning applications.
5.2 Design
Policy D2 of the Local Plan states development proposals will be refused unless they are in scale with other buildings in the immediate vicinity and relate well to an enhance the surrounding environment. Policy CS13 states that development must be of a high design quality and sensitive to its context.
5.3 It is considered that the proposed development which would be located to the rear of the existing school has minimal impact on the public realm and the design is consistent with the existing school building. The extension will be constructed within the existing curtilage of the school site and would use brick and slate to match the existing school building. The external play area is of a lower scale and introduces render and colour. This faces into the application site looking over the existing outdoor play area.
5.4 The extension is slightly set back from the side elevation of the main school with a lower ridge height so that it sits subserviently and to allow the retention of the existing trees along this boundary.
5.5 Residential Amenity
Policy D1 of the Local Plan states that planning permission will be refused where development would result in an unacceptable visual, intrusion or loss of privacy, sunlight or daylight. Paragraph 17 of the NPPF also states that planning decision should secure a good standard of amenity for existing occupant of land and buildings.
5.6 The application site lies within an existing built up residential area. Given that the proposed extension would be sited to the rear of the site and a significant distance would still remain to the closest residential properties, it is considered that there would not be a significant impact upon the locality. Furthermore the works for external play areas would be to the rear of the extension and within existing play areas.
5.7 Concerns have been raised regarding the location of the proposed bin store to the front of the application site. The bin store would be visible from the public realm although set behind the existing steel railings. It is not considered that the addition of a bin store in this location would cause significant harm in the street scene to refuse the application, however it is recommended that further detail is required regarding the proposed design, materials and finish of the store be provided. This can be secured by way of condition.
(101)
5.8 Concern has been raised regarding the loss of a fence to the northern boundary of the application site to accommodate additional staff car parking. Following discussions with the applicant, amendments have been submitted and this fence is to remain.
5.9 Highways
Policy T10 of the Local Plan states that planning permission will be refused for development if it would be likely to generate motor traffic which exceeds the environmental or highway capacity of the local road network or causes significance disturbance, noise, pollution or risk of accidents. Policy T15 states that development should not exceed the maximum parking standards, however on-site parking should not be reduced below the maximum standard if it would be likely to result in off-site parking causing problems that cannot be resolved by on-street parking controls. The NPPF advises that planning decisions should take account of whether safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people and whether improvements can be undertaken within the transport network to limit the significant impacts of development. It goes onto state that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.
5.10 The main issue in this case is the impact of the proposal on highway safety and parking. Detailed comments have been provided by the Council’s Highway Engineer and are noted within Appendix paragraph A3.6. The applicant has submitted a robust, comprehensive Transport Statement (TS) in support of the proposed expansion and this assesses the main issues of highway safety, travel patterns, parking and trip generation. Following the submission of amendments the Highway Engineer raises no objections to the proposals subject to conditions.
5.11 The Parking Standards for new staff parking spaces is 1 space per staff. The proposal is for an additional 6 staff and the revised plan allows 6 new spaces. Therefore the new staff parking meets the requirements and is considered acceptable. The proposal provides 3 additional cycle parking spaces.
5.12 No drop off/ pick up spaces have been provided for the additional 90 pupils, however, the school does not have any drop off/pick up provision at present. In addition, a parking survey accompanied the planning application confirmed on-street car parking spaces and public car parks near the school would be available and have sufficient capacity for the parents to use. The parking survey confirmed approx. 27 additional vehicles could be generated by the proposal and that 36 on-street car parking spaces could be available for the parents to use plus the public car parks. The Highway Engineer has assessed the survey and given the location of the school adjacent a town centre and the findings of the survey, the proposal is considered acceptable.
5.13 Amendments were sought and received regarding access, tracking, re- organising the car park layout and setting the car park gates back. These
(102) amendments have been addressed and no objection is raised.
5.14 A site visit confirmed the access road to be in a poor state with potholes. Since there will be an increase in traffic using this access road, it is recommended the access road be upgraded/ resurfaced. This can be secured by condition. It is noted that it is not ideal to have a staff car park accessed off a private road however it is a shared access in which several parties have rights of access over. The matter of access and vehicles blocking the access is a civil matter.
5.15 Stony Stratford Town Council comment that there are existing traffic problems in the area and they would like to see a condition placed on any permission to ensure that the school travel plan is implemented and reviewed annually with the report publically available. A condition is recommended.
6.0 CONDITIONS (The conditions that need to be imposed on any planning permission for this development to ensure that the development is satisfactory. To meet legal requirements all conditions must be Necessary, Relevant, Enforceable, Precise and Reasonable )
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To prevent the accumulation of planning permissions; to enable the Local Planning Authority to review the suitability of the development in the light of altered circumstances; and to comply with section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. (D11)
2. Development shall not commence until such time as details of the improvements to the access road have been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The proposed development shall not be brought into use until such time as the access road improvements have been constructed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In order to minimise danger obstruction and inconvenience to users of the staff car park.
3. Prior to the installation of any new roof materials, at least three samples of the proposed roof material and a sample of the proposed ridge tile, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Samples shall be accompanied with details of source/supplier. The works shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved particulars.
Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality.
4. Notwithstanding the submitted plans, full details of the soft landscaping and boundary treatments shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works. All planting in accordance with the scheme shall be carried out within twelve months of commencement of development. Any trees or shrubs removed, dying, severely damaged or diseased
(103) within two years of planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with trees or shrubs of such size and species as may be agreed by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To protect the appearance and character of the area and to minimise the effect of development on the area.
5. The development shall not be occupied until the car parking areas (and turning areas) shown on the approved plan have been constructed, surfaced to match the existing and permanently marked out. The car parking area so provided shall be maintained as a permanent ancillary to the development.
Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision at all times so that the development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or the conditions of general safety along the neighbouring highway.
6. Following ground clearance works and prior to any construction, no further development shall commence until details of the measures to be incorporated into the development to demonstrate how 'Secured By Design' accreditation will be achieved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, and shall not be occupied or used until the Council has acknowledged in writing that it has received written confirmation of 'Secured By Design' accreditation.
Reason: To design out crime and promote well-being in the area.
7. The hours of working on the development during the construction period shall be restricted to 0800-18:00 Mondays to Fridays, 0800 hours to 1300 hours on Saturdays and no working shall take place on Sundays and Public Holidays. The term 'working' shall for the purpose of clarification of this condition include; the use of plant or machinery (mechanical or other), the carrying out of maintenance/cleaning work on any plant or machinery deliveries to the site and the movement of vehicles within the curtilage of the site. Any 'working' outside these hours on any phase shall have prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To minimise disturbance to occupiers of completed and nearby dwellings.
8. The number of children on the premises of the school at any one time for the purposes of the proposed use shall not exceed 309.
Reason: To ensure control over the scale of the use in relation to highways safety and the amenities of neighbouring residents.
9. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations set out in the Ground Investigations Report No. 14065/02 dated 12th December 2013.
Any remedial works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved strategy and validated by submission of an appropriate verification report prior to first occupation of the development.
(104)
Should any unforeseen contamination be encountered the Local Planning Authority shall be informed immediately. Any additional site investigation and remedial work that is required as a result of unforeseen contamination will also be carried out to the written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the site is fit for its proposed purposed and any potential risks to human health, property, and the natural and historical environment, are appropriately investigated and minimised.
10. Prior to the commencement of any works full details of the ecological enhancement recommendations as outlined in section 5 (Constraints and Recommendations) of the Ecological Survey (dated November 2013) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include the position of the bat tubes and sparrow terraces on the new building and detail of the bug boxes within the orchard. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the use of the new building.
Reason: To ensure the site complies with Policy NE3 of the Local Plan and advice in the NPPF.
11. Full details of the surface treatment of proposed accesses, parking and manoeuvring areas and footpaths surrounding the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance of the development and in accordance with Policy D2 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan.
12. Prior to the commencement of any new brickwork, a sample panel of brickwork shall be constructed on site for the inspection and written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The sample panel should use the proposed walling material, mortar type, bond, coursing and pointing. The panel shall remain on site until the works are completed. The works shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved particulars.
Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality.
13. Notwithstanding the details on the submitted plans, Rooflights shall: be conservation type, no part of which should project above the plane of the roof, have a vertical glazing bar, maximum distance between the top and sides of the window and adjacent roof covering shall be 50mm, flashings and soakers shall be lead, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality.
14. Within three months of the occupation of the development, a site co-ordinator
(105) shall be nominated to manage a Travel Plan and conduct a Site Audit and Staff Travel Surveys, leading to the submission of a Travel Plan report. The Plan shall either be produced utilising the iTRACE Travel Plan management software or mirror its outputs in a format that is acceptable to the Local Planning Authority. Targets for modal sift must be agreed in line with Milton Keynes Council targets to achieve a reduction in single occupancy vehicle usage. The approved Full Travel Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the timetable and targets contained within and shall continue to be implemented as long as any part of the development is occupied with a minimum of annual reporting for the first five years, biennially thereafter.
Reason: In order to reduce the generation of single occupancy vehicle trips to and from the development by actively promoting and encouraging the use of more sustainable alternatives, in accordance with policy T11 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 - 2011.
15. Prior to the commencement of development, full details to include the design, material, finish and security of the proposed bin store shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality.
(106)
(107)
(108)
(109) (110) Appendix to 14/01236/FUL
A1.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY (A brief outline of previous planning decisions affecting the site – this may not include every planning application relating to this site, only those that have a bearing on this particular case)
A1.1 03/00037/MKCOD3 ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY NURSERY BLOCK Permitted 12.03.2003
14/01262/DEMNOT Demolition of HORSA building to rear Approved 09.07.2014
A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS
(Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)
A2.1 Landscaping and trees
The Council’s Landscape Architect raises an objection to the proposed proximity of the extension to the existing trees along the eastern boundary. He comments that although these trees are proposed to be retained, he is of the view that the building is too close to the trees and will therefore result in the likelihood of eventual removal. The Tree Officer has also been consulted and met with the planning officer, agent and applicant on site to view the trees. He raises no objection to the proposal. These trees along the eastern boundary are proposed to be retained and a further tree is to be added to this boundary to enhance the landscape amenity of the area. It should be noted that the existing trees are not within the conservation area nor are they subject to a tree preservation order and therefore could be removed at any time. If this application is approved a landscaping condition could be added ensuring that if any trees or shrubs removed, dying, severely damaged or diseased within two years of planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with trees or shrubs of such size and species as may be agreed by the Local Planning Authority. This has been included in the recommendation.
A2.2 Alternative sites
A comment has been raised regarding the availability of alternative sites elsewhere. There are sites allocated for new schools in the vicinity of Stony Stratford (i.e. within the Western Expansion Area) however these sites would be to serve this population. This is an existing school site that is looking to expand and therefore this application should assess the proposal submitted on its merits.
A2.3 Ecology
An Ecology Report has been submitted with the application. This identifies biodiversity enhancement measures and it is proposed that this detail is
(111) secured through conditions.
A2.4 Playing area
The proposal would still allow for external play areas as the extension would be in place of the demolished HORSA building and hard surfaced area.
A2.5 Impact on the setting of the conservation area
The site sits just outside of the conservation area, but is bound by it to 3 sides, contributing to its setting. The original part of the school is considered to be a non-designated heritage asset and positively contributes to the setting of the conservation area. The Conservation Officer raises no objection to the proposals subject to conditions regarding materials ad roof light detail.
(112)
A3.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS (Who has been consulted on the application and the responses received. The following are a brief description of the comments made. The full comments can be read via the Council’s web site)
Comments Officer Response
A3.1 Conservation
No objection subject to conditions Noted. Discussed in para. A2.5 and conditions recommended. Comments read: ‘The site is just outside of the conservation area, but is bound by it to 3 sides, contributing to its setting. The original part of the school is considered to be a non- designated heritage asset, and positively contributes to the setting of the conservation area.
No objection in principle to the proposed new buildings, subject to suitable high- quality materials and detailing, in keeping with the historic buildings of the site and the character of the area. I note that it is shown that roof lights project from the roof. It would be preferable for them to be flush fitting to the roof, to create a simple appearance to the roof line, particularly to the 4 rooflights that are most visible. It would be expected that a natural slate is used for the roof, and a good quality brick for walls’.
A3.2 Landscape Services Manager – Trees
No objection Noted.
A3.3 Senior Landscape Architect
Objects Noted. Discussed in para. A2.1.
(113)
Comments read: ‘The proposed building is too close to the trees, so I express a fundamental concern regarding tree impact and likelihood of eventual removal. I note the application is supported with an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (Landscape Planning Ltd) and I refer this report to the Council’s Tree Officer. I do note the following however:
The trees have not been categorised (A,B,C etc) & must be, following guidance within BS 5837 2012. Section 4.4 states that the trees (T1-T4 Limes) will have their Root Protection Area (RPA) breached by the proposed new building footprint & goes on to explain that Limes are robust and could adapt providing appropriate protection is put in place. The survey however fails to state that future tree growth, regular pollarding and the associated problems of the tree’s proximity (leaf drip from Aphids, shade, leaf fall & apprehension of the tree falling or causing damage during windy weather).is likely to result in their removal. These considerations are stated within BS 5837 2012.
For the reasons stated above I would not support the location of the proposed building. I do not object to the principle of a new building providing there is no tree impact upon trees with landscape value’.
A3.4 Parish - Stony Stratford
No objections subject to a condition Noted. Discussed in para. 5.15 and condition recommended. Comment that as there are existing traffic problems in the area, they would like to see a condition placed on any permission to ensure that the school travel plan is implemented and reviewed annually with the report publically available.
(114) A3.5 MKC Urban Design
No comments Noted.
A3.6 Highways Development Control
Following the submission of amendments, no objections subject to conditions. Noted. Discussed in paras. 5.9 – 5.15 and conditions recommended. Comments read: ‘At present the school has 30 existing employees with an additional 6 staff members proposed for the school. The school has 7 existing car parking spaces on site and propose a further 7 new staff car parking spaces (includes 1 disabled). This is acceptable since Parking Standards for MK requires 1 space per staff.
No drop off/ pick up spaces have been provided for the additional 90 pupils, a parking survey which accompanied the planning application confirmed on-street car parking spaces and public car parks near the school would be available and have sufficient capacity for the parents to use.
The parking survey confirmed approx. 27 additional vehicles could be generated by the proposal and that 36 on-street car parking spaces could be available for the parents to use plus the public car parks – acceptable in this instance.
