AGENDA
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
When: 19:00hrs 01 AUGUST 2019
Where: Council Chamber Civic, 1 Saxon Gate East, Milton Keynes, MK9 3EJ
Membership of the Committee Councillor Bint (Chair) Councillors Alexander, Baines, Brackenbury, Brown, Exon, A Geary, Legg, McLean, Petchey and Wallis
Speaking at this meeting Please email [email protected] if you would like to speak or submit a written representation about a planning application on this agenda.
Deadline to request to speak: 12:00 noon, Monday 29 July 2019
Deadline for written submissions: 12:00 noon, Wednesday 31 July 2019
Enquiries on this agenda Please contact Dino Imbimbo, Committee Manager on 01908 252458 or dc- [email protected].
This agenda is available at https://milton-keynes.cmis.uk.com/milton- keynes/Committees.aspx
(1) Milton Keynes Council, Civic, 1 Saxon Gate East, Milton Keynes, MK9 3EJ Tel: 01908 691691 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 themselves 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 at: http://milton-keynes.cmis.uk.com/milton-keynes/ Wi Fi access is available in all Civic meeting rooms. Users of Windows 7 and above can simply click the link to any documents you wish to see. Users of Windows XP will need to right click on the link and select ‘open in browser’. Recording of Meetings The proceedings at this meeting may be recorded for the purpose of preparing the minutes of the meeting. In accordance with the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014, you can film, photograph, record or use social media at any Council meetings that are open to the public. If you are reporting the proceedings, please respect other members of the public at the meeting who do not want to be filmed. You should also not conduct the reporting so that it disrupts the good order and conduct of the meeting. While you do not need permission, you can contact the Council’s staff in advance of the meeting to discuss facilities for reporting the proceedings and a contact is included on the front of the agenda, or you can liaise with staff at the meeting. Guidance from the Department for Communities and Local Government can be viewed at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/34 3182/140812_Openness_Guide.pdf Comments, Complaints and Compliments Milton Keynes Council welcomes feedback 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 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 at http://www.milton- keynes.gov.uk/complaints/
(2) AGENDA Item No: 1. Welcome and Introductions. 2. Apologies. 3. Minutes of Previous Meetings To approve, and the Chair to sign as correct records, the Minutes of the meetings of the Development Control Committee held on 4 JULY 2019 (Item 3a) (Pages 5 to 23) and the Development Control Panel held on 25 APRIL 2019 (Item 3b) (Pages 24 to 27) and 20 JUNE 2019 (Item 3c) (Pages 28 to 41). 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. To consider the following item in accordance with the written Rules of Procedure for Public Participation in the Determination of Planning Applications: Questions To receive questions from members of the public, in accordance with Standing Orders, not related to planning applications. 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 is 12.00 NOON on MONDAY 29 JULY 2019. Any additional written representations must be received by 12:00 noon on WEDNESDAY 31 JULY 2019. 7. 42 Portland Drive - Development Control Committee Update To note the report (Item7) (Pages 155 to 157) 8. Development Management Appeals To note; ITEM 8(a) (Pages 158 to 160) List of Current on Going Development Management Appeals ITEM 8(b) (Pages 161 to 164) List of Closed DM Appeals – Lessons Learnt ITEM 8(c) (Page 165) List of Current Enforcement Appeals
(3)
INDEX OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING Item Application Address Ward Town/Parish Report Plan Appendix Reference Page Page Page
Land North And West Item 19/01357/REM Wavendon Wavendon 44 68 71 6a of Wavendon Parish Business Park, Council Ortensia Drive, Milton Keynes, Wavendon Gate 22 - 24 Stantonbury Item 18/01469/FUL Stantonbury Stantonbury 80 100 103 6b Centre, Parish Purbeck, Council Stantonbury, Milton Keynes 55 - 65 Queensway, Item 19/00466/FUL Bletchley Park Bletchley & 114 132 143 6c Bletchley, Fenny Milton Keynes Stratford Town Council
(4) ITEM 3(a)
Minutes of the meeting of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE held on THURSDAY 4 JULY 2019 at 7.00 pm.
Present: Councillors: Alexander, Bint, Bowyer (Substituting for Councillor Baines), Brackenbury, Brown, Exon, A Geary, Legg, McLean, Petchey and Wallis.
Officers: T Darke (Director Growth, Economy and Culture), D Buckley (Senior Planning Officer), D Law (Senior Planning Officer), E Verdegem (Senior Planning Officer), P Caves (Senior Engineer - Development Management (Highways)), N Roy (Principal Planning Solicitor) and D Imbimbo (Committee Manager).
Apologies: Councillor Baines
Also Present: Councillors K Bradburn, Crooks, P Geary, Hoskins and Williams, Mr N Weeks Highways Consultant and approximately 80 Members of the Public.
DCC04 INTRODUCTIONS AND WELCOME
The Chair welcomed members of the public and Councillors to the meeting and explained the procedures to be adopted. DCC05 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING RESOLVED; That the minutes of the meetings of the Development Control Committee held on 7 March 2019, 4 April 2019 and 15 May 2019 and the meeting of the Development Control Panel on 21 March 2019 be agreed as an accurate record and signed by the Chair as such subject to the following amendments; Minute DCC70 in respect of application 18/02341/FUL paragraph 4, the word ‘Council’ be replaced with the word ‘Officers’, and the word ‘application’ be replaced with the words ‘permission notice’. DCC06 DECLARATION OF INTERESTS Councillor Bint asked that it be noted that in respect of application 19/00841/FUL the property subject to the application was in part to be built on land owned by MKDP, he had been a member of that board until recently but was no longer and would therefore remain on the Committee during consideration of that application. Councillor Bint also asked that it be noted that in respect of application 19/00124/FUL the property subject to the application was within his ward, he had however not discussed the application
4 JULY 2019 (5) planning merits with anyone or expressed a view and would judge the application on its merits. Councillor Petchey asked that it be noted that in respect of application 19/00124/FUL the property subject to the application was within Campbell Park Parish, of which he was a member, he had however not discussed the application planning merits with anyone or expressed a view and would judge the application on its merits. Councillor Petchey also asked that it be noted that in respect of application 19/00602/FUL the property subject to the application was within his ward, in that capacity he had received copies of a consultation response and promotional brochure from the applicants which he had not read and that he had not discussed the application planning merits with anyone or expressed a view and would judge the application on its merits. DCC07 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION No Questions had been received. DCC08 REPRESENTATIONS ON APPLICATIONS Mr J Buttel, Mr S Helfett, Mr A Herman, Councillor Dixon (Campbell Park Parish Council and Councillor Crooks (Ward Councillor) spoke in objection to application 19/00124/FUL Retrospective application for the demolition of a bungalow and erection of a new dwelling with proposed alterations to existing roof form at 42 Portland Drive, Willen, Milton Keynes. The Applicant, Mr M Srivistava, and Applicant’s agent, Mr I Jackson, exercised the right of reply. Councillor Thomas (Central Milton Keynes Town Council) spoke in objection to application 19/00841/FUL Full planning permission for the redevelopment of land for office (Use Class B1a) with ancillary facilities including retail (Use Classes A1-A5), community and leisure facilities (Use Classes D1 and D2), and formation of a basement car park, new vehicular access, surface level car parking, public realm works, landscaping and associated works at Santander Car Park, Grafton Gate H5 to H6, Central Milton Keynes. The Applicant’s agent Mr N Roberts exercised the right of reply. Ms T Todd, Mr C Redsull, Councillor Hoskin (Ward Councillor) and Councillor P Geary (Ward Councillor) spoke in objection to application 19/00853/REM Reserved matters application for approval of layout; appearance; scale and landscaping for 14 dwellings pursuant to outline planning application 16/01630/OUT at Land East of Castle Road and North of The Glebe, Lavendon The Applicant’s agent Mr M Read exercised the right of reply. Ms T Todd, Mr C Redsull, Councillor Hoskin (Ward Councillor) and Councillor P Geary (Ward Councillor) spoke in objection to application 19/01085/FUL Formation of road and footways as
4 JULY 2019 (6) extension to The Glebe to serve proposed residential development of 14 dwellings subject of outline planning permission 16/01630/OUT at Land East of Castle Road and North of The Glebe, Lavendon The Applicant’s agent Mr M Read exercised the right of reply. Councillor Morgan (Stantonbury Parish Council) spoke in objection to application 19/00602/FUL Construction of a six storey hotel (Use Class C1) of up to 7,711 sqm gross floorspace with associated leisure, car parking and landscaping at North Western Development, Woodlands Business Park, Breckland, Linford Wood, Milton Keynes The Applicant’s agent Mr J Jaulim exercised the right of reply.
DCC09 PLANNING APPLICATIONS 19/00124/FUL RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION FOR THE DEMOLITION OF A BUNGALOW AND ERECTION OF A NEW DWELLING WITH PROPOSED ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING ROOF FORM AT 42 PORTLAND DRIVE, WILLEN, MILTON KEYNES FOR MR MANOJ SRIVASTAVA. The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application with a presentation. The Committee heard that the application arose as a result of irregularities in the build of a development previously having been granted permission that had been constructed not in accordance with the approved plans and sought to regularize the build. The proposals however would not restore the property to a size, design, height or position that was originally approved. Therefore the recommendation remained to refuse the application for the reason stated in the Committee report. The Committee heard from objectors who raised the following issues;
The development as built does not conform to the original planning permission and is therefore unlawful, a retrospective application being granted in these circumstances where the differences are so substantial may set an unwelcome precedence and encourage others to conduct themselves in a similar way.
The scale and bulk of the existing building is
4 JULY 2019 (7) excessive and this will not be reduced sufficiently by the new proposals.
The proposals will be in contravention of policies D1, D2 and D3 of PlanMK and would have been in contravention of policies in the previous Local Plan.
The original permission would have allowed the replacement of a Bungalow with a two Storey house, the proposals will result in a two and a half storey house which will be bulky, overbearing and completely out of keeping with the street-scene.
The deviations from the approved plans are substantive and appear intentional from the outset.
The development has and will if the application is approved continue to detract from the character of the area.
The development will remain much larger than any other property in the area and will not accord with the street-scene.
The property looks like an office block due to its excessive bulk and massing.
The proximity of the build to the boundary exacerbates the impact of the scale of the property from the road, which is even more prominent when the limited trees screening it lose their leaves.
The property is overbearing on neighbouring properties due to its bulk and massing and a loss of sun light.
The excessive height is also due to the ground level having been raised substantially from that proposed in the original permission.
The pitch of the roof has contributed to and resulted in an overbearing structure.
4 JULY 2019 (8) The applicant and his agent told the Committee that all windows that could be described as overlooking have been obscurely glazed. The original plans did indicate a large attic storage space and the fact the build has resulted in a three storey building has not had a significant change to the originally approved size of the development.
The Committee heard that some of the additional build was done under permitted development rights.
The applicant’s agent stated that the build was further back from the road than approved rather than closer due to some drainage that was found, likewise the height was only 0.1m greater than that approved.
It is accepted that the greatest impact is the roof, this was due to some of the beams that were used were the wrong pitch, an error on the builder’s part, the application seeks to change this back to the original as closely as can be achieved.
The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the development had been built slightly closer to the road than the original bungalow had been but further back from the road than the permission had allowed.
The Director Growth, Economy and Culture, confirmed that the materials used had not meant that the materials condition had not been discharged. It was further commented that an enforcement notice had been served, this had to be proportionate and reasonable, in this instance the requirement is to reduce the height of the building which in turn will reduce the mass of the building which was the key issue, and also to reduce the rear of the building in line with the approved plans. It was further commented that the applicant had continued with the development despite attempts to work to address the issues, furthermore there has been difficulty due to the applicant having submitted an application with plans that did not accord with the constructed development.
Councillor Bint proposed that the officer recommendation to refuse the application for the
4 JULY 2019 (9) reasons stated in the Committee report be agreed, this was seconded by Councillor Exon.
Members of the Committee recognised that they were obliged to only consider the application without reference to the enforcement issues. Councillor A Geary stated that, having attended the Site Inspection, he believed that the construction was of an excessive and disproportionate height and scale resulting in unacceptable massing which had a detrimental impact on the street scene and was overbearing in respect of neighbouring properties.
Other members of the Committee concurred with the views expressed.
On being put to the vote the proposal to refuse the application because the development, by reason of its excessive bulk and scale, would result in an unacceptably harmful impact on the character and appearance of the neighbouring street scene, contrary to policies D1, D2 and D3 of the adopted Plan: MK was carried unanimously.
Councillor A Geary proposed, seconded by Councillor Bint, that Officers be asked to produce a report in respect of the enforcement action being taken, detailing the events that have led the enforcement notice being issued, what the amendment to the building requirements are on the notice and how the those requirements differ from the originally granted permission.
The proposal was carried by acclamation.
RESOLVED –
1. That planning permission be refused because the development, by reason of its excessive bulk and scale, would result in an unacceptably harmful impact on the character and appearance of the neighbouring street scene, contrary to policies D1, D2 and D3 of the adopted Plan: MK was carried unanimously.
2. That a report be produced in respect of the enforcement action being taken, detailing the events that have led to that being issued, what the amendment to the building requirements
4 JULY 2019 (10) are on the notice and how the those requirements differ from the originally granted permission
19/00841/FUL FULL PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF LAND FOR OFFICE (USE CLASS B1A) WITH ANCILLARY FACILITIES INCLUDING RETAIL (USE CLASSES A1-A5), COMMUNITY AND LEISURE FACILITIES (USE CLASSES D1 AND D2), AND FORMATION OF A BASEMENT CAR PARK, NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS, SURFACE LEVEL CAR PARKING, PUBLIC REALM WORKS, LANDSCAPING AND ASSOCIATED WORKS AT SANTANDER CAR PARK, GRAFTON GATE H5 TO H6, CENTRAL MILTON KEYNES FOR SANTANDER UK PLC.
The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application with a presentation. The Committee heard that some concerns had been raised by the Town Council in respect of the management of the public areas and the Committee was recommended to agree to an amendment to conditions, to read as below, should the Committee be minded to grant the application. ‘Prior to first occupation of the development: a) A Management Committee for the social, cultural and community spaces will be created which will include the building Owner and/or Operator, and local stakeholders including (but not limited to) Central Milton Keynes Town Council and other local community groups, to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. b) In consultation with the Management Committee, a strategy for providing and maintaining the social, cultural and community spaces provided on the ground floor and rooftop will be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval, the strategy will set out the following: · Ongoing management and maintenance of the ground floor and rooftop space to which public have access; · Management of access and terms of public use, including hours of opening and circumstances in which the space will be closed to the public; and