3 additional cycle parking spaces have been provided – acceptable.
A red line plan submitted by the applicant accompanying the application shows the access to be in the ownership of the school with shared access rights with the units. A site visit confirmed the access road to be in a poor state with potholes. Since there will be an increase in traffic it is recommended the access road be upgraded/ resurfaced (to be conditioned)’.
The Highway Engineer had concerns regarding the original submitted plans that
(115) required amendments:
- The access into the staff car park area. Further tracking diagrams requested. - The applicant has provided 7 car parking spaces for 6 new staff members - the number of car parking spaces could be reduced to 6 to help with revisions to the car park layout. - Locate the 2 staff car parking spaces shown outside the staff car park within the main car park. - The gates should only open into the car park and not on to the access road; another option could be the installation of a sliding gate.
The applicant submitted amendments to address the Highway Engineer’s concerns and on balance the Highway Engineer raises no objection subject to conditions. It is noted that it is not ideal to have a staff car park accessed off a private road however it is a shared access in which several parties have rights of access over. The matter of access and vehicles blocking the access is a civil matter.
A3.7 Local Residents
The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application:
Units 1 & 2, Regents Hall, St Marys Avenue, Stony Stratford Units 4 & 5, Regents Hall St Marys Avenue, Stony Stratford Units 7 & 8, Regents Hall, St Marys Avenue, Stony Stratford 25 & 27 St Marys Avenue, Stony Stratford Rear of 25 St Marys Avenue, Stony Stratford Regents Hall, St Marys Avenue, Stony Stratford 15 - 21 (odds only) Wolverton Road, Stony Stratford Store Rear of 23 Wolverton Road, Stony Stratford 5 - 20 Russell Street, Stony Stratford 23 & 24 Russell Street, Stony Stratford 27 - 29 Russell Street, Stony Stratford
(116) 30 - 33 Russell Street, Stony Stratford 37 & 38 Russell Street, Stony Stratford Stony Stratford Auto Centre, Russell Street, Stony Stratford 1 - 8 Vicarage Walk, Stony Stratford 18 Vicarage Walk, Stony Stratford
A site notice was erected adjacent the application site.
6 letters of objection have been received and the planning concerns can be Noted. summarised as follows:
- The massing of the proposed building and impact on neighbouring properties Discussed in paras. 5.3 and 5.4 - Impact of the increase in pupils and staff on the traffic flow (congestion) and Discussed in paras. 5.9 – 5.12 parking - That there are alternative sites elsewhere Discussed in para. A2.2 - Vehicular movement within the staff car park is inadequate Discussed in paras. 5.13 – 5.14 - Location of the bin store Discussed in para. 5.7 - In adequate pick up and drop off facilities for parents Discussed in para. 5.13 - Loss of the fence to the north of the car park Discussed in para. 5.8 - The use of bollards for car parking spaces Discussed in paras. 5.11 and 5.13 - The state of the existing access road Discussed in para. 5.14
A further concern regarding the staff car parking area being gated and that it would The arrangement of the car repair have an impact on the adjacent car repair workshop business. Commented that the workshop using the school car park gate would result in customers / delivery vehicles not having a turning area. is between the school and the workshop owner. This could be terminated at any time and is not a material planning consideration. The school could erect a gate and fence in this location under permitted development.
(117)
ITEM 7
Application Number: 04/00655/FUL
COMMUNITY FACILITIES S106 CONTRIBUTION FROM DEVELOPMENT AT FORMER BMG MOTORS SITE, LONDON ROAD, STONY STRATFORD
AT London Road, Stony Stratford
Ward: Stony Stratford Parish: Stony Stratford Town Council
Report Author: Jonathan Robinson Contact Details: 01908 254861 [email protected]
Head of Team: Andrew Horner Contact Details: 01908 252609 [email protected]
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 This report is in connection with the Section 106 money allocated that was allocated to Russell Street Day Nursery Parents Association (RSDNPA) by the Development Control Committee (DCC) on the 15th September 2011 and further extension of 12 months granted by DCC on the 16th August 2012.
1.2 At the August 2013 meeting of the committee it was resolved that £50,000 of the Community Facilities contribution be ring-fenced for a further period of 12 months, until September 2013, and if it has not been possible to reach a conclusion after that time, the Development Control Committee be requested to consider a further extension.
1.3 RSDNPA contacted Milton Keynes Council to request an extension of 12 months to this timescale to September 2014 and at the meeting of DCC on the 7th November 2013, it was resolved that a final extension of 6 months would be granted.
1.4 RSDNPA further contacted the Council on the 14th April 2014 to request a further extension due to a 3-week delay by MKC in providing RSDNPA with the criteria as to how the business would be assessed. The Chair of DCC granted a 3 week extension, taking the deadline to 28th May 2014.
1.5 On the 27th May 2014, the Business Case and START Document were submitted to the Council and was reviewed by the Capital Projects Review Panel (CPRP) on the 8th July 2014 to assess the viability of the Business Case. The Business Case is appended to this report at Appendix 1, and the START Document at Appendix 2.
1.6 This report sets out the comments from CPRP on the Business Case for consideration by members.
(118)
2.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
2.1 Development Control Committee Resolution 7th November 2013 2.2 Development Control Committee Resolution 16th August 2012
2.3 Development Control Committee Resolution 15th September 2011
2.4 04/00655/FUL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING GARAGE/CAR SALESROOMS AND ERECTION OF 45 NO. DWELLINGHOUSES AND FLATS WITH GARAGES, ASSOCIATED WORKS AND NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS PERMITTED 22.09.2004
2.5 04/00655/FUL Variation th Deed of Variation dated 18 November 2010 (Affordable Housing)
3.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS
3.1 No consultation has been carried out as this report is to do with the Business Case submitted by RSDNPA.
3.2 York House Centre however requested a copy of the Business Case and has sent their comments on the Business Case to the Council. A copy of these comments is annexed to this report at Appendix 3.
4.0 BACKGROUND
4.1 The Section 106 contribution of £150,000 (index linked) for Community Facilities was paid by the development of the former BMG motors site on London Road, Stony Stratford on the 3rd August 2011.
4.2 The total contribution with indexation was £181,000. On the 15th September 2011, Development Control Committee resolved:
That the sum of £116,000 be allocated immediately to York House Centre. That the sum of £15,000 be allocated immediately to the Greek Orthodox Church for renovation works to Swithen Hall. That the sum of £50,000 be ring-fenced for a period of 12 months from the date of the decision, for Russell Street Day Nursery Parents Association to allow further discussions on the location of a reopened Nursery in Stony Stratford and the preparation of a business plan to demonstrate the viability of any reopened facility. Should the reopened nursery prove to be unviable, the ring-fenced sum should also be allocated to York House Centre
(119)
4.3 The Section 106 contribution is due to expire in August 2018. The 45 dwelling development which paid this contribution is complete and occupied.
4.4 The Section 106 agreement states “Community Facilities Contribution means the sum of one hundred and fifty thousand pounds (£150,000) Index Linked towards community facilities within Stony Stratford.”
4.5 When considering the use of the s106 monies, it is important to note that the monies cannot be applied in a way which would result in private gain, and therefore the s106 monies can only be allocated to projects where they would provide community facilities for the benefit of the residents taking occupation of the development.
4.6 According to the 2011 Census age structure data, Stony Stratford had a population of 4,920 people, of which 295 were aged between 0-4 years. This represents 5.99% of the total population were of nursery age, and based on the size of the development and mix of dwellings, it would be reasonable to assert a total of 103 people would live in the development (population estimate from the Social Atlas based on size of dwellings). Therefore, it could be estimated that approximately 6% or 6 children aged 0-4 years old living in the development which paid the contribution would be of nursery age.
5.0 CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 The Business Case submitted by RSDNPA was reviewed by the Capital Projects Review Panel (CPRP) on the 8th July 2014. CPRP review all capital projects that the Council undertakes, and this panel was asked to review the Business Case and START document to assess the viability of the development to inform the DCC decision.
5.2 CPRP membership compromises the Service Director Finance and Resources; Capital Finance Manager; Head of Capital and Infrastructure; Head of Strategic Procurement; Head of Legal Service (Procurement, Planning, Property and Finance) and the Performance & Portfolio Manager.
5.3 This group reviewed the Business Case and START document and provided the following comments to DCC on the viability of the Business Case.
(120)
5.3.1 RSDNPA have collaborated with Acorn Childcare2, which is a local charity to produce the business case. Acorn Childcare 2, has been established since 1989 currently runs 9 nurseries in Milton Keynes and Northamptonshire as well as a variety of out of school clubs, play schemes and forest schools. Acorn consists of two not for profit companies, one of which has charitable status. It is this social enterprise which would run the nursery in Stony Stratford.
5.3.2 The overall business case presented was generally very thorough, including detailed projections of costs and income for the running of a day nursery. The involvement of a current provider with a good track record of delivery (based on current Ofsted judgements for existing nurseries) adds considerable assurance to the robustness of the business case.
5.3.3 Acorn Childcare 2 is willing to invest £40,000 over the medium term into the creation of the new nursery, in addition to the use of the S106 funds. Acorn would run the nursery at a loss for the first year; with an expected breakeven position by year three and recouping the initial investment by year 5.
5.3.4 The proposal is to run the day nursery from The Sp@ce, which is a registered charity who hires out the venue to support its charitable aim “to enhance and secure provision for the Stony Stratford Community and to ensure that the Children’s centre (in The Sp@ce) is the hub for activities and opportunities for all children and families living locally.”
5.3.5 However, in considering the business case, there were a few issues which caused concern in terms of viability and the appropriate use of S106 funding.
5.3.6 The START document states at paragraph 3.7 - ‘Initial Risks’ that Stony Stratford Town Council would take responsibility for any nursery equipment purchased should the three-way partnership run into any difficulties, to ensure the purchased equipment would continue to be available for use within the town. While this is a good proposal to ensure the investment is retained for the benefit of the community if the Nursery is not viable, the group requested confirmation from Stony Stratford Town Council that they had accepted this liability. The SSTC clerk has provided the following response:
5.3.7 “At this time, the Town Council has neither seen a copy of the business plan and any related documents nor had the opportunity to discuss any content included in these documents. It has not been approached by RSDNPA to discuss any content in the business plan that implies that the Town Council takes any responsibilities should a new nursery be provided in the town. I therefore have to advise you that, at this time, the Town Council has not considered nor agreed to the statement detailed in your email.”
(121)
5.3.8 The business case did not include specific market information to confirm the need for provision based on the current population. It did identify potential future demands from potential development in and around Stony Stratford; however, the appropriateness of using these resources must be taken in context of Section 106. i.e. is there identifiable need as a result of the Hayes Mews development on London Road, which paid the contribution, to justify the allocation of a contribution to the provision of a day nursery, over any other community facility.
5.3.9 In addition concern was expressed that the nursery would need to run at 95% occupancy from its second year to breakeven, particularly as the business case confirms occupancy in the current Acorn nurseries to be 90%. This assumption on occupancy poses a risk to the long-term future of the nursery.
5.3.10 Further, it was questioned whether the Business Case adequately demonstrated whether there was sufficient demand to support a day nursery in Stony Stratford. The Children and Families Head of Delivery, Setting and School Sufficiency and Access has provided the following comment regarding nursery provision:
5.3.11 “Milton Keynes Council has a statutory duty to ensure that there is sufficient early years education and childcare for children living in its area. Planning for Early Years is based on children’s centre reach areas which, for Stony Stratford, is the area served by Rowans children’s centre.
5.3.12 In early years education and childcare there are different types of provision meeting different needs. “Sessional care” offers early years education and childcare places for children who attend morning or afternoon sessions at a local pre-school or nursery and is generally accessed by local people who more often than not walk and are not on the way to or from work. Our data shows that this type of provision in the area served by Rowan’s is almost full and projected to require additional places to meet future demand based on latest birth data. This is therefore a planning priority to ensure that we can continue to meet our duty.
5.3.13 A “day nursery” (as proposed in the business case) offers full day care from 7.30am/ 8am – 6pm. This is therefore mostly accessed by working parents who are dropping their children off on the way to work and picking them up on the way back. Day nurseries therefore attract parents from a much wider area than the area itself. Our data shows that in the Rowan’s area there is capacity in the system and this is projected to continue to be the case based on the births. This is therefore not a planning priority. Early years and childcare is, however, a free market and if a day nursery was to open in Stony Stratford it may well fill with demand from children currently accessing other provision.”
(122)
5.3.14 There was discussion around the risk of allocating Section 106 monies to what is arguably a commercial operation, albeit a social enterprise versus it being allocated to a community facility as anticipated by the s106 agreement. The Section 106 contribution should also be spent on providing community facilities for the benefit of the Hayes Mews development, not the entire town nor can it be justified as catering for other new/future developments (such as the WEA).
5.3.15 The proposal for the nursery to be located within the existing Stony Stratford Children’s Centre (The Sp@ce) was also discussed. The Business Case makes reference to a 5 year lease from 2013 from MKC to The Sp@ce however Property Services have confirmed that this lease does not exist. The Space would therefore have to enter into a lease with the Council, and a sub-lease would need to be granted to Acorn/RSDNPA in the first instance.
5.3.16 There was concern about the longevity of the proposal as it appears to be a short-term proposition, awaiting a more permanent facility being identified. If a more permanent facility is not identified, then the facility may close within a relatively short period.
5.3.17 The Business Case makes reference to capital improvement works to the Stony Stratford Children’s Centre that would be required to enable the nursery to operate from the building. These works are estimated at a minimum of £25,000 and there was concern about the capital cost of establishing what is described as a temporary arrangement.
5.3.18 The changes to the building would need consent from the Council as the building owner, and this project would need to go through the capital programme, and be managed by the council. It is not suggested in the Business Case for the S106 to be used for this purpose, rather the s106 would be used for equipment purchase, however any works to the building would need to be undertaken by the council to enable the cost of the works to be correctly accounted for. It was therefore considered that if funding is allocated to RSDNPA, then the works to the building should be funded using the s106. Prior to any commencement of the project an analysis of the costs of the work would need to be undertaken by MKC, who would also need to consider the impact of these works on the future use of the building.
6 Conclusion and Recommendation Based on the submitted Business Case and START Document and the comments made by the CPRP group, Members are asked to resolve whether the a viable business case has been demonstrated by the Russell Street Day Nursery Parents Association and whether therefore the £50,000 of Section 106 money as earmarked by Development Control Committee should be allocated to a nursery provision in Stony Stratford, and whether
(123) this accords with the spirit of the original Section 106 agreement to provide community facilities serving the residents of the Hayes development.
7 Appendices 7.1 Appendix 1: The Business Plan for a Children’s Day Nursery in Stony Stratford.
7.2 Appendix 2: START Document for Nursery Business Plan
7.3 Appendix 3: Comments from York House Centre
(124)
APPENDIX 1
The Business Plan for a Children’s Day Nursery in Stony Stratford
Stratford Russell Street Day Nursery Parents’ Association
(125)
CONTENTS
1 OVERVIEW ...... 3
2 CONTEXT ...... 4
HISTORY ...... 4
PLANNING POLICY: STONY STRATFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN ...... 5
STONY STRATFORD SCHOOLS EXPANSIONS ...... 5
3 DEMAND ...... 5
CUSTOMER BASE ...... 6
HOUSING AND POPULATION GROWTH ...... 6
LOCAL NEED ...... 7
NATIONAL POLICY ...... 8
4 QUALITY AND STANDARDS: ...... 9
THE CONTRIBUTION OF CHILDCARE PROVISION: ...... 9
STANDARDS: ...... 10
EMPLOYMENT: ...... 10
5 THE PROPOSITION: ...... 10
THE PROVISION...... 11
LOCATION ...... 12
TRAFFIC ...... 13
ACORN CHILDCARE2 ...... 14
6 FINANCES ...... 14
START-UP COSTS ...... 14
CUSTOMERS AND FEES ...... 15
SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS ...... 15
7 MARKETING ...... 16
8 IMPACT ...... 17
CONCLUSION: ...... 18
9 APPENDICES ...... 19
APPENDIX 1 ...... 19
1
(126) APPENDIX 2 ...... 21
APPENDIX 3 ...... 23
APPENDIX 4 ...... 26
2
(127) Ref: S106 Agreement relating to Planning Application 00655/FUL (former BMG Motors Site, London Road)
1 OVERVIEW
This business plan is set in the wider context of Stony Stratford’s role as a centre of economic activity and a source of facilities for learning, health and care serving the parish (Stony Stratford, Galley Hill, and Fullers Slade) and supporting neighbouring areas. The vision for the community is of a holistic range of play, nursery, childcare, learning and youth facilities, in line with Milton Keynes’ Council’s aspiration for its children. Following a recommendation by Stony Stratford Town Council (SSTC) it was agreed by the Development Control Committee that £50,000 from the Community Facilities S106 contribution from development at former BMG MOTORS SITE, London Road, Stony Stratford should be used towards setting up nursery and childcare provision in Stony to replace a closed facility and meet growing need and demand, subject to the production of a suitable business plan.
This business plan outlines the current and developing context, the growing demand, the importance of quality provision for Stony Stratford and Milton Keynes and outlines an innovative partnership proposition. It also highlights the proposed expenditure on setting up the nursery, the matched funds secured, the timeline for implementation and the financial viability of the nursery. The final section looks at the long term impact and return on investment.
The proposed joint venture involves The Stony Stratford Children’s Centre, known now as The Space on London Road, Acorn Childcare 2 and The Russell Street Day Nursery Parents’ Association (RSDNPA)
All three organizations are charities. The Space provides play, leisure and after school activities for children aged 4 to 14, Acorn Childcare2 is part of Acorn Nurseries, an established nursery provider across Milton Keynes and RSDNPA is a local parents’ charity working within the community.
In summary the proposed joint venture will:
Provide a viable 40 place nursery in Stony Stratford which will be located at The Space for a 3-5 year period or longer
Meet the current and future demand as outlined in section 3
Be able to take advantage of any future developments within the town e.g. Cofferidge Close or St Giles House
Support The Space is the realization of its vision for its future role in Stony Stratford (see section 5)
Ensure the S106 money is spent appropriately on equipment for the nursery with the SSTC receiving reports from RSDNPA and then monitoring through the established Inter Agency Group that includes an SSTC councillor
3
(128) Bring matched funding from Acorn Childcare 2 to improve facilities at The Space
Support the development of a diverse quality offer within the parish by working in partnership through the Inter Agency structure which includes all the players who work with children and young people and contribute to a range of community aspirations within Stony Stratford Town and Parish.
2 CONTEXT
HISTORY
This business plan outlines the strategy to open a Children’s Day Nursery within Stony Stratford to replace the Russell Street Day Nursery (RSDN) which closed down in December 2010. RSDN had provided a much needed service to Stony Stratford for 75 years. The nursery was operated by Milton Keynes Council, but the condition of the building deteriorated to the point where it was no longer fit for purpose. The nursery was the only council nursery to achieve an ‘Outstanding’ rating from Ofsted, and was very popular with families living in Stony Stratford. There is currently no nursery within the town, and the staff and children of the old Russell Street Day Nursery were moved to the Rowans nursery situated in Fullers Slade, initially running alongside the Sure Start nursery on site, but subsequently merging with it.
The Russell Street Day Nursery provided a very popular service, operating at 94% capacity with a substantial waiting list during its final years of operation. A petition to re-open the nursery gathered over six hundred signatures through a few hours of canvassing and the service is clearly missed by local families with young children.
The Russell Street Day Nursery Parents Association (RSDNPA) has been campaigning to re- open the nursery, and it was successful in securing £50K in Section 106 funding in 2011, as referred to in the Overview. Stony Stratford Town Council is supportive of the group and of the ambition for provision as outlined.
Key facts and timeline summary:
Russell Street Day Nursery had been part of the fabric of Stony Stratford for over 75 years RSDN was closed by MK Council in December 2010 due to the building to falling into a state of disrepair. Building renovation costs estimated at £63k to keep building useable for next 5-10 years. Estimate of £170k to complete all work needed including new roof. To demolish the current building and construct a new Day Nursery the cost was estimated at around £350k. 4 of 8 MK Council Day Nurseries went out to tender (of which Acorn were awarded two). RSDN remained closed. RSDN operated at 94% occupancy rate (24 places) and had a 3-6 month waiting lists (6 months for 6 month–2 year olds, and 3 months for 2-4 year olds). July 2011 – RSDN awarded £63,000 s106 monies by Stony Stratford Town Council. September 2011 – DCC ring fenced the award of £50,000 for 12 months. August 2012 – DCC extended s106 monies for a further 12 months
4
(129) November 2013 – confirmation that RSDN merged with Rowans at Fullers Slade. November 2013 – DCC extended s106 monies for a further 6 months.
PLANNING POLICY: STONY STRATFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
Neighbourhood Plans are a new development for local planning purposes. They have been introduced through the Localism Act 2011 and are the responsibility of town or parish councils. As a result of an application by Milton Keynes Council to the Department of Communities and Local Government, Stony Stratford Town Council was awarded frontrunner status and allocated funding for the development of a Neighbourhood Plan. A working group of town councilors and residents has been working on the development of the Plan since April 2013.
In the run-up to public consultation on possible contents of the Plan, the working group considered in some detail the key challenges facing the community. Two key issues emerged at an early stage: the need to ensure the continued vibrancy and vitality of the High Street and the need to consider appropriate facilities for both younger and older members of the community.
Although the Neighbourhood Plan is still at draft stage, public consultation clearly supported the provision of nursery facilities in the town in the light of the relocation and closure of the Russell Street Day Nursery. Such facilities could be developed either in a completely new site such as Cofferidge Close or as part of the redevelopment of St Giles’ Mews as specified on page 2 of the Sales Release – under the heading ‘Development Potential’ (See Appendix 1). Alternatively, the use of existing facilities was also supported.
Neighbourhood Plans will be taken into account for planning purposes by the appropriate planning authority. In Stony Stratford’s case, this will be Milton Keynes Council. The working group for the plan is currently working towards May 2015 as the likely date for the referendum on the adoption of the Plan. Such a timetable would complement the potential opening of a new nursery facility in Stony Stratford.
STONY STRATFORD SCHOOLS EXPANSIONS
Russell Street First School expansion St Mary St Giles Middle School expansion
See ‘Stony Stratford Children’s Day Nursery Update on Possible Locations Nov 2013’ http://cmis.milton-keynes.gov.uk/CmisWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=40751
These two schools have identified the increase of young children within the parish and are planning to increase the number of classes and size of existing classes within the next couple of years.
3 DEMAND
5
(130) CUSTOMER BASE
Most parents prefer to choose a nursery close to home – or failing that their workplace –and currently there is no day nursery to cater for the working parents living in the relatively densely populated town of Stony Stratford. The Rowans (see context, Section 2) is situated on the edge of the wider Stony Stratford Parish area covered by Stony Stratford Town Council some distance from the town’s main population and commercial centre.
The customer base for the nursery is predominately working parents from the local area but would also offer places for free entitlement to provide sessional care to facilitate the transition into work for other Stony Stratford parents currently at home with young children.
The three Acorn nurseries closest to Stony Stratford (Shenley, New Bradwell and Castlethorpe) are currently averaging 90% occupancy and all three have a waiting list for under 2’s. Children on these waiting lists could be offered places at a new nursery in Stony Stratford and there are parent’s at all three nurseries that currently live in Stony Stratford. AcornChilcare2 is confident that there is more than sufficient demand in Stony Stratford to support the day nursery.
Policies to encourage walking and reduce car dependency for reasons of health and traffic congestion mean that provision for young children should be focused within or very close to areas of population density.
This current customer base will grow as the local population expands.
HOUSING AND POPULATION GROWTH
Milton Keynes enjoys its status as a popular and growing city. Within the area previously served by RSDN there are a number of families residing at the new Hayes development on the London Road and Blenheim Mews off Blenheim Avenue. In addition to this, there is a brand new development of homes on the former site of Orchard Hall adjacent to the Radcliffe School, and a proposed further development of approximately a dozen homes at Stratford House.
The Western Expansion Area (WEA) (see Figure 1) a near neighbour to Stony Stratford, shows plans for 6,500 new dwellings (Source: Milton Keynes Partnership, planning permission still current) with ground due to be broken in 2014 and development to follow rapidly.
6
(131)
Figure 1
While there are plans for Primary and Secondary schools, nursery provision is not explicitly planned initially and the current implication of Milton Keynes Council’s Childcare Sufficiency Assessments for 2011 and 2012 is that adjacent nurseries such as ‘The Rowans’ in Fullers Slade and others would provide places. Furthermore, the 2012 Childcare Sufficiency Assessment indicates concern in the medium term about capacity at The Rowans.
LOCAL NEED
Fullers Slade ranks among the ten highest estates in Milton Keynes with a population of young people aged 0-15 (2011 Census Theme Report People aged 0-15 living in Milton Keynes). The Childcare Sufficiency Assessment for 2011 expresses concern about the levels of child poverty in the area and the need to provide more of the flexible and wraparound provision that helps parents into work.
While the 2011 census indicates that Stony Stratford ward experienced relatively low population growth compared with Milton Keynes as a whole it is noticeable that there was an increase in
7
(132) the numbers of 0-4 year olds as against a decrease in the number of teenagers. This changing trend is supported by anecdotal evidence from residents and newcomers to the town about the arrival of new families and those intending to have families. Hence the need for more school places and the reason that Russell Street School in the heart of Stony Stratford is in consultation to expand to provide 90 places for its Reception year from September 2015, plus an increase in its nursery form entry (not the be confused with day nursery and sessional childcare provision). The consultation document refers to ‘current shortfall in places being met by primary schools in adjacent areas’ and this capacity is reducing as new housing is being built’.
NATIONAL POLICY
The Government has recently announced some changes to the current rules relating to the free hours for under 2’s and an extension to the tax-free childcare voucher system (see Appendix 2). These changes will allow Children’s Day Nursery care to become more affordable with an increase in take up of places the intended outcome. However, those places need to be provided in the first place. It is expected that on a local level the increase in demand as a result of these changes will extend across a whole cross section of families within the Stony Stratford Town Parish.
Under current rules some 2 year olds can get free education if they meet the specific criteria. However, from September 2014 more 2 year olds will become eligible for free early education. Most significantly the children who will benefit are those with parents who get Working Tax Credits and earn no more than £16,190 a year, together with those children who receive Disability Living Allowance. There are also other criteria but these are the two major additions that will have greater impact within Stony Stratford, and thus increase the number of 2 year olds wanting to take up Day Nursery places.
Of perhaps an even greater impact will be the changes to the Tax Free Childcare Voucher System. A new scheme, Tax-Free Childcare, will replace the existing voucher scheme in autumn 2015. Parents already on the current scheme can stay on it until their child reaches 15. But, unlike childcare vouchers, it will be open to all qualifying parents, not just people whose employer offers the scheme. This will apply to many parents living within Stony Stratford and thus make it easier, and cheaper, for parents to place their children in Day Nurseries whilst they go out to work. It is extremely likely that a significant number of parents will take up this offer and therefore placing greater pressure on current supply. A return of a Day Nursery to Stony Stratford would go some way to alleviate such pressure.
Summary:
There is a current customer base for a day nursery also offering sessional care in Stony Stratford
There will be increased demand resulting from housing development and demographic shift
Changes in government policy will increase demand
There are local needs within the community which the proposition (see section 5) will address with the development of this day nursery
8
(133)
4 QUALITY AND STANDARDS:
THE CONTRIBUTION OF CHILDCARE PROVISION:
The introduction to the Childcare Sufficiency Assessment for Milton Keynes (MK Council 2012) emphasises the point that the mix of full day nursery provision, sessional care and wraparound care enables individual entitlement to be met as well as enhancing the development of all children and supporting the local economy in enabling parents to return to and sustain work and make progress in that employment. While this is particularly important in enhancing the life chances of children from more deprived areas, all Milton Keynes’ children need to be able to access opportunities in early life.
The age from 6 months to 4 years has often been described as the most important of a person’s life as it plays such a significant role in defining and shaping personality and character. The social interaction and learning opportunities provided by skilled staff make a significant contribution to this process. A Day Nursery encourages personal skills and improves social development and interaction, and therefore lays the foundations for the first stages of that steady progression. It allows children the opportunity to move on to Primary School with their friends.
This settled transition from Day Nursery to Primary School/Primary School Nursery Class and then on to Secondary School is so important to young people and that is why we must do what is right by those children in Stony Stratford and provide this opportunity for them. It can be very traumatic for a young child to leave friends behind and have to start again making new friends and building a new social group. Since the closure of Russell Street Day Nursery (RSDN) in December 2010 this disjointed progression is now what currently happens within Stony Stratford.