4 JULY 2019 (11) · Details of booking system for meeting space and auditoria space.
The relevant areas will then be managed in accordance with the approved strategy, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Management Committee. Reason: To ensure adequate public benefits from the scheme are retained in accordance with Plan: MK policy CC2.’ It was noted that there would be a shortfall of parking provision on the standard of approximately 100 spaces, it was however recognised that the site was within 400 meters of the railway station and a similar distance to the bus station, also a new multi-storey car park was being constructed in the vicinity and therefore officers believed that the shortfall was acceptable in the circumstances The Committee heard that the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions as detailed in the committee report amended as above and a section 106 agreement. The Committee heard representations from a representative of the Town Council who raised the following concerns; The Town Council was concerned about the loss of car parking spaces. There were concerns in respect of how the public spaces were to be secured, however these were for the most part addressed by the revised condition. The shortfall in parking spaces will have a detrimental impact on the area. The applicant’s agent told the committee that the developer had provided 500 cycle parking spaces and would be making a financial contribution to the Council to offset against the parking shortfall. The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that a financial contribution to cover the shortfall in parking spaces would be forthcoming in accordance with the provisions of the CMK SPD in respect of parking provision. It was also noted that
4 JULY 2019 (12) there would be a requirement on the developer to provide an alternative parking arrangement for staff during the construction. Councillor Bint, seconded by Councillor Exon, proposed that the officer recommendation to grant the application subject to the conditions as detailed in the report as amended above together with a s106 agreement. Members of the committee shared concerns in respect of the parking provision shortfall but also recognised the aspirations of the Council to promote more sustainable modes of transport. It was however commented that the financial contributions in lieu of the shortfall in parking spaces may not necessarily be used to provide alternative parking as the new multi-storey car park was already funded. Members of the Committee expressed a view that the proposal was for an iconic building at one of the major gateways to the Town and the advantages it presented far outweighed any disadvantages that the parking arrangements were likely to result in. On being put to the vote the proposal to grant the application subject to the conditions as detailed in the committee report amended as above together with a s106 agreement was carried with 10 members voting in favour and one abstaining. RESOLVED – That the application be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the committee report amended as above together with a s106 agreement. 19/00853/REM RESERVED MATTERS APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF LAYOUT; APPEARANCE; SCALE AND LANDSCAPING FOR 14 DWELLINGS PURSUANT TO OUTLINE PLANNING APPLICATION 16/01630/OUT AT LAND EAST OF CASTLE ROAD AND NORTH OF THE GLEBE, LAVENDON FOR BRAMPTON VALLEY HOMES LTD. The Director Growth, Economy and Culture, told the Committee that at the Outline stage of the application process an appeal had been successful on a previously refused application, the Committee
4 JULY 2019 (13) heard that the Council had not submitted the appeal statement in time and therefore the appeal was effectively not defended and was won by the appellant. The Director Growth, Economy and Culture extended an apology to residents affected by that on behalf of the Council and gave the Committee assurances that since her arrival at the Council she had put in place processes to ensure that there could not be a reoccurrence of that. The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application with a presentation. The Committee heard from the Chair that a Site Inspection had been held. It was confirmed that the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions as detailed in the Committee report. The Committee heard from Objectors who raised the following concerns; The site boundary as detailed on the applicant’s plans is incorrect and encroaches on land belonging to a third party. Objections submitted by the owner of the land have not been accepted by the Council and not taken account of in writing the Committee report. Numerous other objections have been disregarded by planning officers. The proposed development is within open Countryside and will be visually intrusive on the Urban Character of the area, particularly for residents of properties on the boundary of the site. There will be noise disturbance from the development and road usage. Vegetation planted on the bank of the stream is not being maintained and is impacting a tree with a preservation order on it. Access is not a reserved matter and there is a condition that the applicant must comply with that requires approval of submitted plans before any other development is carried out, that has not yet been done and there remain serious concerns about access due to drainage and other issues, there
4 JULY 2019 (14) remains a lack of detail in respect of how this will be addressed. There are safety concerns in respect of the proposed temporary construction access. The application being considered includes layout and landscaping however the applicant has not submitted sufficient details to make a clear determination. The submitted plans show a change to the boundary since the OUTLINE stage, this represents a material change. There remain concerns as to whether the outline permission was flawed due to the ownership concerns which have resulted in the boundary line being redrawn and the access arrangements not being as permitted originally. The Highways Officer has recommended that full details be provided in respect of the crossing of the ditch and drains, this has not been provided and should not be left to a condition. The design access statement within the application is not credible. Councillor P Geary asked that it be noted that he concurred with all comments made by the other objectors. The Applicant’s agent told the Committee that the reserved matters application accords with the outline application for the erection of 14 dwellings. The design is policy compliant, an arboriculturist report has confirmed that the access arrangements would not affect the tree that is subject to a preservation order. The agent further stated that the land within the red line was within the ownership of the applicant. The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that until a Traffic Management Plan was submitted and approved there should not be any deliveries to the site, that matter remained outstanding. It was further confirmed that the references to objections not having been taken account of by planning officers referred to a previously withdrawn application. In response to a question from Councillor A Geary
4 JULY 2019 (15) the Senior Planning officer confirmed that a drainage scheme had not been submitted. It was further confirmed that a section of green space situated between the proposed development and the existing dwellings was to be maintained by a management company as no proposal for adoption by the Council had been made. It was further confirmed that the land proposed to be used for construction access would, on completion of the scheme, be used for pedestrian access. It was noted by members of the Committee that the applicant had not submitted a ‘field evaluation’ report, contrary to the requirements of the NPPF, this meant that the Committee would be unable to take account of heritage matters in making any determination. The Director Growth, Economy and Culture, confirmed that this was a condition of the outline permission and was yet to be discharged, however should there prove to be heritage or archaeological considerations once a report was submitted there would be a need for the applicant to submit a revised application. Councillor Bint proposed that the Officer recommendation to grant the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report, this was seconded by Councillor Exon. The Chair confirmed that he believed that despite having an application for a development that the Council had refused and was allowed on appeal, the matters of Layout, Appearance and Scale were broadly in keeping with policy, it was however noted that issues of landscaping could not be fully determined as drainage and flood evaluation had not been submitted and the matter of access was subject of a separate application. Councillor A Geary stated that in essence the proposal was an extension of the Glebe and in that respect he did not believe that the layout and design reflected what was present in the Glebe. It was further commented that the proposal being for 14 dwellings was one short of the threshold for the requirement to provide affordable housing, the proposed layout indicated that there was sufficient space to increase that and it was a concern that the reason the green spaces were not being offered for
4 JULY 2019 (16) adoption was to allow a later application to infill and thereby avoid affordable housing contributions, however it was recognised this was not a consideration. The Principal Planning Solicitor confirmed that whilst there was provision within the s106 agreement for contributions to public play facilities and equipment, there was nothing to protect the green spaces that are indicated on the site layout plan submitted. The Senior Planning Officer reminded the Committee that the original outline application had been for 21 Dwellings, this had however been reduced to 14 on advice in respect of flood control, furthermore the green area has to be maintained as flood plain. The Director Growth, Economy and Culture, confirmed that a condition could be added to require that a plan be attached to the decision notice with the area being ‘hatched’ and identified through the condition to be retained for flood risk purposes or retained for landscaping purposes. Members of the Committee did not believe a condition would achieve the level of protection they desired for the green space, it was proposed by Councillor Exon that determination of the application be deferred to allow further details to be submitted in respect of proposals for the green space; the proposal did not get a seconder. On being put to the vote the proposal to grant permission was carried on the chairs casting vote, with five members voting in favour, 5 against and one member abstaining. The Chair used his casting vote in favour of the application being granted. RESOLVED – That the application be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the Committee report.
19/01085/FUL FORMATION OF ROAD AND FOOTWAYS AS EXTENSION TO THE GLEBE TO SERVE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 14 DWELLINGS SUBJECT OF OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION 16/01630/OUT AT LAND EAST OF CASTLE ROAD AND NORTH OF THE GLEBE, LAVENDON FOR BRAMPTON VALLEY HOMES LTD.
4 JULY 2019 (17) The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application with a presentation. The Committee heard that there was no update on the Committee report and that the recommendation remained to approve the application. The Committee noted the comments from objectors under application 19/00853/REM and in addition heard the following from Objectors; The Glebe has significant on street parking and this will restrict access significantly for residents of the proposed development. The site is in flood zone 3 and construction of a road and the potential blocking up of the drainage ditch or substantial construction over it will present a significant risk of flood. The viability of culverting the ditch is restricted by the need to use adjoining ground. The applicant needs permission to construct a site entrance in this position as without it the site remains landlocked and cannot be developed. No detail of the proposed construction has been submitted for the Committee to consider. The condition proposed for the crossing is different from that approved in the outline application. There is inadequate detail provided for the Committee to make an informed decision. The Committee heard from the Applicant’s agent who stated that the proposal accords with Policy C2.2 of PlanMK and provides safe suitable access to the approved development to the North of the site and must be completed prior to commencement of work on that site. The Highways Officer has raised no objection to the scheme, the applicant has been advised that the submission of construction details at this stage was unnecessary given that the discharge of condition 5 of the outline application relating to the site to the North requires access detail to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority, however the design details had now been submitted.
4 JULY 2019 (18) Despite comments that the land is not in the ownership of the applicant, evidence to the contrary has been provided to the Council. The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the details of the construction have been conditioned to be included with the details to be submitted at the outline stage but had not yet been submitted. Councillor Bint proposed that the Officer recommendation be agreed, this was seconded by Councillor Exon. Councillor Bint proposed that should the application be granted an informative be added to ensure that the developer recognised and acted upon the need to ensure that adequate street lighting levels be maintained as the proposal would require a lamp post at the end of the Glebe to be moved. The proposal was agreed by acclamation. Members of the Committee stated that the application could be interpreted as an application to build a ‘bridge’ over an important water course, however no detail of what the bridge would look like or how it would be constructed has been submitted. It was recognised by the members of the Committee that the lack of detail made it difficult to make an informed judgement, it was also commented that a deferral was unlikely to be of benefit as there were too many issues to be resolved and the Senior Planning Officer stated that what had been submitted did not provide the level of detail the Committee was seeking. On being put to the vote the proposal grant the application was lost with 5 members of the Committee voting in favour and 6 against. Councillor A Geary proposed that the application be refused as there was inadequate information to make a determination, this was seconded by Councillor Bowyer. On being put to the vote the proposal to refuse the application was carried with 6 members voting in favour, 4 against and 1 abstaining. RESOLVED – That the Application be refused due to insufficient information having been submitted by the applicant, the final wording of the decision notice to be
4 JULY 2019 (19) delegated to the Director Growth, Economy and Culture in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chairs of the Committee. 19/00602/FUL CONSTRUCTION OF A SIX STOREY HOTEL (USE CLASS C1) OF UP TO 7,711 SQM GROSS FLOORSPACE WITH ASSOCIATED LEISURE, CAR PARKING AND LANDSCAPING AT NORTH WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, WOODLANDS BUSINESS PARK, BRECKLAND, LINFORD WOOD, MILTON KEYNES FOR VUR VILLAGE TRADING NO 1 LTD. The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application with a presentation. It was noted that there was a shortfall in parking provision but the location was such that demand for parking was likely to be at a peak when the other industrial units in the area would not have as a great a demand. The Committee heard that there was no update on the Committee report and that the recommendation remained to approve the application. The Committee heard from the representative of Stantonbury Parish Council who stated that the Parish Council objected to the application, it was commented that; Despite claims to the contrary there were no advantages to the local population to be provided by the development. The Parish Council had not been able to identify anyone interested in joining the proposed gym. The Developer asserts that they have received significant support for the development from the public, yet the Parish Council has been unable to identify anyone that has responded positively, and also believes that the consultation exercise has been inadequate. The design of the proposed structure is not in keeping with the area. The materials will result in a six storey black building that will detract from the character of the area.
4 JULY 2019 (20) The Applicant’s agent stated that proposed development will provide leisure and sports facilities for both guests and the community. The development will work towards further enhancing the Council’s investment strategy providing much needed hotel accommodation for the town. Councillor Bint proposed that the Officer recommendation be agreed, this was seconded by Councillor Exon. Members of the Committee expressed some concern in respect of the design of the development but recognised the need for the facility, it was also recognised that the development would provide approximately 120 full time equivalent jobs for the community. Councillor Exon, recognizing that there was no lighting condition and mindful of the need to protect other properties from excessive lighting, proposed that an external lighting condition be applied and that the wording be delegated to the Director Growth, Economy and Culture. This was seconded by Councillor Brackenbury and accepted by Councillor Bint as an amendment to the original motion. On being put to the vote the proposal to grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the Committee report together the additional condition and a s106 agreement. RESOLVED – That the application be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the Committee report together the additional condition and a s106 agreement. DCC10 ENFORCEMENT NOTICES The Committee considered a report detailing current enforcement notices and appeals. RESOLVED – 1. That the report in respect of the List of Enforcement Notices Served from January 2019 be noted, and, 2. That the List of Current on Going Enforcement Appeals be noted.
4 JULY 2019 (21) DCC11 DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT APPEALS The Committee considered a report detailing current Development Management Appeals and a list detailing closed Development Management Appeals. RESOLVED – 1. That the Current on Going Development Management Appeals be noted, and, 2. That the List of Closed Development Management Appeals be noted. Councillor Legg left the meeting. DCC12 APPLICATION NUMBER: 16/03023/FUL - BLAKELANDS 1, YEOMANS DRIVE, BLAKELANDS – RE- S102 ORDER The Committee considered a report in respect of the revocation of the s102 application submitted in respect of application 16/03023/FUL. The Director, Growth, Economy and Culture explained that following the granting of a new application with a s106 agreement requiring that the original permission is not implemented the need for a s102 order no longer existed and therefore it was recommended that the section 102 order made by the Council on 14 December 2018 under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act) be withdrawn. The Principal Planning Solicitor told the Committee that s102 was a little used process but was appropriate at the time the Committee made the decision however as things had moved on the need for was no longer there and whilst retaining it was an option it was likely that the Authority would incur costs. The Committee heard from 2 members of the public during consideration of this item who raised concerns in respect of the suitability of the replaced lighting condition and the submitted lighting plan, the effect of which had not yet been fully assessed. The Committee also heard that the Lighting plan relating to the new permission had been approved despite having been put out for a consultation with residents, furthermore it would appear that the person responsible for approving the submitted lighting plan was not qualified to assess lighting. Members of the Committee expressed disappointment that yet again the residents of Blakelands that are affected by the development are left wanting by the Authority. Councillor Bint proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed, this was seconded by Councillor Exon. On being put to the vote the motion was carried with 8 members in favour, 1 against and 1 member abstaining. RESOLVED – That the s102 order made by the Council on 14 December 2018 under
4 JULY 2019 (22) the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act) be withdrawn.
THE CHAIR CLOSED THE MEETING AT 11:10 PM
4 JULY 2019 (23)
ITEM 3(b)
Minutes of the meeting of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL held on THURSDAY 25 APRIL 2019 at 7:00 pm.
Present: Councillor: McLean (Chair) Councillors Alexander, Baines and Miles Officers: E Verdegem (Senior Planning Officer), C Ashby (Planning Officer), L Peacock (Planning Officer), V Watts (Planning Lawyer) and T Milner (Committee Manager).
Number of Public Present: 13
Apologies: Councillor Williams
DCP38 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS The Chair welcomed Councillors, Officer Colleagues and the Public to the meeting and explained the procedures to be adopted. DCP39 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST None were made.
DCP40 REPRESENTATIONS ON APPLICATIONS
Ms J Jackson, Ms M Sherwood and Councillor P Geary (Ward Councillor) spoke in objection to application 19/00386/FUL Demolition of existing garage, dining room and bedroom above; erection of a two-storey side and rear extension; erection of a single- storey rear extension; erection of separate annexe including single garage to the side at 15 West Street, Olney.
The Applicant Mr L Wood exercised the right of reply.
Mr K Moore spoke in objection to application 19/00307/FUL Change of use from dwelling house (C3) to house in multiple occupation (C4) at 5 Lundy Walk, Newton Leys, Milton Keynes.
The Applicant declined the right of reply.
DCP41 APPLICATIONS
19/00386/FUL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING GARAGE, DINING ROOM AND BEDROOM ABOVE; ERECTION OF A TWO-STOREY SIDE AND REAR EXTENSION; ERECTION OF A SINGLE-STOREY REAR EXTENSION; ERECTION OF SEPARATE ANNEXE INCLUDING SINGLE GARAGE TO THE SIDE AT 15 WEST STREET, OLNEY FOR MR AND MRS WOOD.
25 APRIL 2019
(24)
The Planning Officer introduced the application with a presentation and confirmed that the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions as detailed in the Panel report.
It was noted that Councillor Hosking had registered to speak at the meeting but due to unforeseen circumstances was unable to be present; he had however submitted a written representation which the Chair read on his behalf.
The Panel heard from objectors who raised the following planning concerns;
The proposed development would triple the size of the building and represented an over- development of the site.
The proposed development would be overbearing on neighbouring properties and not in keeping with the street scene.
The removal and replacement of the hedge will result in an unsafe exit arrangement for vehicles and will be a risk to security.
The proposed development site is a semi- detached property and whilst previous extensions have resulted in two properties that do not match the proposals will significantly alter the exterior due to the size of the proposed extension.
Whilst not situated in the conservation area, the development will impact on it.
The applicant told the Panel that the applicant had sought pre-planning advice and had drawn up plans in accordance with that, overall the proposal was completely in keeping with policy, in particular it should be noted that the plot was extremely large and that whilst the proposed extension was itself large scale it did not have any detrimental impact on either the development property or the neighbouring properties, this was further supported by the recent acquisition of a strip of land adjacent to the property. The proposed development took up less than 15% of the entire plot. Likewise there is no uniformity of buildings in West Street. It was further commented that the separation distances between properties was large and therefore the
25 APRIL 2019
(25) development would not be overbearing. The applicant also stated that should the neighbours have concerns about the hedgerow that was proposed as a buffer he would be willing not to include it.
Councillor McLean, seconded by Councillor Baines, proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed.
The Panel recognised that the plot was extremely large and that there was unlikely to be any detrimental impact on neighbours or the street scene, it was also noted that the occupants of the adjoining semi-detached property had not objected to the scheme. It was further noted that the proposals were in keeping with the NPPF.
It was noted that the objectors would prefer the hedgerow not to be planted and that the applicant was agreeable to this and therefore the inclusion of condition 3 was unnecessary. It was proposed by Councillor Baines seconded by Councillor McLean that condition 3 be removed, on being put to the vote the amendment was carried.
On being put to the vote the proposal to grant the application subject to the conditions as detailed in the Panel Report with condition 3 removed was carried.
RESOLVED –
That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the Panel report.
19/00307/FUL CHANGE OF USE FROM DWELLING HOUSE (C3) TO HOUSE IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION (C4) AT 5 LUNDY WALK, NEWTON LEYS, MILTON KEYNES FOR Mr LEON HILL
The Planning Officer introduced the application with a presentation and confirmed that the recommendation remained to refuse the application for the reasons stated in the Panel report. The Panel heard from the objector who stated that he held concerns that the proposal would lead to significant parking congestion as there was inadequate parking provision, this was already a problem in the street and a concerned shared by all residents in the street. It was also commented that the property benefitted
25 APRIL 2019
(26) from only one parking space and the second that was originally available had been converted to living space. Councillor McLean, seconded by Councillor Miles, proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed. Members of the Panel recognised that the street was narrow and congested with parked vehicles. It was also noted that the premises did not meet the parking standards On being put to the vote the recommendation to refuse the application as the proposed development fails to provide a sufficient number of on-plot independently accessible parking spaces for a 5- bedroom House in Multiple Occupation within Parking Zone B, as outlined within both the Houses in Multiple Occupation 2012 (SPD) and the Milton Keynes Parking Standards 2016 (SPD). As such, the proposed change of use would result in additional on-street parking to the detriment of highway safety for all users, convenience and amenity of local residents. The proposed scheme is contrary to Policy CT10 of Plan:MK, the Houses in Multiple Occupation 2012 (SPD) and the Milton Keynes Parking Standards 2016 (SPD).was carried unanimously. RESOLVED – That the application be refused for the reason stated above.
THE CHAIR CLOSED THE MEETING AT 7:55 PM
25 APRIL 2019
(27)
ITEM 3(c)
Minutes of the meeting of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL held on THURSDAY 20 JUNE 2019 at 7:00 pm.
Present: Councillor: Bint (Chair) Councillors Baines, Brackenbury, Brown and Petchey.
Officers: R Edgington (Planning Officer), L Gledhill (Planning Officer), P Keen (Deputy Development Management Manager), M Ellison (Senior Conservation Officer), V Watts (Planning Lawyer) and D Imbimbo (Committee Manager).
Number of Public Present: 8
DCP01 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS The Chair welcomed Councillors, Officer Colleagues and the Public to the meeting and explained the procedures to be adopted. DCP02 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor Baines asked that it be noted that in respect of application 19/00537/FUL, he was a Ward Councillor for the area and a member of the Parish Council, but had not engaged in any discussion in respect of the application nor expressed any opinion and would determine it on its merits.
Councillor Bint asked that it be noted that in respect of application 19/00537/FUL, used to live in Abraham Close but had moved away 20 years ago and has had no recent contact with other residents there, present or past.
Councillor Bint also asked that it be noted that in respect of applications relating to Ivy Cottage (Items 4c – 4f), he was a Ward Councillor for the area and a member of the Parish Council, but had not engaged in any discussion in respect of the application nor expressed any opinion and would determine it on its merits.
DCP03 REPRESENTATIONS ON APPLICATIONS
Ms J Smith and Councillor R Bradburn (Ward Councillor) (Also representing Bradwell Parish Council) spoke in objection to application 19/00714/FUL First floor extensions to the side and front elevations at 33 Ramsay Close, Bradwell, Milton Keynes.