The mixed community of Stony Stratford includes both the Milton Keynes average proportion of graduates and pockets of high unemployment, including youth unemployment. National policies about encouraging unemployed adults to move from claimant to worker also require more and flexible childcare to be available, both for very young children and those starting school.
In addition to the role in helping develop a child’s social skills and provide for a steady progression a Children’s Day Nursery would also provide for that flexible care. Russell Street Primary School has a Nursery Class taking in 30 children per session (2 sessions per day). The recent consultation proposed that the school nursery class which can currently accommodate 30 children per session will be expanded to accommodate 39 children per session. As the nursery class operates 2 sessions a day, this equates to an additional 18 early education places.
However, there is no provision of care for those times either before or after class. The sessions run from 8.30-11.30am and again at 12-3pm. Since the closure of RSDN there is now no local Day Nursery provision to cater for these children (they require collecting and transporting), therefore making it difficult for parents to either send their children to these classes or to go out to work. One or the other usually has to give. A Children’s Day Nursery located at The
9
(134) Children’s Play Centre would go some way to alleviating this problem and in turn satisfy the already existing demand.
STANDARDS:
Sir Michael Wilshaw, Chief Inspector of Schools and Head of Ofsted, recently (April 2014) emphasised the importance of structured learning for children aged two and above and Ofsted inspections are designed to bring all of the nation’s nurseries up to standards of good or outstanding. The current ratings locally are mixed although evidence is cited of improvement and progress.
Queen Eleanor School and The Rowans Nursery are both rated grade 3 (requiring improvement) at present but going in the right direction, Russell Street is on grade 2 (good). Acorn Childcare 2: proposed partner has 12 nurseries in all. 3 are outstanding on grade 1, 6 are good on grade 2, 2 require improvement and 1 is judged unsatisfactory. 5-7 Church Street is now owned by Stony Stratford Town Council (SSTC) and accommodates the council offices and houses the library service. SSTC is looking to enable partners to offer a wider range of learning activities involving schools and many other organisations. One development under consideration is a fairly informal early year’s liaison grouping within the broader Stony Parish, building on the relationships that exist including the current interagency meeting. One of the key features would be that it would sit within the Stony Town Council framework, allowing the Town Council to act as a backstop for bids and partnerships and facilitate sharing of resources and practice.
The combination of the contribution of childcare and local working on quality practice, along with other benefits outlined in the proposition, would have a positive effect on the local social fabric and amenity value.
EMPLOYMENT:
Additionally, the nursery would support the local economy not only through enabling parents to work but also helping local businesses to recruit based on a quality childcare offer in the town. This is in accord with Milton Keynes Council policies and practices, like the Neighbourhood Employment Programme, for reducing unemployment (in Stony Stratford it tends to be just ahead of the Milton Keynes average- 2.9% in February, MK 2.7%). Lack of childcare that is accessible and responsive is often cited as a barrier to working. The 2011 Childcare Sufficiency Assessment referred to a need to encourage more parents in the area into work.
5 THE PROPOSITION:
A joint venture between 3 local charities is proposed. These are:
The Russell Street Day Nursery Parents’ Association, a registered charity (1032095) scheduled to receive £50k S106 monies from the Hayes Development in Stony Stratford as specified by the Stony Stratford Town Council. The RSDNPA is also represented on the working group led
10
(135) by SSTC which is consulting on the Neighbourhood Plan which refers to community facilities such as nurseries. It is anticipated that this group will act as an ongoing focus for parents with young children.
The Sp@ce, situated on London Road, is a registered charity (number 1099869) and a limited company (number 4736566). The Space is run by a management committee of five including the Chair and employs a play leader, bookkeeper and sessional staff to run the centre and its own programmes. It also hires out the premises to users whose activities accord with the stated vision. ‘Our aim is to enhance and secure provision for the Stony Stratford Community and to ensure that the Children’s Centre (in The Space) is the hub for activities and opportunities for all children and families living locally. We wish to build on our established reputation for play and care provision of children aged 4.5 to 14 years old, by working with partners to explore expanding the age range and services offered.’
Acorn Childcare2, which is a registered charity (1145108) as part of Acorn Childcare. Acorn already runs a number of successful nurseries in Milton Keynes and is willing to invest £40k in the medium term to provide funding to match the S106.
The development of a nursery providing day and sessional care all year round at The Space would provide a stepping stone towards the longer term vision of a nursery as part of the Stony offer of health centre, schools, learning and library services etc. focussed around one of the possible venues in the town centre. It would also enable The Space to start to move towards its vision of a comprehensive play offer including a nursery element through piloting various activities and innovation and thinking about how to improve the premises. The Space would charge Acorn Childcare for operating the nursery thus bringing much needed income.
THE PROVISION
It is proposed to accommodate the nursery within the existing envelope of The Space. An underused area will be upgraded (thus improving the capacity at The Space) and modified to provide the essential facilities. The nursery will then be able to share some spaces with other users and with The Space staff – thus moving towards the kind of integration of activity beneficial to the community and children’s development. There is an abundance of outdoor space and it will be possible to identify suitable nursery access.
The Space has a 5 year lease from 2013 from Milton Keynes Council. The Space is responsible for the maintenance of the building but would need permission for alterations. The implementation plan would involve working up the detailed arrangements for joint working, gaining permissions and making the alterations to the building during the autumn of 2014 and spring of 2015. Meanwhile Acorn Childcare would recruit staff and launch the marketing with a view to a staged start from spring 2015 operating at full capacity from autumn 2015.
This would align with the temporary accommodation of Hobby Horse (Pre School based at Russell Street School) at The Space during the academic year 2014-15.
The nursery will be a 40 place provision offering provision for 51 weeks of the year, (not including weekends or bank holidays) and open from 7.30am to 6.00pm. All food, activities, nappies and equipment are included in the fees. (See section 6 for finances)
The accommodation whether discrete or shared will include:
11
(136) • Play spaces that offer separate areas for the different age groups and different types of activity, but with the opportunity for free-flow activities between most of these, including access to an outdoor play area • A secure outdoor play area, ideally with a covered area to enable use in all weathers • Kitchen • Toilets and nappy change area • Staff room and toilet/cloakroom • Office • Reception/lobby area • Utility/laundry room
The intention is to plan a 5 year agreement with a potential review after 3 years.
LOCATION
The Sp@ce is located at the top of London Road, Stony Stratford at the connection with the road network serving Galley Hill, Fullers Slade and the WEA. The Sp@ce provides after-school facilities for local children from the local schools and is accessible from those schools (see Figure 2).
The provision of day nursery places would complement the already existing after-school provision, enabling continuity for parents and families. It would also be possible to work in partnership with the SureStart Centre and children’s day nursery at the Rowans in Fullers Slade.
The children’s day nursery at The Sp@ce would also provide, in the first instance, support for families living in the WEA until such time as suitable facilities become available.
Finally, the location of The Sp@ce at the geographic centre of the parish enables the maximum potential for access to the facility by foot or cycle.
12
(137)
Figure 2
TRAFFIC
Unlike with set school drop off and pick up times, the hours of traffic for Day Nurseries are more dispersed throughout the day. Drop offs would expect to be from opening time of 7.30am to around work start time of 9am. Then pick up and drop off over lunch time 1-2pm for those children on one session per day. End of the day pick up would range from anywhere around 4- 6pm when the Day Nursery would close. Traffic is therefore very unlikely to cause an issue.
Another important aspect to consider is that a Day Nursery on the corner of Queen Eleanor and London Road would not only have great vehicular access, but it may well encourage more local parents to walk their children to nursery rather than drive. The Sp@ce sits almost directly within the centre of the Ward. With more parents in a position to walk, a benefit to none or one car families, the local traffic is likely to remain unaffected. Currently parents are required to drive out of town to Day Nurseries in New Bradwell and/or Wolverton, or even the Rowans, so by not having a Day Nursery in Stony Stratford parents are quite literally forced to drive. These parents are driving through Town to get to an out of Town Day Nursery. It could therefore be right to assume that a Day Nursery at The Space would actually see a drop in local traffic as those parents approaching from Queen Eleanor Street would not need to enter the Town, and if they did these journeys would be offset by those parents currently driving to Nursery who would now be in a position to walk.
13
(138)
ACORN CHILDCARE2
Acorn Childcare2 is a local charity (1145108) that has been established since 1989 and currently runs 9 nurseries in Milton Keynes and Northamptonshire as well as a variety of out-of- school clubs, play schemes, crèches and Forest Schools. Acorn consists of two not-for-profit companies, one of which has charitable status, and it is this social enterprise company which hopes to open a new day nursery in Stony Stratford. The company took over two other ex-MK Council nurseries in 2012, and has a total of seven nurseries in Milton Keynes.
Acorn’s central office staff would oversee the management of the nursery, but all staff based at the site would need to be recruited specifically for this nursery, although existing Acorn staff might choose to apply for positions and previous Russell Street staff might wish to return to Stony Stratford. All Acorn sites are set up to communicate by phone and computer network, and all policies, procedures and working practices would be set up in line with other Acorn nurseries. With Acorn’s central office and two other Acorn nurseries within five miles, the support for the new nursery will be hands-on and closely monitored.
6 FINANCES
START-UP COSTS
Of the £90k start-up costs for a 40 place nursery £25k would go towards the renovation costs. We would probably need to spend £40K initially, and then the additional tables/chairs/equipment as numbers rise. The figures can be adapted depending on how much space and equipment might be shared, and some items (washing machine etc.) could be rented rather than purchased.
The building work required to make the Sp@ce suitable for use as a nursery is estimated at £25K (as a minimum) as follows:
Installation of 4 toilets and nappy change area £8K
Patio doors to garden at rear of building £3K
Kitchen upgrade £5K
New entrance door and fencing for rear play area £4K
Surfacing and fixed equipment for rear play area £5K
Total building costs £25K
14
(139) Marketing, staff uniform, ramp-up & other costs £15k
Total start-up costs £40K
Essential equipment (s106) £40k
Additional equipment (s106) £10k
TOTAL £90k
The overall total funds that will be required to set up the 40 place Children’s day Nursery at The Sp@ce are estimated to be in the region of £90k. This will be split between the s106 funds contribution of £50k with an additional £40k raised by Acorn Childcare2. The s106 funds will be used for the purchasing of equipment for the Day Nursery and this is likely to be in a number of stages within three to six months, as and when more places are taken up. The essential items totalling £40k will be purchased first with the remaining £10k s106 monies going towards additional essential items or towards some of the desirable items (see Appendix 3).
CUSTOMERS AND FEES
Most of the families using the nursery would be parents working either full or part-time, but other families may also access the facilities in order to take up the government’s offer of free nursery education for all three and four year olds and some two year olds. Fees are paid monthly in advance, primarily by direct debit or online, and current rates locally average £950 per month for each full-time equivalent place (FTE). Full-time rates would be less than this, but part-time places would be charged at a higher rate to compensate for the uneven fill-up rates for part-time sessions.
SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS
A forecast cash flow, demonstrating both projected turnover and running costs for a start-up 40 place nursery for the first two years is outlined in Appendix 4. This shows an increase in occupancy over the first 12 months to 80% with a break even at 75%. Appendix 4 also demonstrates that Acorn Childcare2 would be prepared to run the nursery at a potential loss of £33k in year one based on previous experience of opening nurseries of 40+ places, moving into surplus in year two, and eliminating the deficit completely in year three. By the end of year 5, Acorn Childcare2 expects to have recouped in addition the initial investment of £40k.
As a charity, Acorn Childcare2 is able to create restricted funds which mean that money can only be spent on specific purposes or projects. Once the S106 funds have been received by RSDNPA, these would be transferred to Acorn Childcare2 to be held in a restricted fund to be spent solely on equipment for the new nursery. A similar arrangement occurred when MK Council transferred equipment to Acorn from the old MK Council nurseries, with the value of it still sitting in ‘restricted funds’ until it has depreciated over the agreed period.
RSDNPA will work closely with Acorn to ensure that items are purchased in time for when they will be required. This arrangement will continue after the opening of the Day Nursery until the
15
(140) funds are fully spent. Any reports on the expenditure that is required by either/or Stony Stratford Town Council and MK Council will be completed. The format of such reports will be determined at a later date as the project gets underway.
7 MARKETING
Acorn Childcare has a very strong reputation in Milton Keynes. Word-of-mouth recommendation is the most significant marketing tool for Acorn, and this is backed up with prospectuses, websites and other social media, local publicity, sign written vehicles and strong communication networks with other agencies in the area, including children’s centres and schools.
The catchment area for a new nursery in Stony Stratford would be predominantly families living and working in the area. Local publicity would ensure that the nursery has a high profile, and if a central Parish location can be found, there would also be a high footfall locally which would reinforce the promotional activities.
The marketing strategy would consist of the following:
Press coverage: the re-opening of a nursery in Stony would be a good news story that would attract press attention, in local papers and on the radio, backed up with a small amount of advertising as necessary for an Open Day when an opening date is finalized. A local celebrity or other attractions would help to draw attention to the opening celebrations.
A mini-website could also be created to encourage word-of-mouth promotion and discussion about the nursery’s progress. This would eventually be integrated into the main Acorn website but would also link to other relevant sites
Social Media: Acorn would create a facebook page for the new nursery before it opens to provide updates on its progress and promote it to potential families. This would link to the social media currently used by Acorn on facebook, twitter and other sites. The Space could also use its facebook page to inform their families about the nursery.
Local advertising in Stony, with posters and a leaflet drop prior to the nursery opening, and, subject to obtaining permission, a sign on the roadside to advertise the nursery’s location.
Printed prospectuses would be produced and Acorn’s central marketing would include the Stony site. Daynurseries.co.uk would also be used to promote the nursery once it is open.
The cost of the above would be fairly minimal in that much of it is using the time and resources that already exist within Acorn’s organisation. It is anticipated that £500 would cover the additional costs of promoting the nursery’s opening, and ongoing marketing costs are included in the forecasts.
16
(141)
8 IMPACT
Capacity:
Existing demand: the 40 full time equivalent places will enable more children to be placed within their community and meet the need to increase wraparound and sessional care as part of encouraging more parents into work Increasing demand: as new houses are built on the Western Expansion Area there will be a strong local offer of childcare, play and nursery facilities linked into the local schools, partnering with other providers and linking in terms of location the new development with the mature community of Stony Stratford Changes in government policy: the 40 full time equivalent places will also help to supply the increase in entitlement to nursery provision for younger children
Benefits for groups:
Children: social and learning benefits, stability of experience, friendships, siblings, continuity with school and other play settings Parents: provision local to home (walkable from most of the area); more choice and opportunity to integrate work and childcare Businesses: good local childcare helps staff recruitment and is part of a thriving infrastructure Community youth groups; continuity of engagement with young people
In addition:
Local partnership support for quality
Diversity of provision that works together – in the tradition of the Inter Agency Group – supported by SSTC
Local facilities:
The Space is a valuable MK and Stony resource which needs a range of community partners and users; the nursery developments would create a viable proposition for further development within the town e.g. Cofferidge Close, St Giles House or other.
Links to the school system:
The day nursery would develop links with the local schools to ease the transition for children starting school
17
(142) It is anticipated that most of the nursery children will be from the local area and will therefore move on to local schools, and children will therefore be able to move to school with friends from their peer group Partnerships between schools and early years settings will be enhanced by having a nursery on the same site as the out-of-school club There will be more opportunities for staff from the different settings to share resources and best practice
CONCLUSION:
The partnership between the three organisations offers a unique opportunity to meet the clear demand for nursery provision within the Stony Stratford parish as outlined in Section Three. The S106 funds are essential for the successful realisation of the project drawn up in consultation between all three charities. In addition the allocation of funds in this way will leverage further significant investment to ensure the long-term viability of the project and achieve the range of outcomes listed in Section One of this Plan. Section Six demonstrates the financial viability of this project. Finally, Section Eight highlights the positive impact that this project will have on the local community.
18
(143)
9 APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1
19
(144)
20
(145) APPENDIX 2
National Policy & Future Demand
Free Hours for Under 2’s
Currently some 2-year-olds in England can get free early education.
To qualify a parent must be getting one of the following:
Income Support income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) income-related Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) support through part 6 of the Immigration and Asylum Act the guaranteed element of State Pension Credit Child Tax Credit (but not Working Tax Credit) and have an annual income not over £16,190 the Working Tax Credit 4-week run on (the payment you get when you stop qualifying for Working Tax Credit)
Children looked after by a local council are also entitled to a place.
Extension of free hours for under 2’s
From September 2014 more 2-year-olds in England will be eligible for free early education.
As well as the current rules, a child will then also be eligible if any of the following apply:
you get Working Tax Credits and earn no more than £16,190 a year they have a current statement of special educational needs (SEN) or an education, health and care plan they get Disability Living Allowance they’ve left care through special guardianship or an adoption or residence order
Tax free childcare voucher system
These are a Government scheme operated through employers that allow you to pay for childcare from PRE-TAX salary, known as salary sacrifice. Childcare vouchers can save many parents with kids aged up to 15 over £1,000 a year on childcare. It's only available via employers, but many large and small companies take part. The key is they enable you to pay for childcare out of your PRE-TAX and National Insurance income. Basic rate taxpayers can pay for up to £243 of childcare with vouchers each month (£55/week). This is PER PARENT, so two working parents could get £486 of vouchers each month. (This also applies to higher/top rate payers who joined
21
(146) before 5 April 2011, as long as they don't take a break from the childcare voucher scheme of more than 12 months.)
Extension of tax free childcare voucher system
A new scheme, Tax-Free Childcare, will replace the existing voucher scheme in autumn 2015. If you're already on the current scheme, you can stay on it until your child reaches 15 (providing you don't move jobs). But, unlike childcare vouchers, it will be open to all qualifying parents, not just people whose employer offers the scheme. Tax-Free Childcare will be open to single parents/couples who work 8+ hours a week (including self-employed) and who pay for Ofsted-registered childcare for a child under the age of 12 (or 16 if the child is disabled). Under Tax-Free Childcare, eligible families will get 20% of their yearly childcare costs paid for by the Government. This could mean up to £2,000 per child (the scheme assumes a maximum of £10,000/year childcare costs per child).
22
(147)
APPENDIX 3
Start-up costs for 40 place nursery
Start up Full costs Essential Reception Cost (ex vat) Qty (inc vat) (inc vat)
Welcome Centre (16) £1,050.00 1 £1,260.00 1 £1,260.00 Welcome Cubbies (8) £430.00 1 £516.00 0 £-00 Wall pegs (8) x 2 £95.00 2 £228.00 1 £114.00
Sleep Shanticots £429.00 2 £1,029.60 1 £514.80 Dream Coracle £250.00 5 £1,500.00 3 £900.00 Rest Mat stacker + 10 mats £770.00 2 £1,848.00 1 £924.00 Fitted sheets £18.00 20 £432.00 10 £216.00 Blankets £19.00 20 £456.00 10 £228.00
Large furniture Nappy change unit £3,600.00 1 £4,320.00 0 £200.00 Various storage & roomscape sets £5,000.00 1 £6,000.00 1 £6,000.00 Canopy Unit £534.00 1 £640.80 1 £640.80 Library shelf £300.00 1 £360.00 1 £360.00 Library rack £215.00 1 £258.00 1 £258.00 Browser box £170.00 1 £204.00 1 £204.00 Dress up Unit £435.00 1 £522.00 1 £522.00 Compact dress up unit £290.00 1 £348.00 1 £348.00 Kitchen Set (cornwall) £750.00 1 £900.00 0 £-00 Kitchen set (sussex) £946.00 1 £1,135.20 1 £1,135.20 Creative unit £650.00 1 £780.00 1 £780.00 Art trolley £470.00 1 £564.00 1 £564.00 Junior art island £625.00 1 £750.00 1 £750.00 Mini floor easel £237.00 1 £284.40 1 £284.40 Sand and water centre £1,083.00 1 £1,299.60 0 £-00 Small sand tray £370.00 1 £444.00 1 £444.00 Small water tray £370.00 1 £444.00 1 £444.00 Playsize set of 4 (bed/pushcart/cradle/ironing £475.00 1 £570.00 1 £570.00 Child sofa £360.00 1 £432.00 1 £432.00 Role play table + 2 chairs £303.00 1 £363.60 1 £363.60
23
(148) Toddle boxes (exmoor) £672.00 1 £806.40 1 £806.40 Billy goats bridge with slide £1,312.00 1 £1,574.40 0 £-00
Blocks & Trucks Hollow blocks 1/2 school set £980.00 1 £1,176.00 1 £1,176.00 Hollow block cart £290.00 1 £348.00 1 £348.00 Mini hollow 1/2 nursery set £380.00 1 £456.00 1 £456.00 Mini hollow block cart £144.00 1 £172.80 1 £172.80 Unit block set 1/4 set £494.00 1 £592.80 1 £592.80 Fixed shelf for block set £345.00 1 £414.00 1 £414.00 Mini unit blocks double set £160.00 1 £192.00 1 £192.00 Set of 4 big trucks £425.00 1 £510.00 0 £-00 Set of 5 small trucks £240.00 1 £288.00 1 £288.00
Tables & Chairs Half Circle table(6) £274.00 1 £328.80 0 £-00 Half circle table (7) £317.00 1 £380.40 1 £380.40 Round table (8) £221.00 2 £530.40 0 £-00 Rectangle table (8) £222.00 1 £266.40 1 £266.40 Trapezodial table (5) £210.00 1 £252.00 1 £252.00 Glider £495.00 1 £594.00 1 £594.00 Teachers low chair £106.00 5 £636.00 3 £381.60 Mealtime chair £93.00 6 £669.60 3 £334.80 Me-do-it-chairs £46.00 8 £441.60 4 £220.80 Woodcrest chairs £70.00 26 £2,184.00 13 £1,092.00
Outdoor Equipment Push me-pull me (set of 3) £328.00 1 £393.60 1 £393.60 Low kiddie car £90.00 2 £216.00 1 £108.00 Mighty mini bike £94.00 2 £225.60 1 £112.80 Pedal trike £109.00 2 £261.60 1 £130.80 Pushbike for 2 £85.00 1 £102.00 1 £102.00 Various other outdoor equipment £300.00 1 £360.00 1 £360.00
Kitchen Fully fitted kitchen + equipment £8,000.00 1 £9,600.00 1 £2,600.00 Equipment only £3,000.00 1 £3,600.00 0 £-00
Electrical Equipment
24
(149) Washing machine £1,000.00 1 £1,200.00 0 £-00 Tumble Dryer £1,000.00 1 £1,200.00 0 £-00 Dishwasher £1,000.00 1 £1,200.00 0 £-00
Milk kitchen Fully fitted + equipment £1,000.00 1 £1,200.00 1 £400.00 Equipment only £500.00 1 £600.00 0 £-00
Mealtimes Crockery and cutlery (inc bottles and cups) £300.00 1 £360.00 1 £360.00 Aprons/Bibs/Flannels/tablecloth s £250.00 1 £300.00 1 £300.00 Serving trolley £150.00 1 £180.00 1 £180.00
Soft furnishings Rugs/beanbags/cushions £1,000.00 1 £1,200.00 1 £1,200.00
Resources/equipment
All other toys & equipment inc books/puzzles/construction/role play etc. £5,000.00 1 £6,000.00 1 £4,000.00
Initial start-up orders (consumables) ESPO - art and craft £500.00 1 £600.00 1 £600.00 KH - hygiene supplies £500.00 1 £600.00 1 £600.00
Office/Staff room/I.T
Staff PC £600.00 1 £720.00 1 £720.00 3 x eylog tablets £750.00 3 £2,250.00 1 £750.00 Table/chairs/desk £500.00 1 £600.00 1 £600.00
Total £73,671.60 £39,942.00
25
(150)
APPENDIX 4
26
(151)
27
(152) APPENDIX 2
START: Project Documentation
Project Details Project Name Children’s Day Nursery, Stony Stratford
Aim of Project To open a new day nursery supporting children in Stony Stratford
Report Author Cliff Brett, Russell Street Day Nursery Parents’ Association
Project Manager Cliff Brett
Project Sponsor Supported by Acorn Childcare2 and The Sp@ce Programme / Service Group Project Reference (Allocated to capital projects through CPRP process)
Version Control [The below is useful to effectively manage the development of the evolving document BUT in this case is not essential] Date Version Author May 18 2014
PROJECT NAME START Doc v0.0 1
(153) 1 Mandate: “WHAT” is the reason for the project?
1.1 Project Background & Purpose
State the current situation, problem or opportunity that will be addressed by this project. Provide a brief description of what the project is, in terms of what will be achieved.
In December 2010, following a decision by Milton Keynes Council, the day nursery attached to Russell Street School was closed, representing a significant reduction in nursery provision for children in the Stony Stratford area. Although nursery education has continued to be provided through the Rowans Centre on Fullers Slade, there remains a clear demand within the Stony Stratford community for nursery places within the town itself (see section 3 of the attached business plan).
With the support of Stony Stratford Town Council (SSTC), the Russell Street Day Nursery Parents’ Association (RSDNPA) has continued to put forward the case for further provision. This led to the decision by Milton Keynes Council Development Control Committee (MKDCC) to allocate £50,000 of Section 106 money arising from the former BMG garage site towards the setting up of a nursery subject to the submission of an appropriate Business Plan. This allocation was also based on a recommendation from SSTC for financial support.
Section 1 of the business plan attached also outlines the content of the children’s day nursery proposition, with implementation timescales and safeguards.
1.2 Scope of the Project
Outline the activities/tasks that the project will cover and what is not being covered by this project or being delivered by others as part of a wider project. Be explicit about which of the activities/tasks are critical to the success of the project. Consider the dependencies; are there any events or work that are either dependent on the outputs of this project or that the project will depend on? (e.g. planning permission, or an IT package that will enable a change to working practices) Define any particular constraints on the project (e.g. time, resources, skills)
PROJECT NAME START Doc v0.0 2
(154) The aim of the project is the establishment of comprehensive children’s day nursery provision for the town of Stony Stratford through the formation of an innovative partnership between three charities – RSDNPA, Acorn Childcare2 and the Sp@ce (Stony Stratford Children’s Centre). This nursery would work in the context of the whole parish and liaise with other partners through the Inter Agency Group, thus supporting the parish as a whole and potentially the early years of the WEA expansion.
The Sp@ce has reached an outline agreement with Acorn Childcare2 for the establishment of a nursery within the existing buildings. Subject to confirmation of the s106 funding, this agreement will be worked up in detail. Acorn Childcare2 has agreed to invest in what is needed for the building and to work with The Sp@ce on the management and implementation of any building alterations. RSDPNA will be responsible for the overall control and allocation of the S106 money which will be used for the purchase of appropriate equipment for use within the renovated nursery.
As the current building is leased to The Sp@ce for a five-year period, any alteration to it will be subject to permission being granted by the landlord. Alterations proposed would be internal and would improve the overall quality of provision. A potential constraint on the project is therefore the response of MKC as landlord to any application for change within a reasonable timescale, thus delaying the achievement of the project.
1.3 Products (Project Deliverables)
State the key outputs of the project (e.g. technical documentation), and any key decision points (e.g. Cabinet Decisions) that will contribute to the final end product.
Provide a viable 40 place day nursery in Stony Stratford which will be located at The Sp@ce for a minimum 3-5 year period or longer
Meet the current and future demand as outlined in section 3 of the Business Plan
Be able to take advantage of any future developments within the town e.g. Cofferidge Close or St Giles House
Support The Sp@ce is the realization of its vision for its future role in Stony Stratford (see section 5 of the business plan)
Ensure the s106 money is spent appropriately on equipment for the nursery with the SSTC receiving reports from RSDNPA and then monitoring through the established Inter Agency Group that includes an SSTC councillor
Bring matched funding from Acorn Childcare2 to improve facilities at The
PROJECT NAME START Doc v0.0 3
(155) Sp@ce
Support the development of a diverse quality offer within the parish by working in partnership through the Inter Agency structure which includes all the players who work with children and young people and contribute to a range of community aspirations within Stony Stratford town and parish.
As all the parties willing to commit to the project are in agreement, a key decision is the confirmation by MKC of the allocation of s106 money.
2 Outline Business Case: “Why” are we doing this?
2.1 Strategic Assessment
Building on the Mandate, use this section to clearly spell out why this project is required and why it is strategically important for the Council to act (State the Programme/ Service/ Corporate Plan Outcome this project links to). Is it making a significant contribution to any Strategic Priorities? Be explicit about why the project is required in the financial year it is planned. Briefly outline the statutory duty or legal commitment the project addresses. Consider also where the legal power will come from to enable the Council to run the project, for example a specific Planning Act /agreement for S106/ Highways Act/ Education Act.