The Applicant, Mr R Colliss, exercised the right of reply.
Mr P Cheesman and Councillor D Stabler (Great Linford Parish Council) spoke in objection to application 19/00537/FUL Conversion
20 JUNE 2019
(28) of existing integrated garage to form additional living accommodation with first floor extension over; proposed two storey side extension at 22 Abraham Close, Willen Park, Milton Keynes.
The Applicant, Mr G Sokhi, exercised the right of reply.
Mr. P Hall (Applicant’s Agent) and Councillor Crooks (Ward Councillor) spoke in support of application 19/00674/FUL Demolition of single-storey lean-to extension and construction of a family room, rear porch and boot-room as a single storey extension in the back garden at Ivy Cottage, Willen Road, Milton Keynes Village, Milton Keynes
Mr. P Hall (Applicant’s Agent) and Councillor Crooks (Ward Councillor) spoke in support of application 19/00675/LBC Listed building consent for the demolition of single-storey lean-to extension and construction of a family room, rear porch and boot-room as a single storey extension in the back garden at Ivy Cottage, Willen Road, Milton Keynes Village, Milton Keynes
Mr. P Hall (Applicant’s Agent) and Councillor Crooks (Ward Councillor) spoke in support of application 19/00700/FUL Re- construction of existing curtilage barn as single-storey annexe to Ivy Cottage at Ivy Cottage, Willen Road, Milton Keynes Village, Milton Keynes
Mr. P Hall (Applicant’s Agent) and Councillor Crooks (Ward Councillor) spoke in support of application 19/00701/LBC Listed building consent for the re-construction of existing curtilage barn as single-storey annexe to Ivy Cottage at Ivy Cottage, Willen Road, Milton Keynes Village, Milton Keynes
DCP37 APPLICATIONS
19/00714/FUL FIRST FLOOR EXTENSIONS TO THE SIDE AND FRONT ELEVATIONS AT 33 RAMSAY CLOSE, BRADWELL, MILTON KEYNES FOR MR RYAN COLLISS.
The Planning Officer introduced the application with a presentation and confirmed that the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions as detailed in the Panel report.
It was noted that the concerns expressed in respect of a previous application relating to the position and proximity of a rear bedroom window to a neighbour’s bedroom window had been addressed by this application and it was the view of planning officers that the new proposal was acceptable.
20 JUNE 2019
(29) It was further commented that loss of direct sunlight would be restricted to the early hours of the morning during the summer months.
The Panel heard representations from Objectors who raised the following concerns;
Loss of light for number 32 was unacceptable and would have an adverse impact on the amenity of residents as light would be taken from the kitchen and downstairs living room in the morning.
The proposed extension over the garage has not been reduced in bulk and size since the previously refused applications (based on impact on number 32), and its proximity to number 32 will result in an overbearing structure.
The proposed roof to the extension will overhang the boundary of number 32 by approximately 2’.
The proposed development will not fit in with the street scene where the houses are all built similarly.
The distance between the rear of number 32 and the proposed extension is less than 3m.
The internal layout of 32 is different to that of 33 and therefore the impact of light loss on 32 is greater.
The applicant stated the following;
The overhang of the roof would have no impact on the boundary with number 32.
The only loss of sunlight will be to a shared pathway and will have little impact on number 32.
There are 3 other properties in the immediate vicinity of a similar scale and size and therefore the street-scene is already varied.
The Planning Officer confirmed that the gap at the rear of the property had been measured on scaled plans at 3m, it was further noted that an assessment of light loss had been conducted and
20 JUNE 2019
(30) due to the North facing aspect of the proposed build any loss was for a minimal period of approximately half an hour. It was further confirmed that whilst there were no other extensions in the 4 house block that the subject property sat in, there were similar extensions in other ‘blocks’ in the immediate locality and the proposals which had been reduced in scale from those previously refused were not seen as detrimental to the overall locality.
Councillor Bint, seconded by Councillor Brown, proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed.
Councillor Brackenbury stated that having attended the site inspection he did not believe that the proposals would have a negative impact on the street scene which he had assessed as being already ‘cramped’. He further commented that he was satisfied that there would be no overlooking as a result of the proposed windows. In respect of light and overbearing nature, he did not believe that the proposal would be any worse than that already in place from the tall structure that already existed.
Councillor Petchey expressed some concern in respect of the impact on the rear patio of number 33 due to the height of the proposed wall.
The applicant confirmed that the raised wall would be set back into the development site.
On being put to the vote the proposal to grant the application was carried with three members voting in favour, one against and one abstention.
RESOLVED –
That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the Panel report.
19/00537/FUL CONVERSION OF EXISTING INTEGRATED GARAGE TO FORM ADDITIONAL LIVING ACCOMMODATION WITH FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION OVER; PROPOSED TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION AT 22 ABRAHAM CLOSE, WILLEN PARK, MILTON KEYNES FOR MR & MRS SOKHI.
The Planning Officer introduced the application with a presentation and confirmed that the recommendation remained to grant the application
20 JUNE 2019
(31) subject to the conditions as detailed in the Panel report. The Panel heard representations in objection; The proposed development was not in keeping with the six similar symmetrical properties in the close, and would detract from the street scene. The Parish Council believed the proposals were contrary to policy D3 of Plan MK in that they did not enhance the street scene. The scale and massing will change the character of the area, the property being one of the first seen as the close is entered. The amount of glass, frosted or clear will not be in keeping with the design of other properties in the close. The Parish Council objected to the extension over the garage as it would not be in keeping with the remaining properties. The Applicant told the Panel that there he was seeking to make a large family home, he had liaised with neighbours and had designed the scheme not to have any impact on neighbouring properties, numerous other properties in the street had been extended. Councillor Bint proposed that the recommendation to grant the application subject to the conditions as detailed in the panel report be agreed, this was seconded by Councillor Brown. Members of the Panel recognised the proposed development was different from other properties in the street but was not more out of keeping than some of the other extensions in the street. Councillor Brackenbury commented that having attended the site inspection he could see no regular pattern or design in the street that the proposal did not fit in with. Councillor Baines stated that he had researched the NPPF and knew of no reason to refuse the application. On being put to the vote the recommendation to grant the application subject to the conditions as detailed in the panel report was carried with three members voting in favour of the application, one against and one abstention. RESOLVED – That the application be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the Panel report.
20 JUNE 2019
(32)
19/00674/FUL DEMOLITION OF SINGLE-STOREY LEAN-TO EXTENSION AND CONSTRUCTION OF A FAMILY ROOM, REAR PORCH AND BOOT- ROOM AS A SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION IN THE BACK GARDEN AT IVY COTTAGE, WILLEN ROAD, MILTON KEYNES VILLAGE, MILTON KEYNES FOR MR & MRS D ADAMS. The Planning Officer introduced the application with a presentation and confirmed that the recommendation remained to refuse the application as the proposed extension is unacceptable by reason of its size, design, flat green roof and choice of external materials. It would result in an intrusive and incongruous built form and appearance, which would be out of keeping with and would not preserve nor enhance the character, appearance and historic and architectural interest of this Grade II Listed Building. It would significantly and detrimentally contrast with the historic design of the Grade II listed building and be of an intrusive appearance within its setting. The proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the setting and special interest of the listed building, which would not be outweighed by any public benefit, as required by paragraph 196 of the NPPF (2019). The proposals would be contrary to policy HE1 of the adopted Plan: MK (2019), Section 16 of the NPPF (2019) and Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. In addition, it is considered that the listed building and its current setting make a positive contribution to the character of the Milton Keynes Village Conservation Area. As such it is considered that the proposed extension by reason of its size, form, design and external treatment would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the Milton Keynes Village Conservation Area and would be contrary to section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) and policy HE1 of the adopted Plan: MK (2019). The applicant’s agent and Ward Councillor spoke in support of the application and stated that they believed that the proposals were acceptable as there was no significant ‘harm’ to the listed property. The proposed extension would not be visible from Willen Road. It was commented also that no statutory consultee except the Parish 20 JUNE 2019
(33) Council had objected to the proposals and there were no neighbour objections. Councillor Crooks, referring to application 19/00700/FUL stated that the existing barn on the site looked awful as it was in disrepair. The applicant’s agent told the Panel that it was the desire of the applicant to extend to provide family living space. The design and positioning was such that the extension would not be seen from the road and would cause no harm. The design is contemporary and simple with the intent to not impact on the cottage. The materials have been chosen to compliment the cottage but are used in a contemporary manner, providing a contrast to the listed building but not a detrimental one. Whilst the extension may be visible from Manor Close, Manor Close is not part of Milton Keynes Village but a modern estate. It was the stated view of the agent that the proposed extension would enhance the appreciation of the original design of the cottage. The Planning Officer stated that he believed the design of the proposed extension was such that it would draw the eye from the original cottage and thereby have a negative impact on its setting. Councillor Bint, seconded by Councillor Brown, proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed. Councillor Baines stated that he believed the extension design was too modern for the setting of the cottage and did not fit with the Grade 2 listed status of the cottage. Councillor Brackenbury stated that he believed that as the extension could not be seen from the west there would be little harm as it would have no impact on the ‘iconic’ nature of the cottage. He further stated that he did not accept the argument proposed in the Panel report at paragraph 7.24, that the presence of modern buildings at the rear was more the reason to preserve the setting of the Grade 2 building as it could not be seen from Manor Close. Councillor Petchey reminded the Panel that the ‘setting’ was the whole site and should be viewed holistically and the fact it could not be seen from one aspect was not good reason to allow something that was detrimental to the setting as a whole.
20 JUNE 2019
(34) The Senior Conservation Officer confirmed that the Council had a duty to consider protecting not just the fabric of a listed building but also its setting, it was correct to consider the garden as part of the setting even though it was not part of the public domain. Development in the proposed location could intrude on the setting of the listed building to its detriment. It was not wholly relevant whether it was visible from the public domain. Further it was his view that the proposed design of the extension would draw the eye away from the Cottage and cause significant harm to the setting of the Cottage. On being put to the vote the motion to refuse the application for the reason stated above was carried with three members voting in favour of the motion and two against. RESOLVED – That the application be refused as the proposed extension is unacceptable by reason of its size, design, flat green roof and choice of external materials. It would result in an intrusive and incongruous built form and appearance, which would be out of keeping with and would not preserve nor enhance the character, appearance and historic and architectural interest of this Grade II Listed Building. It would significantly and detrimentally contrast with the historic design of the Grade II listed building and be of an intrusive appearance within its setting. The proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the setting and special interest of the listed building, which would not be outweighed by any public benefit, as required by paragraph 196 of the NPPF (2019). The proposals would be contrary to policy HE1 of the adopted Plan: MK (2019), Section 16 of the NPPF (2019) and Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. In addition, it is considered that the listed building and its current setting make a positive contribution to the character of the Milton Keynes Village Conservation Area. As such it is considered that the proposed extension by reason of its size, form, design and external treatment would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the Milton Keynes Village Conservation Area and would be contrary to section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) and policy HE1 of the adopted Plan: MK (2019).
20 JUNE 2019
(35)
19/00675/LBC LISTED BUILDING CONSENT FOR THE DEMOLITION OF SINGLE-STOREY LEAN-TO EXTENSION AND CONSTRUCTION OF A FAMILY ROOM, REAR PORCH AND BOOT- ROOM AS A SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION IN THE BACK GARDEN AT IVY COTTAGE, WILLEN ROAD, MILTON KEYNES VILLAGE, MILTON KEYNES FOR MR & MRS D ADAMS. The Panel took account of the introduction presented for application 19/00674/FUL and the comments from the objectors. Councillor Bint, seconded by Councillor Brown, proposed that the officer recommendation to refuse the application as the proposed extension is unacceptable by reason of its size, design, flat green roof and choice of external materials. It would result in an intrusive and incongruous built form and appearance, which would be out of keeping with and would not preserve nor enhance the character, appearance and historic and architectural interest of this Grade II Listed Building. It would significantly and detrimentally contrast with the historic design of the Grade II listed building and be of an intrusive appearance within its setting. The proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the setting and special interest of the listed building, which would not be outweighed by any public benefit, as required by paragraph 196 of the NPPF (2019). The proposals would be contrary to policy HE1 of the adopted Plan: MK (2019), Section 16 of the NPPF (2019) and Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. On being put to the vote the motion to refuse the application for the reason stated above was carried with three members of the Panel voting in favour and two against. RESOLVED – That Listed Building Consent be refused as the proposed extension is unacceptable by reason of its size, design, flat green roof and choice of external materials. It would result in an intrusive and incongruous built form and appearance, which would be out of keeping with and would not preserve nor enhance the character, appearance and historic and architectural interest of this Grade II Listed Building. It would significantly and detrimentally contrast with the historic design of the Grade II listed building and be of an intrusive
20 JUNE 2019
(36) appearance within its setting. The proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the setting and special interest of the listed building, which would not be outweighed by any public benefit, as required by paragraph 196 of the NPPF (2019). The proposals would be contrary to policy HE1 of the adopted Plan: MK (2019), Section 16 of the NPPF (2019) and Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. 19/00700/FUL RE-CONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING CURTILAGE BARN AS SINGLE-STOREY ANNEXE TO IVY COTTAGE AT IVY COTTAGE, WILLEN ROAD, MILTON KEYNES VILLAGE, MILTON KEYNES FOR MR & MRS D ADAMS. The Planning Officer introduced the application with a presentation and confirmed that the recommendation remained to refuse the application due to the failure of the applicant to submit sufficient and adequate supporting information to meet the requirements of sub clauses 1 and 2, sub- paragraph B of policy HE1 of the adopted Plan: MK (2019), the application is unacceptable as it fails to determine whether the curtilage listed barn outbuilding at Ivy Cottage is of any historic significance. Therefore, this prevents a full assessment of the extent to which the development proposals would harm the potential significance of the curtilage listed outbuilding and in consequence the impact, if any, on the character and/or appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting of the Grade II Listed Building. The principle of the removal and reconstruction of the barn has not therefore been established. For the above reasons the proposal would be contrary to policy HE1 of the adopted Plan: MK (2019), Section 16 of the NPPF (2019) and Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Councillor Crooks asked that his comments in respect of applications 19/00674/FUL and 19/00675/LBC be taken into account. The applicant’s agent stated that the reason this application was being recommended for refusal was that the Conservation Officers were seeking to determine whether the barn was of historical significance, he stated that the barn was in effect simply a garden timber ‘shack’, it was in poor condition with rotting wood. It was incapable of being used for anything other than occasional garden storage. He further stated that the proposal was to restore it using some of the original timber and to a standard 20 JUNE 2019
(37) where it could be used for additional accommodation, and provide screening for the cottage from Manor Close. It was further commented that should the Panel want further details of the shed the owners were happy to provide a survey and photographic records in its current condition. The Planning Officer reminded the Panel that the fact it was in a state of disrepair did not detract from its historical significance, and it was the fact that information requested had not been provided that had resulted in the recommendation to refuse the application at this stage. The Senior Conservation Officer confirmed that despite the structure being described as a ‘garden shed’, historical data indicates that it has been in situ since at least 1900 – 1910, furthermore no photographs of the interior have been provided. He further stated that he had recognised that there were some timber framing techniques which were not of the type in mass produced 20th century structures of a similar nature. The structure was therefore potentially an example of timber framing of the 19th century. It should also be noted that it was part of the setting of the listed building (Ivy Cottage) and the Conservation area. The Panel heard that the policy required the application to submit an analytical interpretation, with evidence, of the kind of building that it was and that the Senior Conservation Officer held a concern that that information had not been forthcoming and the fundamental question was not answered at this time, and therefore any decision to approve would be made in the context of a lack of information. The Chair commented that it was the obligation of the Council to determine an application as it is received and if further information had not been forthcoming the determination had to be made on that which was available. The Deputy Development Management Manager confirmed that a lack of information was itself justification to refuse an application. Councillor Bint stated that in light of the absence of any objections to the application he saw merit in seeking the information required to enable a considered determination, the Planning Officer reminded the Panel that the Parish Council had lodged an objection to the application. Members of the Panel considered the merits of deferring the determination of the application to
20 JUNE 2019
(38) allow the information to be provided. The Planning Officer confirmed that he had requested it of the agents but the submitted documentation did not provide the specific information requested, but rather a structural report on the integrity of the building. Councillor Petchey stated that he did not support any form of adjournment as the principle that a developer provide information was established some 30 years ago in the field of heritage data and in this case not complied with. Councillor Bint proposed that a short adjournment be had to seek the information from the agent who was present; the proposal did not get a seconder. Councillor Bint proposed that the Officer recommendation be agreed, this was seconded by Councillor Brown. On being put to the vote the motion to refuse the application for the reason stated above was carried with three members voting in favour and two against. RESOLVED – That the application be refused due to the failure of the applicant to submit sufficient and adequate supporting information to meet the requirements of sub clauses 1 and 2, sub-paragraph B of policy HE1 of the adopted Plan: MK (2019), the application is unacceptable as it fails to determine whether the curtilage listed barn outbuilding at Ivy Cottage is of any historic significance. Therefore, this prevents a full assessment of the extent to which the development proposals would harm the potential significance of the curtilage listed outbuilding and in consequence the impact, if any, on the character and/or appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting of the Grade II Listed Building. The principle of the removal and reconstruction of the barn has not therefore been established. For the above reasons the proposal would be contrary to policy HE1 of the adopted Plan: MK (2019), Section 16 of the NPPF (2019) and Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. 19/00701/LBC LISTED BUILDING CONSENT FOR THE RE- CONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING CURTILAGE BARN AS SINGLE-STOREY ANNEXE TO IVY COTTAGE AT IVY COTTAGE, WILLEN ROAD, MILTON KEYNES VILLAGE, MILTON KEYNES FOR MR & MRS D ADAMS. The Panel took account of the introduction
20 JUNE 2019
(39) presented for application 19/00674/FUL and the comments from the objectors. Councillor Bint, seconded by Councillor Brown, proposed that the officer recommendation to refuse the application due to the failure of the applicant to submit sufficient and adequate supporting information to meet the requirements of sub clauses 1 and 2, sub-paragraph B of policy HE1 of the adopted Plan: MK (2019), the application is unacceptable as it fails to determine whether the curtilage listed barn outbuilding at Ivy Cottage is of any historic significance. Therefore, this prevents a full assessment of the extent to which the development proposals would harm the potential significance of the curtilage listed outbuilding and in consequence the impact, if any, on the character and/or appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting of the Grade II Listed Building. The principle of the removal and reconstruction of the barn has not therefore been established. For the above reasons the proposal would be contrary to policy HE1 of the adopted Plan: MK (2019), Section 16 of the NPPF (2019) and Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. On being put to the vote the motion to refuse the application for the reason stated above was carried with three members voting in favour and two against. RESOLVED – That the Listed building Consent be refused due to the failure of the applicant to submit sufficient and adequate supporting information to meet the requirements of sub clauses 1 and 2, sub-paragraph B of policy HE1 of the adopted Plan: MK (2019), the application is unacceptable as it fails to determine whether the curtilage listed barn outbuilding at Ivy Cottage is of any historic significance. Therefore, this prevents a full assessment of the extent to which the development proposals would harm the potential significance of the curtilage listed outbuilding and in consequence the impact, if any, on the character and/or appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting of the Grade II Listed Building. The principle of the removal and reconstruction of the barn has not therefore been established. For the above reasons the proposal would be contrary to policy HE1 of the adopted Plan: MK (2019), Section 16 of the NPPF (2019) and Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
20 JUNE 2019
(40)
THE CHAIR CLOSED THE MEETING AT 8:45 PM
20 JUNE 2019
(41) ITEM 6
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
01 AUGUST 2019
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
(42) Glossary of Planning Application Suffixes Suffix Description ADV Advert Application ADVMK Advertisement on Council Land AFF Affordable Housing Agreement Amendment CLUE Certificate of Lawful Use (Existing) CLUP Certificate of Lawful Use (Proposed) CON Conservation Area Consent CONINF Major Infrastructure Application CONMK Conservation Area Consent Council Application CONS Consultations From Adjoining Authorities DISCON Discharge of Conditions FUL Full Application FULEIS Full Application - Environmental Impact FULMMA Minor Material Amendment FULR3 Regulation 3 Application HAZ_D Hazardous Substance (Deemed Consent) HAZ_EX Hazardous Substance (Express Consent) HNOMK Hedgerow Notification Council Land LBC Listed Building Consent MIN Minerals Application MINMK Minerals and Waste Application Council NMA Non Material Amendments NOTAGR Agricultural Notification NOTDEM Demolition Notification NOTECC Ecclesiastical Exemption Notification NOTTEL Telecom Notification NOTTMK Telecoms Notification - MK Council Land OUT Outline OUTEIS Outline PP - Environmental Impact Statement PANA1C Prior - Retail/Sui Generis to Residential (C3) PANAGC Prior - Agricultural (AG) to Residential (C3) PANAGF Prior - Agricultural (AG) to Flexible Use (FL) PANB1C Prior - Office (B1) to Residential (C3) PANOTH Prior - Other Prior Notifications PANSOL Prior - Solar/Photovoltaic Panels PANVSC Prior - Various use (V) to School/Nursery (SCN) PIP Planning In Principle REM Reserved Matters TCA Tree in Conservation Area TCAMK Work to Trees in a CA Council Land TPO Tree Preservation Order
(43)
ITEM 6(a)
Application Number: 19/01357/REM
Description Reserved matters application following 15/02337/OUT for internal access, appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale for Phase One (west side) comprising 79 residential units
At Land North And West of Wavendon Business Park, Ortensia Drive, Milton Keynes, Wavendon Gate, MK17 8LX
For Abbey Development Ltd
Statutory Target: 22/08/2019
Extension of Time: No
Ward: Wavendon Parish: Wavendon Parish Council
Report Author/Case Officer: Elizabeth Verdegem Senior Planning Officer
Contact Details: 01908 252462 [email protected]
Team Manager: Niko Grigoropoulos Interim Development Management Manager [email protected]
1.0 RECOMMENDATION
1.1 It is recommended that permission is granted subject to conditions set out in this report and completion of a S106 agreement.