This children’s day nursery is required to meet the current and future demand within the parish reflected in trends in local population and changes in national government policy. There is increasing demand within and around the parish as is evidenced by the proposed expansion of Russell Street School and the waiting lists at neighbouring nurseries (see section 3 of the business plan)
In addition, there is clear research evidence that attendance at nursery education contributes to improvement in overall educational achievement. Enhanced nursery provision within the community would help to meet the strategic priority to raise standards as identified in the Milton Keynes Childcare Sufficiency Assessment (see sections 3 and 4 of the business plan)
Increased nursery provision would also help the authority to meet any future demand arising from development of the Western Expansion Area and the changes in entitlement to nursery education. (See national policy paragraphs in section 3 of the business plan)
2.2 Options
What options are there for resolving the issue that is driving this project? Make reference to any feasibility studies or evidence base to support the options. You must include the “Do
PROJECT NAME START Doc v0.0 4
(156) nothing” option, which should be used to cost the other options against. Specify clearly which option is the preferred option. The rest of the business case should be based on this preferred option.
Option One: Do Nothing
This would lead to a reduction in provision for the community and a failure to maximise investment in the buildings currently occupied by The Sp@ce.
Option Two: Do Minimum
This option is not relevant as it is already a modest project.
Option Three
Confirm allocation of the allocation of s106 money.
Preferred Option
Option Three
2.3 Impact Assessment
How will the project impact on people? Where relevant make reference to feasibility studies or consultations. Consider: Staff (staffing levels, redundancy, training requirements etc), Society (any specific groups within the community that may be disproportionately impacted by this project – NB you may make reference to/ attach an Equalities Impact Assessment here), if applicable make reference to any consultations and how the project may have to change, The Economy (e.g. adversely impacting on jobs, or encouraging a new enterprise in Milton Keynes)? The Environment (e.g. impact on carbon emissions and energy use)
Capacity:
Existing demand: the 40 full time equivalent children’s day nursery places will enable more children to be placed within their community and meet the need to increase wraparound and sessional care as part of encouraging more parents into work
Increasing demand: as new houses are built on the Western Expansion Area there will be a strong local offer of childcare, play and nursery facilities linked into the local schools, partnering with other providers and linking in terms of location the new development with the mature community of Stony Stratford
Changes in government policy: the 40 full time equivalent places will also help to supply the increase in entitlement to nursery provision for younger children
PROJECT NAME START Doc v0.0 5
(157) Benefits for groups:
Children: social and learning benefits, stability of experience, friendships, siblings, continuity with school and other play settings
Parents: provision local to home (walkable from most of the area); more choice and opportunity to integrate work and childcare
Businesses: good local childcare helps staff recruitment and is part of a thriving infrastructure
Community youth groups; continuity of engagement with young people
In addition:
Local partnership support for quality
Diversity of provision that works together – in the tradition of the Inter Agency Group – supported by SSTC
Local facilities:
The Sp@ce is a valuable MK and Stony resource which needs a range of community partners and users; the nursery developments would create a viable proposition for further development within the town e.g. St Giles House, Cofferidge or other.
Links to the school system:
The Day Nursery would extend the benefits listed below by the Russell Street Governing Body to the 3 month to 4 year old age group, benefiting the children and the local schools
• local children can attend their local school continuing the sense of community belonging
• partnership between the school and the community would continue to be embedded leading to greater cohesion in later years
• there would be an opportunity to broaden the curriculum offered to the children
• there would be greater opportunities to share planning, resources and skills
across classes
• there would be greater opportunities for staff, making it more likely the existing high quality staff would be retained and high quality staff would be attracted to work at the school as it grows
PROJECT NAME START Doc v0.0 6
(158) • access to early years education for the local community
2.4 Affordability (The full Financial Assessment is attached at Annex A (for Capital) and B (for Revenue))
State the full cost of the project (capital and revenue) including any partner elements of the project, and explain what these figures are based on (e.g. a previous similar project, quotes from suppliers, best guess estimate etc) and therefore what you consider is the level of funding risk associated with this forecast. Be explicit about the Resource Allocation required from MKC (this should be the total cost which will be paid by the council to deliver the project and include all sources of financing including third party and grant income). Is there a potential funding gap? How may this be addressed?
The confirmation of s106 allocation, improvements undertaken by The Sp@ce to ensure the building is fit for purpose and the matched investment by Acorn Childcare2 will fully cover the costs of the project.
No money is required from MKC as the s106 money is the result of an earlier planning application agreement (Planning Application 00655/FUL)
Any funding gap that may emerge during the development of the building will be the responsibility of the three parties concerned which would investigate suitable funding sources as required (see section 6 of the Business Plan).
PROJECT NAME START Doc v0.0 7
(159) 2.5 Benefits
What value will this project have for the Council (this includes future associated costs/ resource requirements/ savings that should be made/ carbon and energy reductions)? Where possible state this in financial terms (i.e. a saving of £100,000) or quantify it (e.g. increase the number of customers by 200 people per month, OR a reduction in carbon emissions by 500 tonnes over 2 years). Describe benefits using verbs like improve, reduce, stop. Financial benefits should be compared to the base financial position and not compounded. For example, a £100k saving in Year 1, and £50k saving in Year 2 should be shown as: NOT: 2013/14 2014/15 2015/162013/14 2014/15 2015/16 £100k £50k £100k £150k £150k £0 The purpose of putting a value to a benefit is to consider whether the project’s benefits are worth its costs, and to allow alternative projects to be systematically compared.
[Seek to provide a response to the guidance identified above: . Clearly identify/describe the benefits AND value that this Project/Business Case will realise/deliver . If it is anticipated this Project/Business Case will deliver any financial benefits/savings, these MUST not be double counted, i.e. they must be identified and ‘claimed’ only in the year in which they will initially be delivered. These savings/benefits must not be compounded . Identify how the current position will be ‘measured’ . Quantify each benefit it is anticipated this Project/Business Case will deliver . Describe how it is planned to measure each anticipated benefit and when/the frequency with which these benefits will be measured/assessed . Identify who will be responsible for delivering each of the anticipated benefits . Document this information in the table, below]
Benefit Description Baseline measure Target benefit Measurement method and Benefit Owner timing e.g. Cost Reduction / Reduction in Carbon What is the current value What increase/ How will the measure be taken and Who is responsible Emissions/ Increase in Customer (pre-project)? decrease are you when? (This may be on more than for ensuring the Satisfaction / Increase in productivity etc. targeting? one occasion) benefit is realised?
Improvement to Council owned Management asset – the building is currently Committee of occupied by The Sp@ce The Sp@ce Provide additional nursery places 40 place Acorn (see Business Plan section 8) children’s day Childcare2 nursery
Dis-benefits
Describe any negative results of undertaking this project. Note: these are actual consequences of the project, not risks which are uncertain.
PROJECT NAME START Doc v0.0 8
(160) None
3 Project Initiation Document: “When” & “How” are we delivering this?
3.1 Delivery Approach
Explain how the project will be delivered (e.g. wholly internally managed and executed? With Partners? A contractor? Has a procurement route been identified?
The Sp@ce will be responsible for negotiating with MKC over internal changes to the building.
Acorn Childcare2 and The Sp@ce jointly will manage the implementation of any changes.
Acorn Childcare2 will recruit staff and market the nursery.
RSDNPA will manage the holding and allocation of the s106 funding, working with Acorn Childcare2 on the purchase of equipment. RSDNPA will report to both MKC and SSTC on a regular basis on the allocation of funds. It is likely that the funds will be allocated within three to sixth months of commencement.
3.2 Control Arrangements
Describe the management arrangements for the project, the table below may help. If the project is part of a wider programme, explain how the project fits with their governance arrangements.
[If it is relevant to this Project/Business Case, identify who will be undertaking the roles identified below; what their roles and responsibilities will be and; how frequently meetings will be held to support the Project/Business Case’s delivery and governance.
Project Team Role Name(s) Reporting Roles & Regularity Responsibilities Sponsor Board
Project Team
PROJECT NAME START Doc v0.0 9
(161)
[Describe how the delivery of the Project/Business Case will be managed so to ensure it delivers its aims/purpose on time, in budget and to the required/ agreed standard
3.3 Tolerances and Escalation Controls
At what point is the Project Manager expected to produce an exception report for the Sponsor/Project Board / Programme? This may be triggered by a deviation from the project plan in terms of time, cost, and benefits, but may also be associated with specific tolerance applicable to risk. State the reporting process the project will apply (e.g. regularity of highlight and exception reports for breeches of tolerances and escalation of issues).
Risk Tolerance The Corporate Risk tolerance (any residual risk greater than 10), must be reported regularly. NB: Your project may choose to have a lower risk tolerance. Time Tolerance e.g. +/- 2 days on target completion date Cost Tolerance e.g. +/- % of planned budget Benefits Tolerance e.g. minimum cost savings of x%
[This section may not be relevant for this Project/Business Case, however as part of its development consideration should be given to: . Defining what each of the above four tolerances are, i.e. the point which if realised it is appropriate to consider the Project’s/Business Case’s continuing viability and/or what action is required to bring the Project/Business Case back within the agreed tolerances . Defining the escalation/reporting processes to be adopted should any/all of the above tolerances be realied/breached . Describing the regularity with which project progress reports will be produced, reviewed and scrutinised]
3.4 Decision Making & Stakeholder Identification
Use this section to identify who else will be involved with influencing the project, or will be impacted by the project
Is a cabinet decision required for this project? If yes, is it on the forward plan? (Note: A Cabinet Decision is required to tender and award a contract over £100,000. Cabinet decisions must be on the Forward Plan) Who will directly influence the decision e.g. Members, Funding Bodies, Partners making process?
PROJECT NAME START Doc v0.0 10
(162) Who are the key stakeholders of the They could be internal e.g. other business project? units, operational staff, or external e.g. residents, Parish Councils, media How will key stakeholders be managed e.g. a stakeholder group, consultations, and engaged? presentations etc)
[Not all of this section may be relevant for this Project/Business Case, however as part of its development consideration should be given to: . Identifying who can directly influence its decision making . Identifying who its key stakeholders are . Identifying what techniques will be adopted to effectively manage and engage with its key stakeholders]
3.5 Corporate Policies & Processes
Which of the following corporate processes are relevant to your project? Who will be your main contact?
[In its current format, this section is unlikely to be relevant for this Project/ Business Case, however any relevant issues raised should be considered and their potential impact and supporting ‘actions/resolutions’ be described below.]
Process Team Relevant? Named Contact 1. Cabinet Decision/ Democratic Y/N Member Scrutiny Services 2. Communicating and Communications Y/N Consulting Properly 3. Corporate Reporting Performance Y/N (Performance Plus) 4. Corporate Reporting Portfolio Office Y/N (Project Dashboard) 5. Equalities Impact Equalities Y/N Assessment 6. Legal advice Legal Y/N 7. Make an insurance claim Insurance Y/N 8. Negotiation of licence / Property Y/N compensation claim 9. Assessing Carbon & Low Carbon Y/N Energy Savings Living Programme 10. Recruitment/ training/ HR Y/N redundancy of Staff 11. Resource Allocation / Portfolio Office Y/N Spend Approval (CPRP) 12. SAP / BPC / financial Finance Y/N monitoring 13. Set up a GRACE profile & Risk Y/N risk workshop 14. Tendering / Awarding a Procurement Y/N contract (Cabinet
PROJECT NAME START Doc v0.0 11
(163) Procurement Committee)
3.6 Project Timings
What are the key dates for your project? To help ensure your project goes through the relevant corporate processes these have been identified below, please consider when your project must have achieved the following project Review Points (RP). Adjust the table to include other relevant project products (e.g. Public Consultation dates). Use the box below to explain the assumptions that are being made about timing.
[In its current format, this section is unlikely to be relevant for this Project/ Business Case, however it is appropriate to identify and document what the Project’s/Business Case’s key ‘actions and review points are. If the Project/ Business Case is likely to involve the procurement of goods and/or services it is recommended that the relevance of the below procurement milestones is considered, and documented.]
Activity / Deliverable Date Resource Allocation (RP2; Capital Only) Spend Approval (RP3; Capital Only) Award of Contract (RP4; Cabinet Procurement Committee) See below for detail Benefits Realisation (RP6) OTHER KEY DELIVERABLES (specify e.g. consultation meetings, target completion date)
Projects with Procurement elements will also need to identify: Est. date Current Contract Review Est. date of Draft Specification Est. date of Advert Est. date Advert Close Est. date of Bid Evaluation Call-Over Meeting CPC Approval to Tender CPC Approval to Award (RP 4) Contract Start Date
PROJECT NAME START Doc v0.0 12
(164) Contract End Date
By Autumn 2014, confirmed transfer of s106 money to RSDNPA.
By Spring 2015, building alterations completed and equipment purchased
Summer 2015, opening of the new children’s day nursery.
3.7 Initial Risks
“A risk is an uncertain event or set of events which, should it occur, will have an effect on the achievement of objectives.” Use this section to identify the key risks (both threats and opportunities) to this project, and also consider risks to the Council and its reputation. A full Risk Register (in GRACE) must be completed
The s106 money is being used to purchase equipment to support nursery provision in Stony Stratford as supported by Stony Stratford Town Council. In the unlikely event of this three-way partnership running into difficulties, SSTC would take responsibility for ensuring that the equipment purchased would continue to be available for use within the town either by an alternative nursery provider or at an alternative location such as Cofferidge Close or the St Giles’ site.
PROJECT NAME START Doc v0.0 13
(165) START Documentation: ANNEX A CAPITAL PROJECTS
CAPITAL FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT
[Not all of the sections contained in this part of the document will be relevant to this Project/Business Case. Those that are should be completed ONLY if it is anticipated that there will be any capital expenditure.]
This annex is for Capital Projects only. Please contact Finance for assistance with completing this annex.
Project Reference [Not Applicable]
LIP Reference (if applicable) [Not Applicable]
Service Group [Not Applicable]
Service Area (category within the service area [Not Applicable] i.e. Highway Services, IT, Sports Development) Service Block (project group i.e. Transport, [Not Applicable] Education, EPCS) Profit Centre (will be assigned to the project [Not Applicable] when SAP code is created) Financial Year project will start spending 2014/15
Expected Completion Date June 2015
A1. Asset Management Plan (AMP)
Use this space to clarify whether the project has been identified within the service area’s AMP and how the project will support the delivery of the AMP. If applicable state whether this project fully addresses any issues related to the asset, and if not what further works will be required if this is only a partial resolution.