2.0 INTRODUCTION
The Site
2.1 The application site is an approximately 3.26 hectare parcel of land which forms approximately the western half of the site with outline permission for 134 dwellings under 15/02337/OUT. The small part of the north-eastern section of the site is located within the Strategic Land Allocation (SLA), and the site is identified as part of Housing Allocation HS115 in Plan:MK. The site is mostly woodland, and an extended parking area for the business park to the south.
2.2 The site lies directly to the north of Wavendon Business Park and to the east of Ortensia Drive. Beyond Ortensia Drive to the west is the residential area known as Wavendon Gate. To the north and north-east of the site is land for which residential
(44)
development has been approved (ref: 17/03205/OUT to the north and 15/02768/OUT and 17/03283/REM to the north-east). To the east of the site there is the remaining area of the field with outline permission (ref: 15/02337/OUT) in the control of the applicant, beyond which is The Stables music venue. The Stables is an established live music venue with two stages, dining and conference facilities. Events are held daily on the site along with over 400 concerts a year, as well as educational sessions, and it is licenced until 2am.
The Proposal
2.3 The application seeks reserved matters approval for 79 houses on the west half of the site. The proposal includes associated works including car parking, landscaping, including an area on the eastern side of the site for ecological mitigation and drainage features.
2.4 No information regarding noise, either assessment or proposed attenuation, was submitted as part of this application.
2.5 A summary of the proposed accommodation is as follows:
Type of house Number of Number of Market Number of Affordable Units Units Units 2-bed flat 33 (41.8%) 9 24 2-bed house 6 (7.6%) 6 - 3-bed house 33 (41.8%) 27 6 4-bed house 6(7.6%) 6 - 5-bed house 1 (1.3%) 1 - Total 79 49 market (62.0%) 30 affordable (38.0%) dwellings
Reason for referral to committee
2.6 The application has been referred to committee as a result of a call-in from Cllr Hopkins..
Scope of debate/decision
2.7 This application proposal is for all the reserved matters (access, appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale) of Phase 1 (west side) of the site, which has outline permission for up to 134 units under 15/02337/OUT. The proposal should be considered with the knowledge that the site already has reserved matters approval for the whole site of 134 dwellings.
2.8 For clarity, reference to “the site” within this report will refer to the red line application boundary of this western half/Phase 1 application only.
(45)
3.0 RELEVANT POLICIES
National Policy
3.1 National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019)
Section 2 - Achieving sustainable development Section 5 - Delivering a sufficient supply of homes Section 8 - Promoting healthy and safe communities Section 9 - Promoting sustainable transport Section 11 - Making effective use of land Section 12 - Achieving well-designed places
In addition, the Planning Practice Guidance is also a material consideration
The Development Plan
3.2 Neighbourhood Plan
Wavendon Parish Council has an agreed neighbourhood plan area. However, there is no draft neighbourhood plan at this time.
3.3 Plan: MK (March 2019)
The Council received the Inspector’s final report into Plan: MK and concluded that Plan:MK, as amended by main modifications, is sound and provides an appropriate basis for the planning of the Borough up to 2031. The plan was taken to Cabinet (5 March) and Council (20 March) for approval and adoption. Plan:MK was adopted at Council on 20 March 2019 and now forms part of the statutory development plan for Milton Keynes, and includes the Policies Map that indicates land use in the Borough.
Policy DS1 - Settlement Hierarchy Policy DS2 - Housing Strategy Policy SD1 - Place making principles for development Policy SD11 - General principles for strategic urban extension Policy HN1 - Housing mix and density Policy HN2 - Affordable housing Policy HN4 - Amenity, accessibility and adaptability of homes Policy CT1 - Sustainable transport network Policy CT2 - Movement and access Policy CT3 - Walking and cycling Policy CT5 - Public transport Policy CT10 - Parking Provision Policy INF1 - Delivering Infrastructure Policy FR1 - Managing flood risk Policy NE1 - Protection of sites Policy NE2 - Protected species and priority species and habitats Policy NE3 - Biodiversity and geological enhancement Policy NE4 - Green infrastructure
(46)
Policy NE5 - Conserving and enhancing landscape character Policy NE6 - Environmental Pollution Policy HE1 - Heritage and development Policy L2 - Protection of open space and existing facilities Policy L4 - Public open space provision in new estates Policy D1 - Design a high quality place Policy D2 - Creating a positive character Policy D3 - Design of buildings Policy D4 - Amenity and street scene Policy SC1 - Sustainable construction
3.4 Supplementary Planning Documents/Guidance
Parking Standards SPD (January 2016) New Residential Development Design Guide (April 2012) Affordable Housing SPD (March 2013) Sustainable Construction Guide SPD (April 2007) Milton Keynes Drainage Strategy - Development and Flood Risk SPG (May 2004)
3.5 Human Rights Act 1998
There may be implications under Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol regarding the right of respect for a person's private and family life and home, and to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. However, these potential issues are in this case amply covered by consideration of the environmental impact of the application under the policies of the development plan and other relevant policy guidance.
4.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 Relevant Pre-application Advice
None
4.2 Application Site
15/00983/EIASCR Screening opinion request for proposed residential development on land to provide upto 134 Units together with access from Ortensia Drive EIA not required19.05.2015
15/02337/OUT Outline application for up to 134 residential units, 75-100 sqm of A1 (retail use) for the provision of a local convenience store with access from Ortensia Drive and the land north of the site, with associated landscaping, infrastructure and ancillary works PER 08.02.2017
18/01304/REM
(47)
Reserved matters application for internal access, appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale for 134 residential units, 100 sqm of A1 (retail use) PER 11.04.2019
18/01305/DISCON Details submitted pursuant to discharge of condition 7 (Archaeological Field Evaluation), 8 (Finished Floor Levels), condition 9 (Flood Risk Assesment), condition 10 (Surface Water Disposal), condition 12 (Storm Water Drainage), condition 13 (Foul Water Drainage), condition 14 (Car and Cycle Parking), condition 15 (Construction Access), condition 19 (Open Space Specification), condition 20 (Landscaping Scheme), condition 21 (Tree Protection), condition 23 (Biodiversity Features), condition 24 (Boundary Treatments), condition 25 (Lighting Scheme), condition 27 (Sustainability Statement) and Condition 28 (Broadband Provision) attached to planning permission 15/02337/OUT. WDN 27.07.2018
18/01631/CONS Design Code application pursuant to outline permission at Land North And West of Wavendon Business Park. PER 13.12.2018
19/01200/DISCON Details submitted pursuant to discharge of condition 24 (Newt Compensation) attached to planning permission 18/01304/REM CDIS 09.05.2019
19/01521/DISCON Details submitted pursuant to discharge of condition 4 (Estate Road Details), condition 5 (Redway), condition 9 (Floor and Ground Levels), condition 17 (Boundary Treatments) and condition 22 (Protected Species Survey) attached to planning permission 18/01304/REM Pending Consideration
19/01559/DISCON Details submitted pursuant to discharge of condition 6 (Phasing Plan), condition 7 (Archaeological Evaluation), condition 8 (Floor Ground Levels), condition 10 (Surface Water Disposal), 12 (Storm Water Drainage) and 13 (Foul Water Drainage), condition 15 (External Works Construction Details), condition 16 (Construction and Delivery Plan) and 29 (Construction Traffic Management Plan & Delivery Plan), condition 19 (Open Space Specification) condition 23 (Open Space & Biodiversity), condition 27 (Sustainability) and condition 28 (Broadband Infrastructure) attached to planning permission 15/02337/OUT Pending Consideration
4.3 Sites to the north
17/03205/OUT Outline planning application (with all matters reserved except access arrangements from Groveway) for residential development (C3) for up to 150 homes, public open
(48)
space, sustainable urban drainage, and associated landscaping, infrastructure and ancillary works PER 06.09.2018
15/02768/OUT Outline application for the construction of up to 240 dwellings with garaging; parking; public open space; landscaping; new vehicular and pedestrian accesses; highway works, foul and surface water drainage infrastructure and all ancillary works PER 14.09.2017
17/03283/REM Reserved matters application for the construction of up to 240 dwellings with garaging; parking; public open space; landscaping; new vehicular and pedestrian accesses; highway works, foul and surface water drainage infrastructure and all ancillary works and the discharge of conditions 6 (phasing), 9 (levels), 14 (parking and manoeuvring), 15 (construction and delivery plan), 18 (open space specification), 19 (landscaping scheme), 22 (species survey reports), 23 (boundary treatment), 24 (lighting), 25 (crime prevention), 26 (sustainability), 27 (construction management plan), 30 (landscape and ecological mitigation plan) and 32 (broadband connections) pursuant to outline planning permission 15/02768/OUT. PER 28.02.2018
18/02461/REM Reserved matters application pursuant to outline planning permission 15/02768/OUT for approval of landscaping scheme. PER 04.01.2019
18/03056/REM Reserved matters application for the appearance of 49 plots with associated amendments to prior approved parking; landscaping and boundary treatment plans following grant of planning permission 15/02768/OUT PER 22.03.2019
5.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Wavendon Parish Council
Objects to the application, in agreement with Cllr Hopkins.
5.2 Cllr David Hopkins – Danesborough & Walton
Refers application to DCC. Considers that granting approval for the western half of the site would leave The Stables with fewer protections than were applied to the full reserved matters application. Requests that the acoustic measures previously agreed, and the Deed of Easement be applied. States that the applicant should have made reference to the existing reserved matters permission, and provided further noise survey work that references The Stables position.
(49)
5.3 Cllr Victoria Hopkins – Danesborough & Walton
No comments received
5.4 Cllr Alice Jenkins – Danesborough & Walton
No comments received
5.5 MKC Urban Design
No objection, requests some minor amendments to boundary treatments and amenity space.
5.6 MKC Landscape Architect
Requests that levels, tree protection, landscaping plans, boundary treatments and ecology enhancement, and specific Poplar tree works be secured by condition. States that the Local Play Area (in Phase 2) should be secured by condition or legal agreement.
5.7 MKC Landscape Services (Trees)
No comments received.
5.8 MKC Highways
No comments to make – comments on previous reserved matters application stand.
5.9 MKC Environmental Health
No comments to make given the lack of information regarding noise.
5.10 MKC Countryside Officer
“States that net gains in biodiversity likely to be achieved, but that this should be supported by a Biodiversity Impact Assessment Metric to show this quantifiably. Requests that a site plan be included in the biodiversity enhancement scheme to show net gain.”
5.11 MKC Countryside Officer (GCN)
Development is acting under a District Licence for Great Crested Newts. Requires submission of the relevant documentation to secure by condition.
5.12 MKC Flood and Water Management (LLFA)
States that design detail of the drainage can be addressed by condition. Would like to see justification for the type of drainage scheme proposed, and the calculations used.
(50)
5.13 MKC Archaeology
No comments received.
5.14 Anglian Water
Considers that dwellings within 15 metres of the pumping station are at risk of nuisance and that there should be no development within 15 metre of the pumping station. No concerns regarding waste water connection that can’t be addressed by the existing conditions on the outline permission. No concerns regsrding surface water drainage.
5.15 Berks, Bucks and Oxon Wildlife Trust
Objects on ground og net loss of biodiversity. No metric has been provided and the layout alters from the outline permission. Suggests payment via S106 to compensate for this loss.
5.16 Crime Prevention Design Advisor
No comments received.
5.17 Neighbour/ Third Party Representations
Comments have been received from approximately 850 addresses. A petition has also been received, organised by representatives of The Stables, which is stated to contain approximately 21,000 signatures. The material planning considerations are summarised below:
Concern that building houses in this location will cause complaints from future occupants, which will lead to the closure of The Stables; and Concern that this application contains no supporting information regarding noise and proposes no suitable noise mitigation, including a deed of easement.
6.0 MAIN ISSUES
Principle of development Highway matters and parking Impact on character of the area Impact on Heritage Assets Design Residential amenity Landscape Ecology Drainage and flood risk Sustainable construction S106 matters
(51)
7.0 CONSIDERATIONS
Principle of development
7.1 Under 15/02337/OUT outline consent was granted for up to 134 residential units, 75-100 sqm of A1 (retail use) for the provision of a local convenience store with access from Ortensia Drive and the land north of the site, with associated landscaping, infrastructure and ancillary works. The principle of development at this site has therefore already been established.
Highway matters and parking
7.2 Plan:MK policies CT1 and CT2 require the decision maker to have particular regard to any additional traffic generation a development may cause and the resulting impact on the surrounding road network/parking provision/access. In addition, the Milton Keynes adopted Parking Standards SPD sets out the development related parking standards for Milton Keynes and should be read in conjunction with these policies.
7.3 Highways Officers have no comments on this proposal, given their comments on the previous reserved matters for the whole site. Comments received at that time, regarding the layout did not require any amendments to junctions on this half of the site. A pre-commencement condition is already applied to the outline approval (condition 15 of 15/02337/OUT) for details of the access (from Ortensia Drive), but it does not clarify that details of the estate road are required. The appropriate condition is therefore to be applied.
Vehicle Access, Redway and Pedestrian Links
7.4 The development will take its principal pedestrian and vehicular access from Ortensia Drive as per the approved access drawing under the outline consent. At this junction with Ortensia Drive the pedestrian and Redway access will run north from the approved access and cross Ortensia Drive at a new refuge (as per the approved access drawing), to link in to the existing Redway on the west of Ortensia Drive. A pedestrian link from this junction will run south on the east side of Ortensia Dive to link to the south. All of the above was approved at the outline stage and secured through conditions and the S106 agreement.
7.5 The Redway, as indicated in the outline masterplan, is proposed on the north side of the primary vehicular route through the site, from the junction with Ortensia Drive, to the northern boundary access. On comments from the previous reserved matters application Highways Officers were supportive of the provision of the Redway, although noted that the link through the northern boundary does not currently link to a Redway on the adjacent site to the north, as there is no Redway proposed on that site (permitted under 17/03283/REM), although it does feature separate pedestrian and cycle links from the site to the surrounding roads.
7.6 Highways Officers previously requested further details of the Redway connection with Ortensia Drive, and the construction of the link to the existing Redway within adopted highway land will require the developer to enter into a S278 Highways
(52)
Agreement, (as the existing Redway is on the west side of Ortensia Drive). Details of the Redway layout and connections will otherwise be required by condition.
7.7 With these details secured the overall road layout, access and junctions are considered acceptable and compliant with policies CT1, CT2, CT3 of Plan:MK.
Parking
7.8 As shown in the table below there is an l overprovision of unallocated parking on the site (9 spaces), although it should be noted that 7 of these spaces are in laybys to the north-east of the site, and are likely to ultimately more directly relate to the Phase 2/eastern development, should it come forward. However, they are shown on the site layout as they relate directly to the access road to the north-east and the proposal complies with Parking Standards even if these spaces are discounted. Cycle parking for the apartments is included within the apartment buildings, and each house includes a garage or shed to provide cycle space. The parking plan for the houses is therefore considered acceptable.
7.9 A summary of the car parking on the site is included below:
Parking Standards Provided Requirement - Zone 3 House No of Allocated Unallocated Allocated Unallocated Type units Visitor Tandem Visitor Tandem 2-bed 33 0.75 per 1 per unit flat unit n/a n/a (33 total) (24.75) 125 2-bed 6 0.25 per 2 per unit allocated house unit (12 total) spaces (1.5) 54 visitor 0.5 per across the 12 3-bed 33 0.5 per spaces 2 per unit instance site in unallocate house unit across (66 total) of accordance d spaces (16.5) the site tandem with the provided 4-bed 6 2 per unit 0.5 per parking standards across the house (12 total) unit (3) (10.5) for each plot site 5-bed 1 0.5 per 2 per unit (2 house unit total) (0.5) Total 125 57 unallocated 125 66 unallocated spaces s allocated spaces (46.25 + allocated spaces 10.5) spaces Site 182 spaces required across the 191 spaces provided across the Total site site
7.10 Therefore, with conditions imposed as described above, it is considered that the proposal will comply with Plan:MK polices CT1, CT2 and CT3 in providing accessible travel options and ensuring highway safety, and policy CT10 in complying with the Parking Standards SPD and providing adequate parking for the development.
(53)
Impact on character of the area
7.11 Plan:MK policies D1, D2, D3, D5, and HN1, along with the Residential Design Guide seek high quality design and appropriate density that relates well to the surrounding area, with a high level of residential amenity and aim to design out opportunities for crime. In addition, section 12 of the NPPF and in particular paragraph 127 provides guidance in respect of design considerations for development.
7.12 Design code details have been submitted and approved under planning ref 18/01631/CONS. The Design Code sets the framework for which future reserved matters applications should be implemented. It aims to explain and develop the urban design approach, movement principles, street hierarchies, open space, detailing and security principles to be applied to the detailed designs. The Design Code seeks to control the design of development aspects that are considered necessary to achieve a high quality place, ensuring flexibility within individual parcels whilst a coherent identity across the site is achieved. It is also intended to form a material consideration in the determination of future reserved matters applications by establishing an agreed set of rules to achieve a high quality environment.
7.13 As a large part of the wider outline site sits within the Strategic Land Allocation (SLA) area, which will be a separate neighbourhood from Wavendon and Wavendon Gate, the scheme for this site has been designed to reference the character of the new neighbourhood and not that of the existing neighbourhoods. The Council’s Urban Design Officer is content that this has been proposed on site, and that the scheme complies with the approved Design Code. The case officer agrees.
7.14 The SLA includes a Green Buffer in the Plan:MK proposals map and detailed in Plan:MK policy SD7. The Green Buffer covers the area to the east of the site (the field between the site and the Stables), as well as The Stables and the land north of Wavendon village to maintain separation between the village and the SLA area. The Green Buffer is not affected by this proposal.
7.15 On this basis, it is considered that the proposed style and layout of the development is appropriate within this context. It is therefore concluded that the design of the development would be acceptable and would comply with policies HN1, D1, D2, D3 and the Residential Design Guide.
Impact on Heritage Assets
7.16 The site is to the north-west of Wavendon, which contains five Grade II listed buildings, and one Grade II* listed building (Church of St Mary). The closet of the listed buildings is over 320 metres to the east of the closest building on the site, with other buildings, including The Stables, and the landscape buffer between them. It is therefore considered that the development will not have any impact on any designated heritage assets. In addition any archaeological investigations have
(54)
been covered through conditions on the outline permission. It is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of Plan:MK policy HE1.
Design and Layout
7.17 As discussed above in the section on Character of the Area, it is considered that the development consists of appropriately designed houses, which relate well to the approved adjacent schemes. The Council’s Urban Design Officers are overall content with the proposal. A materials plan has been provided which is considered acceptable and will be secured through the approved plans. The proposal includes landscaped area, quality public realm, legibility through the development and a well-designed layout and it is considered that the proposal therefore complies with Plan:MK policies D1, D2 and D3.
7.18 Some final minor amendments have been requested, including changes to the boundaries of plots 36, 59-60 and 74-75 to improve the public realm. Those changes would not fundamentally change the proposed development, and it considered that these can be dealt with by way of Landscaping and Boundary Treatments conditions.
7.19 The gross density of the site is 24.23 dwellings per hectare (79 dwellings across a 3.26 ha site, taking into account all ancillary development including the open space. The net density of the site is calculated at approximately 42 dwellings per hectare (when not counting the larger landscape buffers). This is considered appropriate given that Plan:MK policy HN1 states that “net densities of proposals for 11 or more new dwellings should balance making efficient use of land with respecting the surrounding character and context” , and an important aim of the NPPF is making an efficient use of land.
7.20 The proposal includes a range and mix of housing types and tenures, including 38.0% affordable units. Policy HN2 of Plan:MK states that proposals for more than 11 homes should provide 31% affordable housing, and 30% affordable was agreed at the outline stage. It is noted that the higher proportion of affordable housing is due this being Phase 1 of the site, and securing the proportionate delivery of the affordable housing is secured through the S106 agreement associated with the outline permission. On balance, the amount of affordable housing provided as part of this scheme is therefore considered acceptable.
7.21 The dwellings range from 2 bed flats to 5 bed houses. 41.8% of the units are 3-bed houses, of which 22.2% of those are affordable units, which reflects the housing market need for both private and affordable units being predominantly for 3-bed homes, (47% of market need is for 3-bed homes, 38% of affordable housing need is for 3-bed homes, according to the latest Milton Keynes Strategic Housing Market Assessment). 20% of the affordable units on site are 3-bed houses, which is lower greater than the need across the borough. However, it is noted that more 3-bed affordable houses were originally included on the eastern part of the site, and as above, the proportionate delivery of affordable housing is secured through the S106 agreement. Overall, it is considered that the mix of homes proposed includes an appropriate variety of type and tenure and is therefore in accordance with Plan:MK
(55)
policy HN1 and HN2 which seeks that proposal should incorporate a range of house sizes and types.
Residential amenity
7.22 Plan:MK policy D5 and the guidance in the New Residential Design Guide seek to ensure that the amenity of existing and future residents will not be compromised, thus reflecting the requirements of Paragraph 17 of the NPPF.
7.23 It is considered that the layout complies with the Residential Design Guide in terms of separation distances, access to sunlight, and amenity space. The spaces provided for each dwelling also comply with the National Scribed Space Standards and therefore Plan:MK Policy HN4. Public amenity space is distributed appropriately through the site. A LEAP was required on this site and it is proposed that the eastern buffer contains a Locally Equipped Area of Play (LEAP), which will be discussed in the landscape section below, to serve the development and for compliance with policy.
7.24 The development proposal otherwise accords with the requirement of policy D5 and the New Residential Design Guide SPD in terms of distances between dwellings and garden provision. It is therefore considered acceptable.
Noise
7.25 Paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 states that:
“…planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities (such as places of worship, pubs, music venues and sports clubs). Existing businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established. Where the operation of an existing business or community facility could have a significant adverse effect on new development (including changes of use) in its vicinity, the applicant (or ‘agent of change’) should be required to provide suitable mitigation before the development has been completed.”
7.26 The Council therefore has a duty to ensure that all appropriate, reasonable and proportionate measures have been taken to safeguard The Stales as the existing music facility. The Stables’ concern is that the impact of noise from their events could have a negative impact on residential amenity, which could lead to noise complaints from future occupiers, and could lead to an impact on The Stables premises licence and ultimately its closure.
7.27 It should be noted that this application is only for dwellings on the west half of the wider site, with the closest houses situated 250 metres to the west of The Stables building. There is therefore existing housing in Wavendon that is closer to The Stables than these proposed houses (approx. 40 houses around Walton Road/Stockwell Lane junction), 17 houses permitted to the south of The Stables (18/01306/REM) and around 40 houses permitted to the north which are within 250 metres of The Stables building, the closest being 150 metres away
(56)
(17/03283/REM). There are therefore around 100 houses which are, or will be, closer to The Stables than those proposed as part of this application. None of these existing or proposed houses have any noise mitigation.
7.28 The applicant has provided no noise assessment in support of this application, and suggested no noise mitigation measures to address these concerns. It is therefore not clear what noise impact there would be on future residents of these 79 houses, given that there would only be an open field between them and The Stables building. However, it is clear that if this application were to be permitted and built as submitted, without the eastern half of the site coming forward, there would be none of the noise mitigation that had been previously secured for the site, with just an open field between The Stables and the closest future occupants. In contrast the houses within Wavendon to the south of The Stables, and the permitted houses to the north (17/03283/REM) have trees and mature hedgerow forming some separation between them and The Stables.
7.29 Therefore, given that this proposal could come forward without the eastern half of the site, it is considered appropriate to reapply conditions to require the physical noise mitigation measures on the eastern boundary, on land within the applicant’s control, to secure some acoustic mitigation and avoid the completely open field between the houses and The Stables. The previously approved landform/earthworks and acoustic fence on the eastern boundary will therefore be secured by condition.
7.30 In terms of the other mitigation that was previously secured, the 30 metre buffer zone cannot be repeated as the open field itself is effectively a buffer for this development. It is also not considered appropriate to require the high specification glazing that was previously agreed on the eastern half of the site, on this application. As noted above there are at least 70 other existing or proposed houses that are closer to The Stables without this requirement.
7.31 In addition, it is noted that a condition was applied to the previous reserved matters application for a Deed of Easement, a legal agreement to be applied within the individual covenants for future homeowners to prevent any private noise nuisance complaints against The Stables. It is considered inappropriate to reapply this condition as part of this application for the west half of the site because there are at least 70 other existing or proposed houses that are closer to The Stables which are not subject to this requirement. The noise mitigation secured above, and distance between The Stables and these proposed dwellings are sufficient to not require any further noise mitigation.
7.32 It is therefore considered that an appropriate level of residential amenity will be maintained for the future occupiers of the site, in accordance with Policy D5 of Plan:MK, and that this complies with paragraph 182 of the NPPF in providing suitable mitigation to integrate the new development with the existing music venue.
Landscape
7.33 Collectively, Plan:MK policies D1, D2, D3, D5 and L4 seek to ensure high quality, well designed places which include planting on streets and in public open spaces.
(57)
In accordance with this policy, the applicant has submitted landscaping proposals which show the provision of soft landscape elements within areas of public realm.
7.34 The development site is largely screened from Ortensia Drive to the west, Wavendon Business Park to the south, adjacent housing parcels to the north and The Stables to the east by existing mature trees and hedgerow, the majority of which is proposed to be retained, and in most cases, enhanced on site through further planting. There are some views across the development site from the business park to the south and the neighbouring land to the east and north east. The existing vegetation provides natural screening to the site and filters views into and out of the development.
7.35 Of important consideration is that the SLA identifies the requirement for a Green Buffer to separate the development from Wavendon Village and this should be located, principally along the eastern edge of the outline site. As no development tis located in there as part of this application, this green buffer is not affected by this proposal.
7.36 On site there is a manmade pond located towards the south eastern corner which is occupied by Great Crested Newts (GCN). There are also existing badger setts located towards the north of the site. These larger open areas are proposed to be retained and enhanced from an ecological perspective, as will be discussed below in the Ecology section of the report.
7.37 The Council’s Landscape Architect has noted that the landscaping scheme and boundary treatments plan are acceptable in principle, but will require some small amendments, and therefore requests that these are secured to be approved by condition. Conditions are also requested for tree protection conditions to ensure the protection of the retained trees.
7.38 It is also noted that development of this size (79 dwellings) would require a Locally Equipped Area of Play (LEAP) which is not included in this layout. Although the Landscape Architect is content to note that it will likely come forward as part of the Phase 2 permission, its delivery needs to be secured as part of this proposal. It is therefore appropriate to require the applicant to provide the LEAP, in accordance with the timescales originally applied, on the land to the east of the site, as this is land within the applicant’s control, and this will be secured by condition.
7.39 On this basis of the above considerations and with these conditions secured, it is considered that the proposed development will provide an acceptable landscape scheme that complies with policies D1 and L4 of Plan: MK.
Ecology
7.40 The application site contains a number of trees and protected species including badger setts and GCN, and is supported by a number of assessment and appraisals in support of the preliminary work conducted at the outline stage of the application.
(58)
7.41 A Tree Protection Plan has been provided and the applicant will be required to adhere to the plan and the associated Root Protection Arrangements for existing trees on the site. There are no trees with Tree Preservation Orders on the site, although there is a veteran Poplar Tree within the north-eastern group of trees. The applicant’s Arboricultural Assessment has identified that the tree is a large mature specimen, but with failing branches, requiring removal. During the previous reserved matters application the applicant’s consultant had suggested that the location and potential ecological benefits of retaining the tree warranted reducing the crown, but retaining the tree for habitat purposes, while reducing the risk of falling branches. This approach was supported by the Countryside Officer and was secured by condition via a letter indicating the approach. This letter has not been provided as part of this submission, so will be secured by differently worded condition (requiring the details of the works to this specific tree to be submitted and approved), to achieve the same outcome.
7.42 The applicant has chosen to enter into the GCN District Licensing Scheme as a result of the potential for harm to GCN on the site, which will mitigate the impact as a result of the development in addition to the retention of the pond. The documents verifying this approach were not submitted as part of this application, and have been requested by the Council’s Countryside Officer, and will be secured by condition. In addition, a buffer zone has been established on the north of the site to accommodate the badger setts, and avoid any development in those areas. The approach to protected species is supported by the Countryside Officer.
7.43 General ecological enhancement is required via a Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy, required by condition to the outline permission (condition 23 of 15/02337/OUT). This has been submitted under 19/01559/DISCON, but has not been approved at the time of writing this report.
7.44 With the above assessments, methods of working and enhancements proposed and secured by conditions it is considered that the proposal comprises a suitable avoidance, enhancement and mitigation strategy to be in compliance with Plan:MK polices NE2 and NE3, and a resulting net gain in biodiversity as required by the NPPF.
Drainage and flood risk
7.45 Pre-commencement conditions for details of surface water drainage, as well as storm water and foul water drainage are already secured through the outline permission (condition 10, 12, and 13 of 15/02337/OUT) and it is therefore considered unnecessary to apply a condition for a drainage scheme to this proposal.
7.46 On this basis the proposal complies with policies FR1 and FR2 of the Plan: MK in that risk of flooding will not be increased on or off site and that an adequate drainage system and method of surface water disposal will be provided.
(59)
Sustainable construction
7.47 The applicant has provided a Sustainability Statement to comply with the requirements of Plan:MK policy SC1. The Statement indicates the energy efficiencies which have been included in the design of the buildings, and the location for the installation of photovoltaic panels. A carbon offsetting contribution was also included with the S106 Agreement associated with the outline application. It is therefore considered that the proposal meets the requirement of policy SC1 and is acceptable.
S106 matters
7.48 The outline site specific s106 covers subsequent detail and amendment applications and therefore this application would fall under the original s106 and no further s106 or variation is required. These contributions met the tests for obligations as outlined at paragraph 204 of the NPPF and are in accordance with CIL Regulations 122 and 123.
Other matters
7.49 Conditions on the outline permission required submission during the reserved matters phases of lighting plans, confirmation of measures to meet Secure by Design principles and infrastructure for superfast broadband. These details have not been submitted with the reserved matters application, and therefore these conditions are replicated for approval of details as part of this permission.
8.0 CONCLUSIONS
8.1 It is considered by officers that the proposal represents an acceptable scheme which balances the needs of the future occupiers and the existing adjacent land occupiers, as well as mitigating for the impact and enhancing the character, landscape and ecology of the area.
8.2 The proposed development responds to the outline planning permission, local and national policy and it is therefore recommended that planning permission is granted subject to the conditions set out below.
9.0 CONDITIONS
Outline Permission 1. Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to affect or vary the conditions imposed on outline planning permission ref. 15/02337/OUT, dated: 8th February 2017, which shall continue in full force and effect.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.
Expiration Date 2. The development hereby permitted shall begin before the expiration of two years from the date of this permission.
(60)
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 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Estate Roads Details 3. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted details of the access road, estate roads and footways shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. No dwelling shall be occupied until the estate roads and footways which provide access to it from the existing highway have been laid out and constructed in accordance with the approved details. The estate road and footways so laid out shall be retained thereafter.
Reason: To minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the development in accordance with policies CT1 and CT2 of Plan:MK (2019).
Details of the Redway 4. Prior to the commencement of the development details of the proposed Redway connection from and through the development to the existing Redway on Ortensia Drive shall be submitted to, and be approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include the section of Redway within the site that shall be maintained at 3m wide and the refuge / crossing on Ortensia Drive. No dwelling shall be occupied until the Redway and crossing have laid out and constructed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the development in accordance with policies CT1 and CT2 of Plan:MK (2019).
Cycle Parking – Apartment Provision 5. Prior to the first occupation of the apartments hereby permitted the proposed bicycle parking for the apartments, as shown on the approved drawings, shall be provided and shall be retained thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that adequate cycle parking facilities are provided to serve the development in accordance with policies CT10 of Plan:MK (2019) and the Parking Standards SPD.
Parking Spaces Implementation 6. No dwelling or building hereby permitted shall be occupied until the parking spaces, shown on the approved site layout, serving that dwelling or building have been laid out and surfaced in accordance with the plans hereby approved. The parking spaces shall be retained thereafter and only be used for the parking of vehicles.
Reason: To ensure that sufficient parking is provided to meet the needs of the development in accordance with policies CT10 of Plan:MK (2019) and the Parking Standards SPD.
(61)
Floor and Ground Levels 7. Notwithstanding the approved plans, no development shall take place until details of the proposed finished floor levels of all buildings and the finished ground levels of the site, in relation to existing site levels of surrounding property, have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved levels.
Reason: To ensure that construction is carried out at suitable levels having regard to drainage, access, the appearance of the development, the connections with the surrounding sites and the amenities of neighbouring properties in accordance with policy D1 of Plan:MK (2019).