[Not Applicable]
A2. Nature of Capital Expenditure
Select all that apply from the list below and delete the others that are not relevant. Finance can help clarify which category the project(s) fall into.
[Most of the below options will NOT be relevant to this Project/Business Case. However, if any of these options do apply they should be clearly identified (by deleting those options that don’t apply.]
Building (New Construction) Infrastructure (Car Parking) Enhancement (Conversion/Renovation) Infrastructure (Highways) Enhancement (Extension) Infrastructure (Landscaping Equipment (IT Hardware) / Open spaces) Equipment (Other) Infrastructure (Play Areas) Foundation Schools Land Infrastructure (Bridges) Payments / Grants To Third Payments To Other Parties Capital Parties Schemes Purchased Software Licences
PROJECT NAME START Doc v0.0 14
(166) A3. Reason for and Nature of Capital Expenditure
Explain the nature of the work and how it meets the criteria for capital expenditure. Identify what is being purchased, built or developed e.g. equipment, machinery, vehicles. If the project is to enhance an existing asset, explain how the project will increase substantially the extent to which an asset can or will be used See the Nature of Capital Expenditure for examples
[IF relevant, the following information is required to comply with this guidance: . A description as to the work to be carried out and an explanation as to why this equates to capital expenditure . What is being purchased . What enhancements are being made to an existing asset and the benefits these enhancements will bring]
A4. Lease information
It is important that a full cash flow analysis of leasing and purchasing options is performed to determine the best value for the Council. For example, if you are considering leasing have you also considered whether better value for money can be obtained for the Council by purchasing the item(s)? Capital Finance will calculate this for you based on the financial information you have provided in this Annex.
Are you intending to lease item(s)? Use the space below YES / NO to provide commentary.
[IF relevant, this section looks to assess the merits of leasing compared with purchasing and the rationale behind the chosen/preferred option outlined be provided here.]
PROJECT NAME START Doc v0.0 15
(167) A5. Funding Source & Conditions of Funding
State the specific source of funding for the project. For S106 funding state whether it is allocated to this project and the Planning Application Reference. You must attach the approved s106 Funds Release Form to this START document prior to requesting spend approval (Capital project only). What requirements, if any, are attached to external funding & how the project will ensure that these requirements are met? If grant funded – is there a signed agreement in place? If 3rd party funded, has this been received by the Council? Have sources of any revenue contributions to the project been identified and confirmed?
Planning Application 00655/FUL (former BMG motors site, London Road).
Section 106 Yes/No Amount(s) £ Planning Application Link to s106 Funds Release Form Reference number(s)
A6. Whole Life Costs
Definition: The Whole Life Cost is the total cost of ownership. That is the cost of acquiring an asset, operating and maintaining the asset over its whole life, through to its disposal. Guidance: It is understood that the data provided here will be based on estimates; however this information is required in order to understand the financial implications of the initial capital cost. For assistance: Please speak to your Finance Representative
[IF relevant, this section looks to ascertain the full life costs of any asset procured as part of this Project/Business Case. If appropriate, following the guidance provided below.]
Guidance 1. Expected State in years how long the asset is planned to be 10 years in operation before a new project would be required useful life of to decommission the asset. Asset State the current intention of how the Asset will be managed at the end of its useful life (e.g. disposal, demolition and rebuild, or modernisation) 2. Capital Cost This should be the same as the Capital Resource £50,000 Allocation (£000’s) of project 3. Running State the sustainability costs of the asset, for instance: maintenance (a new roof could be Costs over required after every 20 years), refurbishments, life of asset running costs (utilities, cleaning), future phases of the project. (£000’s) 4. Disposal If the asset is planned to be released by the Council, state all the anticipated costs related to Costs disposal or demolition e.g. Fees (£000’s) 5. Total Cost of Project + Maintenance + Disposal Cost (i.e. 2 +3 + Asset 4) (£000’s)
Assumptions:
PROJECT NAME START Doc v0.0 16
(168) A7. Capital Finance Assessment
Financial figures should be expressed in £000
[If relevant, the Project’s/Business Case’s document capital expenditure. If necessary/ appropriate, revise the headings in the left hand column.]
Capital Resource Allocation Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5+ Total (planned expenditure) £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 Acquisition of land & buildings New construction, conversion & renovation Vehicles Plant, Machinery & Equipment Grants Total Project Budget Capital project Funding Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5+ Total £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 Single Capital Pot Grant Supported Capital Expenditure (revenue) Prudential Borrowing Grant Third party contribution (including S106 and tariff) Revenue Contribution Capital receipt Total Funding (should be the same as Total Project Budget)
Revenue budget implication Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5+ Total of a capital scheme – Figures £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 should be completed whatever acquisition route is selected – purchase / lease etc. Employees Running Costs – this should include any further implications of the acquisition such as storage or security requirements Income Residual Value of Asset Net Cost/(Saving) to Directorate Financial benefits should be compared to the base financial position and not compounded. For example, a £100k saving in Year 1, and £50k saving in Year 2 should be shown as 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 £100k £50k £0 NOT 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 £100k £150k £150k Source of Revenue funding (if applicable) e.g. Revenue growth item, virement from existing (identified) budget, revenue grant funding
PROJECT NAME START Doc v0.0 17
(169) START Documentation: ANNEX B REVENUE PROJECTS
REVENUE FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT
[Not all of the sections contained in this part of the document will be relevant to this Project/Business Case. Those that are should be completed ONLY if it is anticipated that there will be any revenue expenditure.]
This annex is for Revenue Projects only. Please contact Finance for assistance with completing this annex.
Project Reference [Not Applicable]
Service Group [Not Applicable]
Service Area [Not Applicable]
Service Block [Not Applicable]
Profit Centre [Not Applicable]
Financial Year project will start spending 2014/15
Expected Completion Date June 2015
B1. Revenue Finance Assessment
Financial figures should be expressed in £000
[If relevant, the Project’s/Business Case’s document revenue expenditure. If necessary/ appropriate, revise the headings in the left hand column.]
Revenue Project Budget – Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5+ Total £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 Employees Running Costs Income Net Cost/(Saving) to Directorate Source of revenue funding (if applicable) e.g. Revenue growth item, virement from existing (identified) budget, revenue grant funding Staffing implications of Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5+ project (if applicable) FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE Increase/(decrease) Capital budget implication Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5+ Total of a revenue scheme £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 Future Capital Expenditure – this should include any likely or known further capital implications of the project Net Cost/(Saving) to Directorate Source of Capital funding (if applicable) e.g. Revenue growth item, virement from existing (identified) budget, revenue grant funding
PROJECT NAME START Doc v0.0 18
(170) B2. Funding Source(s) & Conditions of Funding
State the specific source(s) of funding for the project and any conditions attached it. How will the Council make sure these conditions are met? If 3rd party funded, has this been received by the Council?
The funds for the project are subject to the earlier s106 agreement. As the recipient of these funds, RSDNPA will report to MKC and to SSTC on the allocation of funds both during and at the end of the project.
An indication of how the funds will be allocated is set out below. As can be seen from the breakdown, £39,420 of the s106 money would be used for initial start-up equipment. The remaining £10,580 would be used as children are enrolled.
Start-up costs for 40 place nursery Start up Cost (ex Full costs Essential Reception vat) Qty (inc vat) (inc vat)
£1,050.0 Welcome Centre (16) 0 1 £1,260.00 1 £1,260.00 Welcome Cubbies (8) £430.00 1 £516.00 0 £-00 Wall pegs (8) x 2 £95.00 2 £228.00 1 £114.00
Sleep
Shanticots £429.00 2 £1,029.60 1 £514.80
Dream Coracle £250.00 5 £1,500.00 3 £900.00
Rest Mat stacker + 10 mats £770.00 2 £1,848.00 1 £924.00 Fitted sheets £18.00 20 £432.00 10 £216.00 Blankets £19.00 20 £456.00 10 £228.00
Large furniture
£3,600.0 Nappy change unit 0 1 £4,320.00 0 £200.00
Various storage & £5,000.0 roomscape sets 0 1 £6,000.00 1 £6,000.00 Canopy Unit £534.00 1 £640.80 1 £640.80 Library shelf £300.00 1 £360.00 1 £360.00 Library rack £215.00 1 £258.00 1 £258.00 Browser box £170.00 1 £204.00 1 £204.00 Dress up Unit £435.00 1 £522.00 1 £522.00
PROJECT NAME START Doc v0.0 19
(171) Compact dress up unit £290.00 1 £348.00 1 £348.00 Kitchen Set (cornwall) £750.00 1 £900.00 0 £-00
Kitchen set (sussex) £946.00 1 £1,135.20 1 £1,135.20 Creative unit £650.00 1 £780.00 1 £780.00 Art trolley £470.00 1 £564.00 1 £564.00 Junior art island £625.00 1 £750.00 1 £750.00 Mini floor easel £237.00 1 £284.40 1 £284.40
£1,083.0 Sand and water centre 0 1 £1,299.60 0 £-00 Small sand tray £370.00 1 £444.00 1 £444.00 Small water tray £370.00 1 £444.00 1 £444.00 Playsize set of 4 (bed/pushcart/cradle/ironing £475.00 1 £570.00 1 £570.00 Child sofa £360.00 1 £432.00 1 £432.00 Role play table + 2 chairs £303.00 1 £363.60 1 £363.60 Toddle boxes (exmoor) £672.00 1 £806.40 1 £806.40
£1,312.0 Billy goats bridge with slide 0 1 £1,574.40 0 £-00
Blocks & Trucks
Hollow blocks 1/2 school set £980.00 1 £1,176.00 1 £1,176.00 Hollow block cart £290.00 1 £348.00 1 £348.00 Mini hollow 1/2 nursery set £380.00 1 £456.00 1 £456.00 Mini hollow block cart £144.00 1 £172.80 1 £172.80 Unit block set 1/4 set £494.00 1 £592.80 1 £592.80 Fixed shelf for block set £345.00 1 £414.00 1 £414.00 Mini unit blocks double set £160.00 1 £192.00 1 £192.00 Set of 4 big trucks £425.00 1 £510.00 0 £-00 Set of 5 small trucks £240.00 1 £288.00 1 £288.00
Tables & Chairs Half Circle table(6) £274.00 1 £328.80 0 £-00 Half circle table (7) £317.00 1 £380.40 1 £380.40 Round table (8) £221.00 2 £530.40 0 £-00 Rectangle table (8) £222.00 1 £266.40 1 £266.40 Trapezodial table (5) £210.00 1 £252.00 1 £252.00 Glider £495.00 1 £594.00 1 £594.00 Teachers low chair £106.00 5 £636.00 3 £381.60 Mealtime chair £93.00 6 £669.60 3 £334.80 Me-do-it-chairs £46.00 8 £441.60 4 £220.80
PROJECT NAME START Doc v0.0 20
(172)
Woodcrest chairs £70.00 26 £2,184.00 13 £1,092.00
Outdoor Equipment Push me-pull me (set of 3) £328.00 1 £393.60 1 £393.60 Low kiddie car £90.00 2 £216.00 1 £108.00 Mighty mini bike £94.00 2 £225.60 1 £112.80 Pedal trike £109.00 2 £261.60 1 £130.80 Pushbike for 2 £85.00 1 £102.00 1 £102.00 Various other outdoor equipment £300.00 1 £360.00 1 £360.00
Kitchen
Fully fitted kitchen + £8,000.0 equipment 0 1 £9,600.00 1 £2,600.00
£3,000.0 Equipment only 0 1 £3,600.00 0 £-00
Electrical Equipment
£1,000.0 Washing machine 0 1 £1,200.00 0 £-00
£1,000.0 Tumble Dryer 0 1 £1,200.00 0 £-00
£1,000.0 Dishwasher 0 1 £1,200.00 0 £-00
Milk kitchen
£1,000.0 Fully fitted + equipment 0 1 £1,200.00 1 £400.00 Equipment only £500.00 1 £600.00 0 £-00
Mealtimes Crockery and cutlery (inc bottles and cups) £300.00 1 £360.00 1 £360.00 Aprons/Bibs/Flannels/tablecl oths £250.00 1 £300.00 1 £300.00 Serving trolley £150.00 1 £180.00 1 £180.00
Soft furnishings
PROJECT NAME START Doc v0.0 21
(173)
£1,000.0 Rugs/beanbags/cushions 0 1 £1,200.00 1 £1,200.00
Resources/equipment All other toys & equipment inc books/puzzles/construction/ £5,000.0 roleplay etc 0 1 £6,000.00 1 £4,000.00
Initial start up orders (consumables) ESPO - art and craft £500.00 1 £600.00 1 £600.00 KH - hygiene supplies £500.00 1 £600.00 1 £600.00
Office/Staff room/I.T
Staff PC £600.00 1 £720.00 1 £720.00
3 x eylog tablets £750.00 3 £2,250.00 1 £750.00 Table/chairs/desk £500.00 1 £600.00 1 £600.00
£73,671.6 £39,942.0 0 0
PROJECT NAME START Doc v0.0 22
(174) START Documentation: ANNEX C PROCUREMENT
This summary should be completed for all projects that contain a procurement element and should be appended to all Cabinet Procurement Committee (CPC) reports. Please contact Procurement for assistance with completing this annex.
Service Group: Assistant Director / Head of Service: Contract Owner:
C1. Description What is the background or context of the procurement? Describe the main objectives and description of work that are to be met by the procurement.
Type text here
C2 Procurement Strategy Explain different routes of procurement researched and preferred route chosen. Examples of Procurements routes to research and seek advice on from CPT: - Frameworks – this includes ones that MKC have set up and National ones - Mini Competition using framework agreement - OJEU Tender process – Restricted* / Open. - Under OJEU threshold Tender process Restricted*/Open. * Restricted tender route allows for a pre-qualification process to enable a shortlist of Tenderers to be produced
Type text here
C3. Evaluation Criteria What are likely to be the key elements of the MEAT criteria (Most Economically Advantageous Tender)? How will that criteria be drafted, reviewed, developed? How will the responses to criteria at tender stage be scored by the evaluation team?
Type text here
C4. Decision Takers Who will evaluate the bids received and take key decisions? Identify; - Officers responsible to progress the procurement - Who will be involved in evaluating bids / tenders
Type text here
C5. Form of Contract What are you procuring? Select all that apply and engage with Legal Services if you are procuring a Works contract as specific terms and conditions (NEC, JCT Minor Works) will be required.