Acoustic Fence 8. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted a scheme for the installation of an acoustic fence, on the eastern part of the land within the applicant’s control, adjacent to the boundary with The Stables, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include specification details of the acoustic fence, including exact position, height, colour, materials and details of construction, and shall show how the fence has been integrated into the landscaping. The fence shall be installed prior to the first occupation of the development, and shall be maintained on site in perpetuity thereafter.
Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of future residents from operational noise at The Stables in accordance with policy D1 and D5 of Plan:MK (2019).
Landscape Details 9. Notwithstanding the approved plans, no development shall take place above slab level until a detailed Hard and Soft Landscape Scheme has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.
These details shall include existing trees and/or hedgerows to be retained and/or removed accurately shown with root protection areas; existing and proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; visibility splays; areas of hard surfacing materials; proximity between street lights and tree planting; pedestrian access and circulation areas; play equipment, bins etc.; proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes, supports etc.); planting plans at a minimum scale of 1:200 with schedules of plants noting species, plant supply sizes and proposed densities; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with tree, plant and grass establishment); and the implementation programme.
Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and implementation programme. If within a period of two years from the date of the planting of any tree or shrub, that tree or shrub, or any tree and shrub planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted or destroyed, dies, becomes severely damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with trees and shrubs of equivalent size, species and quantity. Thereafter all landscaped open
(62)
space and public amenity areas, other than privately owned domestic gardens shall be maintained and retained on site in perpetuity.
Reason: To protect significant trees and hedgerows, safeguarding the character of the area and preserving habitat and to minimise the effect of development on the area in accordance with policy D1 of Plan:MK (2019).
Boundary Treatments 10. Notwithstanding the approved plans, no development shall take place above slab level until details of the proposed boundary treatments have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include a boundary treatment plan (at a minimum scale of 1:500) detailing the position of all proposed boundary treatment and annotated or accompanied by a schedule specifying the type, height, composition, appearance and installation method of boundary treatment throughout the site.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of each dwelling to which the boundary treatment relates, and shall thereafter be retained in that form.
For the avoidance of doubt, this condition supersedes condition 18 of the outline permission 16/02106/OUT.
Reason: To provide adequate privacy, to protect the external character and appearance of the area and to minimise the effect of development on the area in accordance with policy D1 of Plan:MK (2019).
Tree Protection 11. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted all existing trees to be retained are to be protected according to the provisions of the approved tree protection details in accordance with BS 5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction. All protective measures especially the fencing must be put in place first, prior to any other work commencing on site. The fencing shall be of the same specification and ground protection as that depicted in BS 5837:2012. Signs informing of the purpose of the fencing and warning of the penalties against destruction or damage to the trees and their root zones shall be installed at minimum intervals of 10 metres and a minimum of two signs per separate stretch of fencing. The Root Protection Area (RPA) within the protective fencing must be kept free of all construction, construction plant, machinery, personnel, digging and scraping, water-logging; changes in level, building materials and all other operations, personnel, structures, tools, storage and materials, for the duration of the construction phase. No fire shall be lit such that it is closer than 20 metres to any tree or that flames would come within 5 metres of any part of any tree.
Reason: To ensure adequate protection of existing trees either on the site or adjacent to the site boundary throughout the construction process in accordance with policies D1, NE2 and NE3 of Plan:MK (2019).
(63)
Poplar Tree 12. The Poplar tree identified as T6 in the submitted Tree Protection Plan shall be reduced, but retained on site in accordance with the Arboricultural Impact Assessment & Method Statement by ACD Environmental dated: 21st May 2019 (received 23rd May 2019).
Reason: In order to maintain priority habitats on site and ensure a net gain in biodiversity in balance with ensuring site safety for future residents in accordance with policies D1, NE2 and NE3 of Plan:MK (2019).
Eastern Buffer Details 13. Notwithstanding the approved plans, no development shall take place above slab level until details of the proposed raised land form and earthwork details on the eastern part of the land within the applicant’s control, adjacent to the boundary with The Stables, have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include levels, landscaping plans, and include plans and cross-sections that show that the natural style local play area can be accommodated in this area.
The approved scheme shall be constructed and implemented on site prior to the first occupation of the development, and maintained on site thereafter.
Reason: To ensure appropriate mitigation has been provided in this area and that the scheme can provide the natural play area as required by policy, therefore ensuring compliance with policies D1 and D5 of Plan:MK (2019).
Local Play Area Details 14. Prior to the implementation and construction of the raised land form and earthworks on the eastern part of the land within the applicant’s control, adjacent to the boundary with The Stables, a detailed scheme for a Local Play Area, in a “natural style”, which integrates with landform contouring, the proposed landscaped buffer and avoids root protection areas of retained trees and hedgerows shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Details shall include:
details of the type and location of play/recreation equipment, seating and associated structures to be situated within the play area(s); details of the surface treatment; and details of the long-term management and maintenance arrangements of the play area(s).
The approved scheme shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and completed prior to the first occupation of the development, and maintained on site thereafter. The site for the local play area shall not be used for any purpose other than as a play area.
Reason: To ensure that a natural-style play area is provided and that the scheme complies with policy D1 and L4 of Plan:MK (2019).
(64)
Protected Species Surveys 15. Within the three months prior to the commencement of the development the site shall be visited by a suitably qualified ecologist to review badger interest, and provide an updated review on the impact of badgers and their habitats. Prior to the commencement of the development the above review shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To preserve habitats and protect species and to minimise the effect of development on the area in accordance and to reduce the impact on the Open Countryside and surrounding residents from light spill in accordance with policy NE2 and D5 of Plan:MK (2019)..
Great Crested Newts Condition 1 16. The development must be delivered in accordance with the terms and conditions of Milton Keynes Council’s organisational licence (WML-OR25) and with the proposals detailed on plan ‘Impacts Plan 3, dated Oct 2018’.
Reason: In order to ensure that adverse impacts on great crested newts are adequately mitigated and to ensure that site works are delivered in full compliance with the organisational licence WML-OR25, and in accordance with policy NE2 of Plan:MK (2019).
Great Crested Newts Condition 2 17. No development (including ground investigations, site preparatory works and ground clearance) can take place until a certificate from the Delivery Partner (as set out in the District Licence WML-OR25), confirming that all necessary measures in regard to great crested newt compensation have been appropriately dealt with, has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority and the local authority has provided authorisation for the development to proceed under the district newt licence.
The Delivery Partner certificate must be submitted to this planning authority for approval prior to the commencement of the development (any on-site works which may impact on great crested newts or their habitat) hereby approved.
Reason: In order to adequately compensate for negative impacts to great crested newts in accordance with policy NE2 of Plan:MK (2019).
Great Crested Newts Condition 3 18. All site works (including ground investigations, site preparatory works, ground clearance etc.) must be carried out in accordance with best practice guidance (GCN Mitigation Principles, as set out in the District Licence WML-OR25) and using reasonable avoidance measures. In addition:
Works which will affect likely newt hibernacula may only be undertaken during the active period for amphibians. Capture methods must be used at suitable habitat features prior to ground clearance or removal of such features (i.e. hand/destructive/night searches), which may include the use of temporary amphibian fencing, to prevent newts moving onto a development site from adjacent suitable habitat, installed for the
(65)
period of the development (and removed upon completion of the development). Amphibian fencing and pitfall trapping must be undertaken at suitable habitats and features, prior to commencement of works.
Reason: In order to adequately mitigate impacts on great crested newts with policy NE2 of Plan:MK (2019).
Lighting Scheme 19. No development shall take place above slab level until a lighting scheme for all public and private areas, footpaths and parking areas has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The lighting scheme shall include details of the lights proposed, a lux plan showing maximum, minimum, average and uniformity levels, details of means of electricity supply to each light and how the lights will be managed and maintained in the future. If any lighting is required within the vicinity of current or built-in bat features, it shall be low level with baffles to direct the light away from the boxes and units, thus preventing severance of bat commuting and foraging routes. The approved scheme for each phase or part shall be implemented prior to the first use of that phase or part.
Reason: To preserve habitats and protect species and to minimise the effect of development on the area and to reduce the impact on the Open Countryside and surrounding residents from light spill in accordance with policies D5 and NE2 of Plan:MK (2019). .
Soft Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan 20. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted a Soft Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.
The plan shall be for a minimum period of 5 years, and shall include a detailed plan of the landscape features requiring management and maintenance (including biodiversity enhancement measures), a statement of long term design objectives, management responsibilities and a schedule of landscape maintenance with details of the arrangements for its implementation for all landscaped open space and public amenity areas, other than privately owned domestic gardens. The landscape management plan shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To protect significant trees and hedgerows, safeguarding the character of the area and preserving habitat and to minimise the effect of development on the area in accordance policies D1, NE2 and NE3 of Plan:MK (2019).
Secure by Design 21. The development hereby permitted shall be constructed in accordance with Secured by Design principles and each dwelling shall achieve Secured by Design accreditation (as awarded by Thames Valley Police) prior to the occupation of that dwelling.
Reason: In the interests of reducing crime and disorder in accordance policy EH7 of Plan:MK (2019). .
(66)
Superfast Broadband Infrastructure 22. Prior to the commencement of the development above slab level details of how superfast broadband infrastructures will be delivered to every household, subject to network capacity being available, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The agreed superfast broadband infrastructures shall be installed prior to the first occupation of each associated dwelling within that phase or part of the development.
Reason: To ensure that residents have access to high quality telecommunications and ICT networks in accordance policies EH7 and CT9 of Plan:MK (2019).
Sustainability Statement 23. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the proposals within the submitted ‘Sustainability Statement’ dated: 18 May 2018.
Reason: To reduce the resource consumption of the development in accordance with policy SC1 of Plan:MK (2019).
(67)
(68)
(69)
A1.0 FULL CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS
(70)
5.18 Wavendon Parish Council
“I have been requested to write to you on behalf of my Parish Council concerning the above mentioned planning application following discussion at our Parish Council meeting held on the 17th June 2019.
The letter to Milton Keynes Council dated 12th June from our Ward Councillor, David Hopkins was discussed and I can confirm that Wavendon Parish Council agrees totally with the comments and request that actions are taken to satisfactory resolved the issues raised, before this planning application is approved.
The value and viability of the Staples Theatre cannot be undermined and as a Parish Council we urge that this situation is resolved as quickly as possible.”
5.19 Cllr David Hopkins – Danesborough & Walton
“I request that as ward councillor for the Danesborough & Walton ward (in which this application sits) this matter comes before Development Control committee for consideration
“The application raises two significant planning issues.
Firstly, the approval of reserved matters for the western half of the site only would mean that the acoustic measures (e.g. landscape buffers) approved under the first reserved matters application would not need to be undertaken if the western half only were built out. The applicant has not provided any updated noise evidence to explain the noise impact on the occupiers of the ‘western half’ dwellings in the absence of these measures. This is not acceptable and the LPA should not be granting approval for the application without this information. In addition, a condition requiring the acoustic measures already authorised under the first reserved matters approval to be carried out in full prior to first occupation of any of the ‘western half dwellings’ should be imposed on any grant of this latest application.
Secondly it is disappointing that the applicant has not made any reference in this latest application to the deed of easement of noise which the Committee firmly decided should be imposed on the first reserved matters application. The condition was imposed for necessary planning control purposes and relates to “the entire development in perpetuity”. The reason given for the imposition of the condition was to “safeguard the continued operation of the Stables… and to protect the residential ament of future residents from operational noise at the Stables”.
Nothing has changed in planning terms since the first reserved matters were approved. The planning condition was lawfully imposed and its scope and purpose is clear. I am confident that Members will be concerned to ensure that no approval is granted which in any way undermined the need to protect the Stables. For that reason, I would expect and request that if the Development Control were to recommend approval for this application, a deed of easement pre-commencement condition is imposed in the same terms as under the first approval.
(71)
As a separate point, I set out in greater detail why I am requesting that the application is determined by the Committee. It is a matter of significant concern, particularly given that approval for essentially the same scheme was granted only a matter of a few weeks ago. The application has necessitated the Stables remobilising just when it had though this matter was settled. Thousands of people have now signed a petition objecting to the application and many have submitted objections directly to Milton Keynes Council planning team. The Council needs to take a firm stand on this matter and show that when it makes a decision, it will stand by it. That is the message which I will be delivering to Members and which I trust that Members will endorse.
For the same reason, and in order to avoid more time and resources being spent on this application, it would be helpful if Milton Keynes Council planning team could now confirm that it will requiring such a deed of easement for this application. The sooner the council’s position can be confirmed, the better for everyone.”
5.20 Cllr Victoria Hopkins – Danesborough & Walton
No comments received
5.21 Cllr Alice Jenkins – Danesborough & Walton
No comments received
5.22 MKC Urban Design
“In general, I consider that the proposal accords with Plan:MK design policies. However, the following areas detailed below should be addressed: Apartments on plots 1-9, 10-18 should have building entrances onto the street as well as to the parking area. Boundary treatments to the street/public realm should be brick walls. Amenity space to apartment blocks should provide private usable communal space for the residents of the apartment blocks.
Plots 1-9, 10-18 – these apartment blocks should have an entrance onto the street as well as to the parking area. Boundary treatments to the street and public realm should generally be brick walls. Plot 36, the rear boundary of plots 74-75 & the rear boundaries of plots 59-60 should be brick walls.
Paras 4.13.5-4.13.14 of the Residential Design Guide sets out the requirements for private amenity space in flatted developments. Whilst there is amenity space around the various apartment blocks, none of it appears to be private. The detailed treatment of these areas should provide usable communal private space for the residents of the apartment blocks.”
5.23 MKC Landscape Architect
“The layout albeit phase 1 only has been approved under 18/01304/REM and is therefore acceptable subject to approval of details by conditions. Previous consent
(72)
18/01304/REM attached conditions which should equally apply to this application. There is a risk that the layout may require amendment to agree the access road, estate roads and footways, matters relating to apartment access and communal amenity space raised by my urban design colleagues, etc. which will then need to be updated in planting plans, boundary treatments, tree protection and ecology enhancement plans. Therefore I request that the conditions below are attached should consent be granted in addition to the conditions imposed on outline planning permission 15/02337/OUT.
In addition a development of this size (over 50 dwellings) requires a local play area by policy. However I note that this is phase 1 of the larger development approved under 18/01304/REM. It doesn’t propose to alter the consented layout shown as Phase 1 and future phase 2 is stated on the plans. Therefore I am satisfied that a local play area can be secured as part of the future phase but it needs to secured through a suitably worded condition and legal undertaking to ensure it is delivered early on in phase 2. Preferably the play area should be completed on site prior to the completion or occupation of the first house in phase 2 whichever comes first.
Poplar Tree (to be amended) An amended poplar tree condition is needed. I note the Poplar Tree condition attached to the previous RM consent made reference in it to a letter from ACD Environmental dated: 28th January 2019 (attached to my email). The letter is not included in this submission and clarity should be sought if the intention is still to retain the trunk. I am concerned that the submitted arboricultural impact assessment and method statement still refers to removal of T6. The arb method statement should be updated to reflect that work will be carried to this tree to retain it albeit for ecology reasons. This document should be accurate, up to date and relied upon or there is a risk that the tree may be removed together unintentionally if the tree surgeon relies only on this report.
Floor and Ground Levels (wording amended) Notwithstanding the approved plans development shall take place until details of the proposed finished floor levels of all buildings and the finished ground levels of the site, in relation to existing site levels of surrounding property, have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved levels. Reason: To ensure that construction is carried out at suitable levels having regard to drainage, access, the appearance of the development, the connections with the surrounding sites and the amenities of neighbouring properties in accordance with policy D1 of Plan:MK (2019).
Landscape Details (wording amended to include timescale, retention/maintenance of open space etc.) Notwithstanding the approved plans, no development shall take place above slab level until a detailed Hard and Soft Landscape Scheme has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include existing trees and/or hedgerows to be retained and/or removed accurately shown with root protection areas; existing and proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; visibility splays; areas of hard surfacing materials; proximity between street lights and tree planting; proposed and existing functional services above and
(73)
below ground (e.g. drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes, supports etc.); planting plans at a minimum scale of 1:200 with schedules of plants noting species, plant supply sizes and proposed densities. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and prior to the first occupation of the building(s) or the completion of the development whichever is the sooner, or in accordance with a programme agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. If within a period of two years from the date of the planting of any tree or shrub, that tree or shrub, or any tree and shrub planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted or destroyed, dies, becomes severely damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with trees and shrubs of equivalent size, species and quantity. Thereafter all landscaped open space and public amenity areas, other than privately owned domestic gardens shall be maintained and retained in situ. Reason: To protect significant trees and hedgerows, safeguarding the character of the area and preserving habitat and to minimise the effect of development on the area in accordance with policy D1 of Plan:MK (2019).
Boundary Treatments Notwithstanding the approved plans, no development shall take place above slab level until details of the proposed boundary treatments have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include a boundary treatment plan (at a minimum scale of 1:500) detailing the position of all proposed boundary treatment and annotated or accompanied by a schedule specifying the type, height, composition, appearance and installation method of boundary treatment throughout the site. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of each dwelling to which the boundary treatment relates, and shall thereafter be retained in that form. For the avoidance of doubt, this condition supersedes condition 18 of the outline permission 16/02106/OUT. Reason: To provide adequate privacy, to protect the external character and appearance of the area and to minimise the effect of development on the area in accordance with policy D1 of Plan:MK (2019).
Tree Protection Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted all existing trees to be retained are to be protected according to the provisions of the approved tree protection details in accordance with BS 5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction. All protective measures especially the fencing must be put in place first, prior to any other work commencing on site. The fencing shall be of the same specification and ground protection as that depicted in BS 5837:2012. Signs informing of the purpose of the fencing and warning of the penalties against destruction or damage to the trees and their root zones shall be installed at minimum intervals of 10 metres and a minimum of two signs per separate stretch of fencing. The Root Protection Area (RPA) within the protective fencing must be kept free of all construction, construction plant, machinery, personnel, digging and scraping, water-logging; changes in level, building materials and all other operations, personnel, structures, tools, storage and materials, for the duration of the construction phase. No fire shall be lit such that it is closer than 20 metres to any tree or that flames would come within 5 metres of any part of any tree.
(74)
Reason: To ensure adequate protection of existing trees either on the site or adjacent to the site boundary throughout the construction process in accordance with policies D1, NE2 and NE3 of Plan:MK (2019).
Soft Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan (may need to be amended to secure maintenance for the lifetime of the development) Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted a Soft Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall be for a minimum period of 5 years, and shall include a detailed plan of the landscape features requiring management and maintenance (including biodiversity enhancement measures), a statement of long term design objectives, management responsibilities and a schedule of landscape maintenance with details of the arrangements for its implementation for all landscaped open space and public amenity areas, other than privately owned domestic gardens. Thereafter landscape management plan shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved details. Reason: To protect significant trees and hedgerows, safeguarding the character of the area and preserving habitat and to minimise the effect of development on the area in accordance policies D1, NE2 and NE3 of Plan:MK (2019).
No objection subject to conditions to agree details plus a suitably worded condition and legal undertaking to secure and deliver a local play area early on in phase 2. See detailed comments above.”
5.24 MKC Landscape Services (Trees)
No comments received.
5.25 MKC Highways
No comments to make – comments on previous reserved matters application stand.
5.26 MKC Environmental Health
“I’ve reviewed the plans and supporting documents submitted with this application and cannot find a noise assessment or any reference to noise. Therefore I am unable to provide a more detailed consultation response as the application contains insufficient information.”
5.27 MKC Countryside Officer
“- Development proposals must demonstrate measureable net gain of biodiversity units. - Net gain must be secured through a specified biodiversity enhancement scheme.
Biodiversity Net Gain
(75)
The Biodiversity Enhancement Scheme (BES) completed by ACD Environmental as part of 18/01304/REM (pursuant to condition 23 of 15/02337/OUT) was accepted by the LPA. Given the nature of this current submission it is expected and has been confirmed by ACD Environmental that relevant aspects of the BES within the current development parcel in question will be delivered.
However, there is information required under current local policy that is absent from both 19/01357/REM and 18/01304/REM. Under policy NE3, developments of this scale are required to submit a Biodiversity Impact Assessment Metric demonstrating that a net gain in biodiversity units will be achieved through development. The current LPA approved iteration of this metric is the Warwickshire CC Ver. 19.1 metric.
The measures taken to achieve net gains for biodiversity should following the mitigation hierarchy, with due regard for relevant protected species. All reasonable efforts to secure net gain through habitat enhancement, creation and management on site should be made. Given the plans put forward by ACD Environmental, this should be readily achievable.
Onsite enhancements and habitat creation should benefit any protected/priority species/habitats identified on site, this is reflected in the scheme put forward by ACD Environmental.
The BES needs to be supported by mapping showing the specifications, locations and ongoing maintenance of given features.
Protected or Priority Species and Habitats.
Measures put forward to safeguard protected or priority wildlife/habitats on site are acceptable. A Badger Mitigation Strategy and Great Crested Newt District Licencing are in place. Proposals to monolith the Poplar and retain as standing deadwood is a justified compromise between health & safety and biodiversity value.
Prior to determination the applicant will be required to submit for approval: - A BIA using the Warwickshire CC Ver. 19.1 Metric demonstrating net gain for biodiversity. - A site plan supporting the BES to be delivered showing locations, specifications and maintenance of features to be created/enhanced to secure Net Gain.
Delivery of the BES should be secured through appropriate conditioning when this application is suitably ready to be determined.”
5.28 MKC Countryside Officer (GCN)
“Development proposals have probable likelihood of impacting Great Crested Newts.
The development site is currently acting under Milton Keynes Council’s District Licence for Great Crested Newts.
(76)
Information demonstrating that Great Crested Newts Impacts have been appropriately considered and mitigated needs submitting to the LPA.
The wider development site at Wavendon Business Park was granted authorisation to act under Milton Keynes Council’s District Licence (WML-OR25) as part of application 18/01304/REM in April 2019. However, the information needed to demonstrate this has taken place and thus impacts to GCN appropriately mitigated is missing from the current application (19/01357/REM).
The applicant must submit the documents listed below so they may be added to the planning portal.
The applicant must submit the following documents to demonstrate that impacts on Great Crested Newts have been appropriately considered and mitigated:
- “Impacts Plan 3, dated Oct 2018”. - “Authority to act under the Great Crested Newt District Licence WML-OR25 granted by Natural England to Milton Keynes Council” dated 23rd April 2019. - Naturespace Certificate ref: NSP024MKC dated 23rd April 2019. - Naturespace Report dated 23rd November 2018.”
5.29 MKC Flood and Water Management (LLFA)
“I have reviewed the drainage plan for this site. The detailed designed of this can be addressed by condition.
However, can the developer to provide a justification for the proposed use of SuDs (i.e. the use of underground storage crates, PlanMK recommends the use of above ground SuDs). The only method for the use of SuDs proposed on this Phase is the use of underground storage tanks. It’s unclear why more sustainable proposals have not been sought ? The impermeable are used to size the storage tanks is unclear as no drainage calculations have been attached to this application. I have reviewed the calculations for planning application no.: 19/01050/DISCON it’s unclear if these calculations apply to the whole site or part of the site.
In relation to the reconnections of the watercourses within the badger exclusion zone, the LLFA have no objection to this provided it is acceptable to the ecology team.”
5.30 MKC Archaeology
No comments received.
5.31 Anglian Water
“Section 1 - Assets Affected Our records show that there are no assets owned by Anglian Water or those subject to an adoption agreement within the development site boundary.
(77)
The development site is within 15 metres of a sewage pumping station. This asset requires access for maintenance and will have sewerage infrastructure leading to it. For practical reasons therefore it cannot be easily relocated.
Anglian Water consider that dwellings located within 15 metres of the pumping station would place them at risk of nuisance in the form of noise, odour or the general disruption from maintenance work caused by the normal operation of the pumping station.
The site layout should take this into account and accommodate this infrastructure type through a necessary cordon sanitaire, through public space or highway infrastructure to ensure that no development within 15 metres from the boundary of a sewage pumping station if the development is potentially sensitive to noise or other disturbance or to ensure future amenity issues are not created.
Section 2 - Wastewater Treatment The foul drainage from this development is in the catchment of Cotton Valley Water Recycling Centre that will have available capacity for these flows
Section 3 - Used Water Network We have reviewed the applicant’s submitted foul drainage information ref drawing: E19-033-101 and consider that the impacts on the public foul sewerage network have been adequately addressed at this stage. We would require details of the pump discharge rate to be able to recommend the discharge of condition. We request that we are consulted on any forthcoming application to discharge Condition 13 of the outline planning application 15/02337/OUT to which this Reserved Matters application relates, which requires the submission and approval of detailed foul drainage information.
Section 4 - Surface Water Disposal The preferred method of surface water disposal would be to a sustainable drainage system (SuDS) with connection to sewer seen as the last option. Building Regulations (part H) on Drainage and Waste Disposal for England includes a surface water drainage hierarchy, with infiltration on site as the preferred disposal option, followed by discharge to watercourse and then connection to a sewer.
We have reviewed the applicants submitted surface water drainage information ref drawing: E19-033-101 and the proposed method of surface water management does not relate to Anglian Waters operated assets. As such, we are unable to provide comments on the suitability of the surface water management. The Local Planning Authority should seek the advice of the Lead Local Flood Authority or the Internal Drainage Board. The Environment Agency should be consulted if the drainage system directly or indirectly involved the discharge of water into a watercourse. Should the proposed method of surface water management change to include interaction with Anglian Water operated assets, we would wish to be re- consulted to ensure that an effective surface water drainage strategy is prepared and implemented.”
(78)
5.32 Berks, Bucks and Oxon Wildlife Trust
“The Berks, Bucks and Oxon Wildlife Trust (BBOWT) is a local nature conservation charity, and as such our comments relate specifically to the protection and enhancement of the natural environment and wildlife.
BBOWT objects to this application on the following grounds:
1. Net loss of biodiversity; this reserved matters application destroys even more habitat than the outline application with no compensation provided.
The Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy by ACD Environmental has been approved to discharge condition 23 of outline planning permission 15/02337/OUT. This reserved matters application proposes additional dwellings and car parking to the north west of the site, in what had been retained as a ‘wildlife corridor’ previously. It also severs the ‘wildlife corridor’ so that it would not be directly connected to the offsite woodland.
I have assessed this change against the approved baseline (that the area be wetland and woodland as shown on the original plans), and whilst my recommendation is that the extra dwellings are removed from the proposed wildlife corridor, should the LPA wish to grant this revised site layout then a payment via section 106 of at £100,000 is recommended so as to compensate for this additional loss elsewhere within MK. I have used the Warwickshire County Council Biodiversity Impact Assessment vs 19 to calculate this amount.”
5.33 Crime Prevention Design Advisor
No comments received.
5.34 Third Party/Neighbour Comments
Comments have been received from approximately 850 addresses. A petition has also been received, organised by representatives of The Stables, which is stated to contain approximately 21,000 signatures. The material planning considerations are summarised below:
• Concern that building houses in this location will cause complaints from future occupants, which will lead to the closure of The Stables; and • Concern that this application contains no supporting information regarding noise and proposes no suitable noise mitigation, including a deed of easement.
(79)
ITEM 6(b)
Application Number: 18/01469/FUL
Description Demolition of existing retail/commercial units and the construction of a new Class A1 foodstore (1,790sqm), reconfiguration of adjacent car parking and associated landscaping.
At: 22 - 24 Stantonbury Centre, Purbeck, Stantonbury, Milton Keynes, MK14 6BL
FOR ALDI Stores Limited
Target: 15th February 2019 Ward: Stantonbury Parish: Stantonbury Parish Council
Report Author/Case Officer: Duncan Law, Senior Planning Officer
Contact Details: [email protected] 01908 252485
Team Manager: Niko Grigoropoulos Interim Development Management Manager [email protected]
1.0 RECOMMENDATION
1.1 It is recommended that permission is granted subject to a s106 and the conditions set out in this report
2.0 INTRODUCTION
The Site
2.1 The site is located in the district of Stantonbury approximately 1.5 miles north of Milton Keynes Town Centre. The site is within the Stantonbury Local Centre and lies adjacent to the Stantonbury Campus
2.2 There are currently two brick buildings located on the site, each housing smaller retail units, with associated parking, service yards and pedestrian access. The site is characterised by hardstanding around the buildings and consists of tarmac, concrete and brick pavers. There is established planting to the site boundaries, particularly along Saxon Street.
2.3 The northern site boundary follows the edge of the pedestrian and cycle route running parallel with the residential road Tyrill. The site to the north is characterised by soft landscaping and a couple of pedestrian pathways. The eastern boundary is shared with the Stantonbury Campus, the local secondary school. At this point a two-storey brick building stands and a pedestrian pathway runs the length of the
(80)
boundary zoning off the car park and access road to the application site. The southern boundary of the proposed application site runs parallel with the existing health centre. The western site boundary follows the edge of the existing access road, Purbeck, and the edge of the existing hard-standing to the service yards of the current retail units. To the north of the site the boundary cuts across the planting to Saxon Street to follow the pedestrian pathway that links this main road with the residential area adjacent. The site contains a local centre and the Bicycle Wall Mural. The buildings are simplistic in design in the familiar Milton Keynes Development Corporation idiom. The mural is located on gable end wall of one of the buildings. It covers almost the entire gable and as such is substantial in size. It is in fact formed of smaller format ceramic tiles, individually detailed to from the larger picture. The mural itself credits ‘John Watson 1977-78’ then separately, ‘assisted by Barry Brown and friends’.
The Proposal
2.4 The current application seeks planning permission for the demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of a new Aldi food store with 119 parking spaces. The building is located to the north-east of the site, with access via Purbeck as the existing arrangement. The application includes indicative landscaping proposals at this stage which involve the reinforcement of landscaping along all boundaries of the site and within the car park. The proposed net sales area is 1,254m2 and the gross external area of the store is 1,790m2.
Reason for referral to committee
2.1 The application has been referred to committee as a result of a call in by Martin Petchey, Ward Councillor, Stantonbury Ward
Scope of debate/decision
2.5 This application proposal is a full planning application and so all matters are to be considered.
3.0 RELEVANT POLICIES
National Policy
3.1 National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019)
Paragraph 11 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development Paragraphs 85-90 -Ensuring the vitality of town centres Section 2 - Achieving sustainable development Section 5 - Delivering a sufficient supply of homes Section 8 - Promoting healthy and safe communities Section 9 - Promoting sustainable transport Section 11 - Making effective use of land Section 12 - Achieving well-designed places
(81)
In addition, the Planning Practice Guidance is also a material consideration
The Development Plan
3.2 Neighbourhood Plan
March 2019
Following the publicity period on the submitted Stantonbury Neighbourhood Plan, Milton Keynes Council has appointed Nigel McGurk to conduct an examination of the Neighbourhood Plan. The examiner’s main role is to ensure that the neighbourhood plan meets the basic conditions and is able to proceed to referendum. The plan is yet to be examined therefore carries limited weight at this time. The relevant policies of the draft Stantonbury Neighbourhood Plan are:
Policy SNP4 - Design Principles Policy SNP19 - Stantonbury Shops
3.3 Plan: MK (March 2019)
The Council received the Inspector’s final report into Plan: MK and concluded that Plan:MK, as amended by main modifications, is sound and provides an appropriate basis for the planning of the Borough up to 2031. The plan was taken to Cabinet (5 March) and Council (20 March) for approval and adoption. Plan:MK was adopted at Council on 20 March 2019 and now forms part of the statutory development plan for Milton Keynes, and includes the Policies Map that indicates land use in the Borough.
Policy MK1- Presumption in favour of sustainable development Policy DS1- Settlement Hierarchy Policy SD1- Place making principles for development Policy CT1- Sustainable transport network Policy CT2- Movement and access Policy CT3- Walking and cycling Policy CT5- Public transport Policy CT10- Parking Provision Policy FR1- Managing flood risk Policy NE3- Biodiversity and geological enhancement Policy NE5- Conserving and enhancing landscape character Policy NE6- Environmental Pollution Policy HE1- Heritage and development Policy L2- Protection of open space and existing facilities Policy D1- Design a high quality place Policy D2- Creating a positive character Policy D3- Design of buildings Policy D4- Amenity and street scene Policy SC1- Sustainable construction Policy DS4 - Retail and Leisure Policy ER10: Retail hierarchy Policy ER11: Assessing edge of centre and out of centre proposals
(82)
MK Retail Capacity & Leisure Study (March 2018)
3.4 Supplementary Planning Documents/Guidance
Milton Keynes Drainage Strategy - Development and Flood Risk SPG (May 2004)
3.5 Human Rights Act 1998
There may be implications under Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol regarding the right of respect for a person's private and family life and home, and to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. However, these potential issues are in this case amply covered by consideration of the environmental impact of the application under the policies of the development plan and other relevant policy guidance.
4.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
None
5.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Parish - Stantonbury
Support
Further to the main Meeting of Stantonbury Parish Council (SPC) on 18th July 2018, where we recorded our support for the proposal. SPC have continued to be in discussion with the Aldi representatives to propose solutions for the re-location of the mural. Throughout our discussions Aldi have demonstrated a willingness and responsibility over the protection of this valued asset.
The current discussions incorporate the following: • Full photographic and historical documentation of the original mural project • Core samples underway to assess the best option for removal of the wall • Relocation of the wall as a feature elsewhere in the locality/within the parish boundary (likely to be lain down and resin/epoxy surface overlaid) • Cost of above absorbed by Aldi • Potential new art project to capture life in Stantonbury as it is now
SPC supports the Aldi application and this much needed investment in the Stantonbury community. Local residents are keen to finally see the retail offer improved having felt neglected for many years.
Whilst SPC acknowledge there will be a small increase in traffic, it is our belief this will be outweighed by the benefits to the community and that the key journeys for shopping will not coincide with school drop-off times.
(83)
5.2 Ward - Stantonbury - Cllr Minns
No comments received
5.3 Ward - Stantonbury - Cllr Petchey (Member of Development Control Committee)
No comments received.
5.4 Ward - Stantonbury - Cllr Walker
Support - The area is in real need of the regeneration Aldi are offering.
5.5 MKC Landscape Services Trees
No comments received
5.6 Anglia Water
No comments received
5.7 HSE Consultation (Internal to MKC)
No comments received.
5.8 Highways
Initial Comments
Transport Statement The TS has not assessed the existing parking situation.
Pedestrian and cycle access There appears to be several issues with pedestrian and cycle access which need to be addressed.
Car parking
Under the council’s adopted car parking standards the car parking requirement for a 1790m2 A1 food store is 128 spaces (1 space per 14m2). The submitted plan has shown 122 spaces although 9 of these are parent and child spaces which do not form part of the council’s standards. The 3 electric charging spaces are noted as being passive. This is not acceptable and the spaces require charging posts. There appears to be scope for a further 5 spaces to be located in the landscaping area accessed off the health centre parking access road (south side of site).
Updated comments
FINAL COMMENTS
(84)
'The main issues that were to be resolved were on parking and traffic impact.
Parking
If the car park management can be secured by condition to ensure that non- customers can park unrestricted then I have no objections on the scheme for parking.
Traffic impact
Based on the additional work that we have carried out it can be concluded that the impact from the development is modest and as such the application in terms of traffic impact is accepted.
No objections subject to conditions'.
5.9 Lead Local Flood Authority
Comments pending
5.10 MKC Urban Design
'No objection to the principle of a large food store on this site. I am concerned about some aspects of the design. I am concerned that the loss of the square to the east of the proposed store and west of the existing school will result in a significant loss of sunlight / daylight into existing classrooms and a poor environment between the two buildings'.
5.11 MKC Public Arts Officer
'Overall I am unable to support the proposal for the Bicycle Wall removal and relocation until such a time as the points above are addressed and relevant and specialist information is presented for consideration.
To obtain specialist advice the agent could search for a conservator on the conservation register which is available online'. No comments were received on the updated method statement
5.12 Conservation and Archaeology
Objection – 'The local centre itself has been nominated for the heritage register, however it considered that without the mural, these would neither constitute a non- designated heritage asset as defined in the NPPF nor fulfil three of the general criteria for the heritage register'.
Further comments on the updated method statement.
'The principle of redevelopment can be accepted in concept, this will however rely on establishing credible and legitimate preservation of the mural since failure to do
(85)
so would result in its total loss. An acceptable solution needs to be established and agreed before permission can be granted to avoid its loss post decision'.