Service: Supplies: Works:
C6. Financial Assessment In addition to Annex A & B of the START Documents this section provides a summary of the procurement / contract specific costs and income.
Annual Cost Give the estimated Annual Cost of the contract Total Value / State the full value / cost of the Cost procurement, i.e. the maximum duration of the contract (including all extensions) multiplied by the annual cost. Extension (if Give the dates for any : app) - Break clause - Date when Contract can be
PROJECT NAME START Doc v0.0 23
(175) formally extended - Number and duration of all possible extensions Funding Explain what dependencies this Assumptions / procurement has on sources of Conditions funding other than the Council’s Revenue Budget. State what requirements, if any, are attached to external funding & how the procurement will ensure that these requirements are met. Asset Values State what, if any assets will be procured as part of this contract including : - Value as at purchase - Ownership / Control during and after contract Value at end of contract
C7. Contract Management:
Confirm the management arrangements of the contract(s) once it has been established, this may be similar to the project control arrangements
Contract Name the Officer (post title) Ownership responsible for this contract (this will usually be at AD or HoS level but should be the most appropriate officer best able to monitor and evaluate the delivery of the contract). State the MKC resource required to monitor and control the contract Monitoring State the formal structure of Arrangements periodic monitoring of performance of the supplier. How / where will the performance of this contract be reported? Tolerance State at what point the Contract (Exception Owner is expected to produce an Reports) exception report re: performance / cost. This may be triggered by a deviation in terms of time, cost and/or quality, but may also be associated with risk, scope or benefits. Benefits Give the dates when Benefits Realisation Date Realisation reviews will be done, to report the performance of the contract and to inform the replacement procurement when due. Ensure any costs associated to this are budgeted for. Contract Risk State the overarching Risk Management Management Strategy for this Strategy Procurement and Contract. For a more specific risk assessment of this procurement consider: - How does the service, works or supplies support the Council Essential
PROJECT NAME START Doc v0.0 24
(176) Services - Are statutory Council services reliant upon this service / supplier - How would a supply failure affect MKC services - Who will hold the suppliers Business Continuity plans
PROJECT NAME START Doc v0.0 25
(177) Appendices
As this is a living document for the Project, whenever it is reviewed by the Project Sponsor / Board, or when the documentation is submitted to corporate groups like CLT or the Capital Programme Review Panel, it will need to be updated and the latest version of additional Registers and Plans should be appended. Adjust this list to fit your own project
Some suggested documents to append: 1. Supporting Grant/Funding Agreement Terms & Conditions including approved S106 release form
2. Technical Business Case
3. Schedule/Project Plan detailing key activities and milestones
4. Communications Plan
5. Risk Register (export from GRACE)
6. Benefits Management Plan
Project Approvals/ Next Steps
Once the project has been approved to continue by the Board/ Sponsor, the fully completed START Documentation should be named Version 1.0 and sent to the PORTFOLIO OFFICE. You should now progress to the PLAN stage of the project, and start using the MK Approach Planning and Management Tools (Stakeholder and Benefits Management Plans, GRACE Risk Register and the Project Workbook – Issue, Actions & Decisions Registers). Remember, when the Board agrees changes to the scope, time, costs or benefits of the project, these should be updated in your START document and a new version created (2.0, 3.0, 4.0 etc).
PROJECT NAME START Doc v0.0 26
(178) APPENDIX 3 York House Centre Youth Community Arts
Jonathan Robinson Senior Planning Obligations Officer Milton Keynes Council by email
28 July 2014
PLANNING APPLICATION 04/00655/FUL SECTION 106 AGREEMENT
The council signed the above legal agreement in December 2005. It provided for a contribution of £150,000 (index linked) for Community Facilities in Stony Stratford subject to the residential development of the Hayes site alongside York House Centre on London Road. Barratt Homes North London is now the other party to this agreement.
The Local Plan shows the Community Facilities in the parish: three schools; two cemeteries; and York House Centre. No others are shown. The Local Investment Plan includes only community houses, community pavilions and community centres in the category of Community Facilities. In a letter dated 18 February 2010 the council confirmed that York House Centre was the project in mind in the legal agreement and that the council would contact us shortly to arrange transfer of the payment.
Nevertheless it was decided within the council in 2011 to invite other bids for the money, now worth £181,000 with inflation, and to consult the town council. The Development Control Committee subsequently resolved on 15 September 2011 to give only £116,000 to York House Centre. The rest was split between the Greek Orthodox Community of Milton Keynes for building and landscape work to the Swinfen Harris Hall (£15,000); and the Russell Street Day Nursery Parents Association (£50,000) for repairs to the HORSA building at Russell Street school in order to restore the children’s day nursery that had moved to the Rowans Children’s Centre in the south of the parish.
We had hoped for the full amount as promised and have never understood why the council set aside the original agreement. Nevertheless we were delighted to receive the £116,000 and proceeded to use it for the benefit of the community. Since the original decision of the DCC in September 2011 we have progressed with the redevelopment of the rear of York House: We obtained both planning consent and listed building consent and discharged all of the associated conditions We secured grants from: the MK Community Foundation; the Garfield Weston Foundation; and WREN with a commitment from the town council to pay the associated third party contribution. We also used money from our reserves.
London Road Stony Stratford Milton Keynes MK11 1JQ 01908 563361 www.york-house.org.uk [email protected] York House Centre (Stony Stratford) is a charitable company limited by guarantee. Registered in England and Wales no. 6283685. Registered charity no. 1122220. Registered office at London Road Stony Stratford MK11 1JQ
(179)
We obtained competitive tenders and negotiated a price for a phased project to reflect the reduced sum available but also the possibility of completion with the remaining £50,000 We appointed a contractor who started work on 11 March 2013 and completed phase 1 in October 2013.
The Mayor opened the new facility last year. It comprises the main activity room known as the Beechey Room, named in honour of Noman Beechey MBE a former long serving youth worker; a kitchen; a bar & servery area; and various other improvements to our grade 2 listed building. With this first phase, we have again shown our ability to deliver major projects for the benefit of the local community and to sustain the only publicly-owned community centre in the parish in a professional and business-like manner.
York House Centre is available to the whole community and in practice we provide for a wide range of users. Nevertheless we need the remaining £50,000 to complete our building project.
In summary the £50,000 will: Allow us to complete our new building which provides additional ground floor activity space, kitchen, bar/servery and accessible (i.e. ground floor) storage Provide a facility of significant benefit to the whole community which will also generate further income for the sustainability of the Centre Achieve value for money as we have agreed prices with a contractor thereby reducing overheads and administration costs Achieve value for money as any building work after September 2015 will be liable for 20% VAT and the money is losing value every day that it rests with the council
The £50,000 allocation for the RSDN Parents Association was to be ring fenced for a period of twelve months subject to the submission of a viable business plan. The DCC resolved that should the proposal of the RSDN Parents Association be unviable then the £50,000 would be given to York House Centre (Minute DCC 42, 15 September 2011). In the three years since that decision of the DCC, the RSDN Parents Association have failed to produce a viable business plan. They have only delayed the process.
The DCC of 16 August 2012 gave them a further 12 months believing that the RSDN Parents Association were in positive ongoing negotiations (minute DCC 49, 16 August 2012).
At the DCC meeting of 7 November 2013, over two months after the previous 12 months extension had expired, the RSDN Parents Association claimed that a day nursery was to be established at either St. Giles House or Cofferidge Close. The DCC again extended the deadline: until 7 May 2014. They also resolved that “…it be clear that no further consideration of extensions would follow” and if the RSDN Parents Association again failed to submit a viable business case within the deadline then the £50,000 would be paid immediately to York House Centre (minute DCC 56, 7 November 2013).
London Road Stony Stratford Milton Keynes MK11 1JQ 01908 563361 www.york-house.org.uk [email protected] York House Centre (Stony Stratford) is a charitable company limited by guarantee. Registered in England and Wales no. 6283685. Registered charity no. 1122220. Registered office at London Road Stony Stratford MK11 1JQ
(180)
Despite this decision it was decided within the council in April 2014 to extend the deadline by a further three weeks. A business plan and a partially completed START project document were eventually submitted on 27 May 2014.
The RSDN Parents Association have no ongoing role in the children’s day nursery now proposed. Their only role is to be the conduit for £50,000 of public money. We submitted our detailed comments on their business plan on 16 June 2014 and copied a summary to Acorn Childcare. We also commented on the report of 9 July 2014 from the Chair of the Children’s Play Centre (The Sp@ce) to the Stony Stratford town council of 15 July 2014 and have yet to receive any response from the Children’s Play Centre. We understand that the council has also asked them about this report.
The business plan, despite three years of effort and the involvement of ward councillors, is evidently unviable. It has too many errors and omissions but the biggest problem, acknowledged by the report of 9 July 2014, is the size of the building. It is too small to accommodate a 40 place day nursery for 0 to 4 year olds alongside a play centre for 4 to 14 year olds. We are happy to circulate our comments again and update them if necessary.
York House Centre is a viable charitable company limited by guarantee; we are owned by our members; membership is free and open to anyone over 18 within Stony Stratford; we currently provide facilities available to the whole community; and we currently estimate an annual footfall of over 40,000 comprising over 4,000 individuals.
We need and would use this £50,000 now to complete our building as described above and to provide tangible and significant community benefit. It would therefore help us enormously to receive this money.
We understand that the Development Control Committee intends to consider the £50,000 again at its meeting of 14 August 2014. We would like to come to this meeting to present our request. You, your colleagues and members of the DCC are most welcome to visit York House Centre at any time to see what we have done so far. Please contact us at the address below and please tell us if you would like any further information.
Yours sincerely York House Centre cc. cllr Andrew Geary - DCC Chair cllrs Robert Exon & Brian White – DCC vice Chairs cllrs Denise Brunning, Liz Gifford & Rob Gifford - Stony Stratford ward councillors Andrew Horner - Head of Development Management Stony Stratford town council
London Road Stony Stratford Milton Keynes MK11 1JQ 01908 563361 www.york-house.org.uk [email protected] York House Centre (Stony Stratford) is a charitable company limited by guarantee. Registered in England and Wales no. 6283685. Registered charity no. 1122220. Registered office at London Road Stony Stratford MK11 1JQ
(181)
ITEM 8 14 August 2014 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
DELEGATION OF POWERS UNDER SECTION 257 TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT, 1990 IN RELATION TO CALVERTON FOOTPATH 55
Contact Officer: Andrew Burton, Rights of Way Officer (Tel: MK 252406)
1. Purpose
To request that the Development Control Committee delegate its powers to extinguish and divert footpaths and bridleways under sections 257 of the Town & Country Planning Act, 1990 to the Rights of Way Officer in relation to the diversion of Calverton footpath 55.
2. Recommendation
That the Committee agree to delegate its powers to extinguish and divert footpaths and bridleways under sections 257 of the Town & Country Planning Act, 1990 to the Rights of Way Officer in relation to the diversion of Calverton footpath 55 including the authority to consider whether or not to make an Order and to deal with any proceedings which flow from an opposed Order including referral to Secretary of State and conduct of any public inquiry to deal with such objections.
3. The Site Calverton footpath 55 is to be diverted in the interests of allowing development to take place. The footpath currently passes through a field from Watling Street and then runs generally southwards towards Middle Weald, Calverton. The path has a natural surface for a distance of approximately 351m. The width is between 1.0m and 1.5m. The new route has a width throughout of 2.0m and will be 359m in length. The route will start at Watling Street, a further 47 metres north of the existing path entrance. The termination point remains unaffected.
4. The Application
An application for the diversion of Calverton footpath 55 under s.257 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 was submitted to the Council on 8th May 2012 to the Rights of Way department, Milton Keynes Council. The right of way passes through a field of grass which forms part of the applicant’s development site. Currently, Calverton footpath 55 runs from points A to B as shown in the attached map in Annex A. The proposed diversion will run from point A to C as shown on the map. The length of footpath to be extinguished is 351m and the length of the new path to be provided is 359m and 2.0m wide.
Following standard consultation of Statutory Undertakers potentially affected by the diversion, no objections have been received. Ward and local councils were also consulted again no adverse comments were received.
(182)
5. The s 257 Functions Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 vests the authority in a competent authority to by order authorise the stopping up or diversion of any footpath or bridleway if they are satisfied that it is necessary to do so in order to enable development to be carried out.
The Development Control Committee is vested with the power to authorise the stopping up or diversion of footpaths or bridleways. This power includes the powers provided to local planning authorities who have granted planning permission to stop up or divert footpaths and bridleways under section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990. The power comprises the consideration whether or not to make an Order and the procedure involved in making an Order.
The relevant consideration for the local planning authority is whether it is satisfied that it is necessary to stop up/divert the footpath/bridleway in order to allow the authorised development to be carried out, please see maps in Annex A.
The procedure under section 257 is governed by section 259 and Schedule 14 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It involves making and giving notice of an Order. If the Order is unopposed the local authority may confirm themselves without modification. If objections are received, then the order must be sent to the Secretary of State for confirmation.
6. Reasons
This power applies to footpaths which are already recognised as public rights of ways and which have been placed on the Councils’ definitive map.
Delegation of this power to the Rights of Way Officer as recommended will assist in considering whether or not to make an Order and to deal with any proceedings which follow from an opposed Order.
7. Issues Legal
There are no other legal issues that require comment.
(183)
ANNEX A
2 1
C R 7 8
W 2 a 6 tli ng S E RO tr F M ee IF A t L N C RO N A R D O H T
P at h an Two Mile Ash d Cy cl e Pa th De W f A TL Pond IN G ST RE ET
CC
D ef
BB
) m (u h
at
P
H R m 2 y .2 d 1 B d r a W
AA AA ) m (u th Pa
H R y m d 2 B
2 d . r
1 a W
)
m (u
th Pa
Pond
) m (u h at P Lady Margery's Gorse
H R
m 2 2 . 1
W
a
r
d
B
d
y
Map referred to in the Council of the Borough of Milton Keynes (Footpath 55, Calverton Parish) Public Path Diversion Order 2012
The common seal of the Council of the Borough of Milton Keynes was hereunto affixed in the presence of:
HEAD OF LEGAL SERVICES AND MONITORING OFFICER
Key: Existing Proposed Extinguished Proposed Diversion
20/08/2012 Plan by Nicky Kingsley MK 25 4813 ASSET DATA Scale 1: 2,500 MANAGEMENT © Crown copyright and database rights 2012 Ref. 2014 Ordnance Survey [100019593] @A3P
(184) (185)