5.13 Third Party/Neighbour Comments
Comments have been received from approximately 19 neighbours and third parties including MK Forum, Asda Store Ltd and The Public Arts Trust objecting to the application. The material planning considerations relevant to this application are summarised below:
Adverse impacts on Traffic and Parking Increase in noise Loss of Pharmacy Loss of Local Centre Impact on neighbouring school Inappropriate design Loss of historic mural
5.14 National Grid
Searches based on your enquiry have identified that there is apparatus in the vicinity of your enquiry which may be affected by the activities specified. Can you please inform Plant Protection, as soon as possible, the decision your authority is likely to make regarding this application. If the application is refused for any other reason than the presence of apparatus, we will not take any further action. Please let us know whether Plant Protection can provide you with technical or other information that may be of assistance to you in the determination of the application.
6.0 MAIN ISSUES
6.1 Principle of development Highway matters and parking Impact on character of the area Design Residential amenity Impact on Heritage Assets Landscape Ecology Drainage and flood risk Sustainable construction S106 matters Other matters
7.0 CONSIDERATIONS
Principle of development
7.1 The application site is allocated in the adopted Plan:MK as an existing Shopping and Leisure use. The proposed A1 retail is in accordance with the designated land
(86)
use therefore Plan:MK Policy ER10 - Assessing Edge of Centre and out Of Centre Proposals is not triggered. Policy ER9 Character and Function Of The Shopping Hierarchy states that existing local centres, as shown on the Policies Map will provide convenience shopping and service facilities in order to reduce car dependency and to ensure ready access by non-car owning households and other people with limited or impaired mobility. The principle of the provision of a 1,790sqm Class A1 foodstore is in accordance with Plan:MK policies and is acceptable in principle subject to the material planning considerations below.
Stantonbury Neighbourhood Plan
7.2 Stantonbury Neighbourhood Plan is not adopted therefore does not form part of the development plan however Milton Keynes Council has received the Examiner’s report that concluded the Stantonbury Neighbourhood Plan meets the basic conditions and it is recommend to Milton Keynes Council that, subject to modifications, it should proceed to Referendum. Were a Referendum to be held and were more than 50% of votes to be in favour of the Neighbourhood Plan, then the Plan would be formally made by Milton Keynes Council. The Neighbourhood Plan would then form part of the development plan and as such, it would be used to determine planning applications and guide planning decisions in the Stantonbury Neighbourhood Area and therefore the Plan has limited weight. The application site is subject to a site specific policy in SNP19 - Stantonbury Shops. This states that any redevelopment of the existing shops for new Class A1 floorspace is supported subject to the preservation of the mural, the provision of viable floor space consistent with the status as a ‘Local Centre’, potential for residential accommodation. It goes to state that provision of the following services is supported, subject to viability; Post Office, Pharmacy and pharmaceutical goods, Newsagent and the sale of newspapers, Library, Hairdresser, Greengrocer, Butcher, or the sale of a similar range of products.
7.3 With regard to the mural, this is discussed below. The provision of a discount food retail outlet will meet the need of the surrounding population and provide a service to the local community that has been absent since the Local Centre shops closed. There is no policy protection of Local Centres in Plan:MK. The services outlined in policy SNP19 are supported, not required. Stantonbury Parish Council is supportive of the scheme as they are keen to see the retail offer for local residents improving.
Highway matters
7.4 Plan:MK policies CT1 and CT2 require the decision maker to have particular regard to any additional traffic generation a development may cause and the resulting impact on the surrounding road network/parking provision/access. In addition, the Milton Keynes adopted Parking Standards SPD sets out the development related parking standards for Milton Keynes and should be read in conjunction with these policies.
7.5 Plan:MK Policy CT2 also require development to minimise the need to travel, promote opportunities for sustainable transport modes, improve accessibility to services and support the transition to a low carbon future Policy CT3 supports
(87)
developments which enable people to access employment, essential services and community facilities by walking and cycling.
7.6 Access to the site is through the existing arrangement from Purbeck, which comes off Saxon Street (B4034) to the south. As this access is existing and the layout of the roads are already established, Highways Officers do not have any concerns with the access and road arrangement at the site given the existing and previous use of this site as a Local Centre.
7.7 The site is considered accessible and well connected to the highway and public transport system with bus stops on Saxon Street and pedestrian links into the site. Cyclists are also well served with the nearby Redway. At the request of Highway officers, amended details were received that addressed a pedestrian issue in the north west corner of the site
Parking
7.8 The application was assessed against the council’s adopted car parking standards which indicated a car parking requirement for a 1790m2 A1 food store of 128 spaces. The council's Highways officers commented that the amended plan shows 119 spaces, therefore there is a shortfall of 9 spaces. In support of the parking plan, the applicant provided a TRICS analysis to indicate that maximum demand for spaces (on a Saturday) would be 102. As a result, Highways officers considered that the levels of parking proposed is therefore considered acceptable.
7.9 Surveys undertaken by the applicant indicated that there were 31 cars likely to be displaced with the development during the weekday and no more than 3 spaces on a Saturday. The applicant has stated that these can be accommodated within the proposed car park. Highways officers indicated acceptance of this principle subject to a car park management scheme to be submitted and secured by condition to ensure that non-customers can park unrestricted.
Traffic impact
7.10 In addition to the Transport Assessment submitted by the applicant, MKC Highways officers undertook additional traffic analysis. Full details of this analysis are presented in the consultation response section. The conclusion reached was that the impact from the development is modest and as such the application in terms of traffic impact is accepted
7.11 The overall layout, parking, access and accessibility are considered acceptable and compliant with policies CT1, CT2, CT3 of Plan:MK.
Impact on character of the area
7.12 Plan:MK policies D1, D2, D3, D5, seek high quality design and appropriate density that relates well to the surrounding area, with a high level of residential amenity and design out opportunities for crime. In addition, section 12 of the NPPF and in particular paragraph 127 provides guidance in respect of design considerations for development.
(88)
7.13 Whilst the proposed building is not in scale within other buildings within its immediate vicinity in terms of its massing, the function of the building as a retail store clearly sets it apart from surrounding uses. The site itself is set lower by approximately 3.5m than the principle audience of Saxon Road and also benefits from an established tree belt which ensures the development sits at a level which is not visually dominating when viewed from Saxon Road and surrounding development. It is considered that the appropriateness of the scale and appearance of the proposed building should also be considered in the context of the current retail land designation and previous local centre use.
7.14 The redevelopment of the site will be enhanced as a destination with the provision of a discount retail store. Overall the impact on character is considered to be in compliance with the relevant related policies of Plan:MK.
Design
7.15 Plan:MK policies D1, D2, D3 and D5, seek high quality design that relates well to the surrounding area, with a high level of residential amenity and design out opportunities for crime. In addition, section 12 of the NPPF and in particular paragraph 127 provides guidance in respect of design considerations for development.
7.16 The store is located in the north-east corner of the plot, with the active glazed shopfront and building entrance facing the car park and Purbeck Health Centre. Active glazing is also presented to the adjacent Stantonbury Campus.
7.17 The Council’s Urban Design Officer echoed comments received from MK Forum in that although the proposed development defines public and private areas reasonably well, the main building entrance addresses the car park and turns its back on the surrounding area. Also that the proposed development builds on much of the existing public realm and the proposed retaining wall separates the store from the rest of the local centre and the school, resulting in a feeling of increased enclosure to users of this pedestrian path through the development and the proposed eastern and northern elevations presenting blank flanks.
7.18 As a result with the exception of the proposed car park, the relationship of the proposed public realm vis-à-vis buildings presents a weak relationship with little natural surveillance.
7.19 It is accepted that the northern and eastern elevations are not as active as the southern and eastern however, the appearance of the building is akin to what would be expected of a use of this nature and the layout presents an efficient use of the land. The submitted Design and Access Statement indicates that site boundaries will remain permeable and there will be no hidden areas. A condition will be applied securing an external lighting scheme which is to include security lighting to the eastern passageway.
7.20 The design features red brick plinths and walls, the prominent material used within Stantonbury campus, with grey cladding under a mono-pitched roof. These and
(89)
further details such as the proposed glazing and cantilever canopy help to break up the bulk of the building and add some visual interest and local context. The proposed signage is subtle and reflects the retail context of the locality.
7.21 On balance, the application is considered to be acceptable in this respect and in accordance with Plan:MK policies D1, D2, D3 and D5.
Residential amenity
7.22 Plan:MK policy D5 details that planning permission will be refused for development where it would adversely affect residential amenity of neighbouring properties. In addition, the New Residential Development Design Guide SPD (2012) provides guidance on achieving acceptable levels of amenities for future occupiers. Further, the core planning principles in the National Planning Policy Framework details that planning decisions should seek to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings.
7.23 The proposals have the greatest potential to impact on the amenity of the school to the east and residential dwellings to the north on Tyrill. To the east, the store will occupy the site within 6.5m of the neighbouring school and concerns have been expressed by the councils Urban Design Officer that the proposal would adversely affect the outlook from the school. This is accepted and acknowledged. For 18m the eastern elevation of the proposed store will face the western elevation of the school at a height of over 6m and within a distance of approximately 6.5m. To the north the impacts to residents on Tyrill will be less harmful due to the greater separation distance of over 25m and that there is some active frontage to this elevation. In taking into account the presumption in favour of sustainable development in paragraph 11 of the NPPF, and in weighing up the social and economic public benefits of the proposal which will re-develop a declining site, whilst generating jobs and investment in the local area in accordance with its designated land use, these adverse impacts are not considered to 'significantly and demonstrably' outweigh the benefits of granting permission.
7.24 Therefore on balance and weighing up the social and economic benefits of the proposal, it is considered acceptable in terms of the impact on amenity of surrounding residents, workers and the public, and therefore the proposal is considered to comply with Policies D1 and D5 of Plan:MK.
Impact on Heritage Assets
7.25 The NPPF requires that Milton Keynes Council sets out in its Local Plan ‘a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats’ recognising ‘that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance’. It also requires an assessment to be made as to whether the proposal 'sustains and enhances the significance of the heritage assets, making a balanced judgement having regard to the scale of harm or loss and significance of the heritage asset'.
(90)
7.26 This view is reinforced through Policy HE1 of Plan:MK that states proposals will be supported where they sustain and, where possible, enhance the significance of heritage assets which are recognised as being of historic, archaeological, architectural, artistic, landscape or townscape significance. Proposals that result in harm to the significance of non-designated heritage assets will be resisted unless the need for, and benefits of the development clearly outweigh the harm, taking into account the asset's significance and importance, and only once all feasible solutions to avoid and mitigate that harm have been fully implemented. Policy HE1, paragraph F)
7.27 Heritage assets include spaces, structures and features which may not be formally designated but considered to meet the definition of ‘heritage assets’ as defined in Annex 2 of the NPPF.
7.28 The NPPF defines a heritage asset as:
'A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest. It includes designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing). (Annex 2).
7.29 The site contains a mural attached to the exterior, south facing gable end of 22-24 Stantonbury Centre. The mural consists of painted and fired ceramic tiles made in 1978 and installed the following year. The tiles were made and fired by local children to the designs of John Watson who had approached Milton Keynes Development Corporation with a community art proposal that involved working with schoolchildren to create large-scale ceramic murals. The mural consists of approximately 1,200 square tiles which are painted and glazed and attached to the wall and divided by red/brown grout. The mural covers the majority of the southern gable end wall of a parade of shops, which face east. It has an approximate height of 8.2 metres and width of 17.5 metres. The mural shows a montage of riders and their bicycles in a variety of activities - racing, pushing, carrying, riding and leaning against their bikes, set against a background of buildings with trees and sky behind. The names of the child artists as well as the Head of house at the school, who commissioned the work and John Watson are recorded across the picture and at lower right. The individual tiles were handmade and are moulded across their surface in low relief, following the outlines of the design, with frames for the name panels and finger jabs to create modelled surfaces or indicate facial features.
7.30 The Councils Conservation Manger stated that 'the Bicycle Wall Mural is one of a series of artworks facilitated by Milton Keynes Development Corporation. Whilst the Corporation had established a practice of both buying and commissioning more formal artworks for new developments and parks, it also recognised the important role that art could play in successfully forming entirely new communities. The series of community artworks that remain throughout the new town are a key component of its ongoing legacy and the efforts made by the Corporation in these early phases of its life. They are also very individual and specific items. Whereas other artworks that were bought might also exist elsewhere (e.g. ‘The Whisper’ outside Central Library, Listed Building, grade II), the community artworks are one-off pieces that
(91)
are a direct product of a collaboration between the artist and the local community at the time.
7.31 The mural is a large piece which combined with its gable location at a local centre means that it is a prominent feature within the locality. This indeed is no accident, since it would have been intended that it continue to be seen by the community which produced it. Stylistically, the mural is characterful and particularly representative of the period in which it was made, which adds to its ties with the early phases of the new town. The mural was noted in The Buildings of England: Buckinghamshire: ‘ceramic tile mural BICYCLE WALL by John Watson, 1979’ (second ed. 1994, p551)'.
7.32 The Bicycle Wall Mural possesses a degree of heritage asset and can, as such, can be considered a ‘heritage asset’ (or ‘non-designated heritage asset’) as defined above.
7.33 The mural is currently subject to a Notification of Designation Application to Historic England to add the Bicycle Wall mural to the List of Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest. No timetable as to when a decision will be made has been provided. The application can lawfully be determined prior to a decision on the listing application. If the mural is designated then the paragraphs of the NPPF relating to designated heritage assets take effect and listed building consent will be required for any works.
7.34 The applicant has indicated that the mural cannot be incorporated into the proposed scheme and that it is planned to dismantle and re-locate it with a coating of epoxy resin at a shallow angle on an area of amenity space embankment to the north of the existing centre within the ownership of The Parks Trust. To support this proposal, a Method Statement by Lincoln Conservation from the University of Lincoln has been submitted. This report outlined the proposals for the long-term future of the ceramic mural. It included an assessment of the condition of the mural that concluded 'in general, the surface and structural stability and adhesion of the tiles to the substrate was in good condition'. It also outlined a technique to remove the mural from its current location that was described as satisfactory by the Councils Conservation Manager.
7.35 The Method Statement evaluated the proposed relocation of the mural at a shallow angle on an embankment to the north outside of the site. It concluded that 'the proposed location of the mural is deemed adequate, however in terms of displaying the mural at an angle, much of the visual impact of the mural will be lost and it will become an easy target for foot traffic and vandalism. Keeping vandalism to a minimum is best achieved in areas of high footfall with good lighting therefore vertical display is the best option’. It also stated that the proposed epoxy resin coating 'will seal in any moisture, and soluble salts will be concentrated within the tile with the potential for the disintegration of the body. This exchange of moisture should not be impeded by impervious coatings. Depending on the final position of the mural, the optimal decision would be to leave it with no coating'.
7.36 In light of this conclusion, that was agreed with by the Councils Conservation Manager and Public Art Officer, and to avoid harm to a heritage asset, it is
(92)
considered necessary to include a condition securing the tile removal details outlined in the submitted Method Statement but requiring additional details of a location to be agreed for the re-location of the mural in an upright position. The potential for harm to a heritage asset has been assessed and mitigated through application of a suitably worded condition to be provided in an update paper prior to Development Control Committee.
7.37 With regard to Plan:MK Policy HE1, an acceptable method of removal of the mural has been provided and the identified potential for harm i.e. the laying down and coating of the tiles has been resisted and mitigated through the condition requiring the re-location of the mural in an upright position Any harm caused as a result of the re-location of the mural away from the Local Centre is outweighed by the benefits of the wider development of the provision of a discount food store on an allocated retail site and it is anticipated the mural will be re-located in the surrounding area thus maintain its connection with the area.
Landscape
7.38 The NPPF requires development to contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment and requires decision makers to not only conserve but enhance biodiversity. Plan:MK policies D1, D2, D3, D5 and L4 seek to ensure high quality, well designed places which include planting on streets and in public open spaces.
7.39 The development of the site proposes the retention and ongoing maintenance of the existing mature soft landscaping to the boundaries, as well as creating opportunities to provide enhanced planting across the site. Notwithstanding the submitted layout plan, a condition requiring full details of boundary treatments, all hard and soft landscaping will be applied. As there are existing trees onsite that may be affected by the development the submitted tree protection plan and Arboricultural Impact Assessment will be secured as approved plans for their protection.
7.40 Overall, provided that the detailed landscaping and boundary treatments are secured by condition, the proposal is considered compliant with policies D1, D2, D3, D5 and L4 of Plan:MK.
Ecology
7.41 This application was accompanied by a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal that conclude there are no ecological issues that could affect the principle of development on the site but did identify that there are opportunities for ecological enhancement on the site and there is a requirement for further surveys.
7.42 As a result of the conclusions of the submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and to secure compliance with Policies NE2 and NE3 of Plan:MK in showing that the impact of the development on protected species has been considered, and that the proposal will result in a net gain in biodiversity, a condition requiring the submission of Biodiversity Enhancement Scheme and Management Plan is to be applied.
(93)
Drainage and flood risk
7.43 Plan: MK policy FR1 states that all new development must incorporate a surface water drainage system with acceptable flood control and demonstrate acceptable capacity to deal with the development.
7.44 The drainage bodies have been consulted and have raised no objections to the scheme. With conditions for the securing of a drainage scheme, the proposal complies with policies FR1 and FR2 of the Plan: MK in that risk of flooding will not be increased on or off site and that an adequate drainage system and method of surface water disposal will be secured through approval of condition details.
Sustainable construction
7.45 Policy SC1 of Plan:MK and the Sustainable Construction Supplementary Planning Document (2007) requires all new development exceeding 1000sqm to incorporate sustainable construction including renewable energy and carbon offset provision.
7.46 The application will need to demonstrate an ability to achieve the requirement for 10 per cent renewable energy under Policy SC1. In addition, the applicant is required to provide the requisite carbon offset financial contributions and this can be secured by condition.
S106 matters
7.47 The proposals incorporate a number of financial contributions to be secured via S106 agreement to offset the impacts arising from the development. Details of these contributions to include transport and public art will be supplied in an update paper prior to Development Control Committee.
8.0 CONCLUSIONS
8.1 The proposed development is considered on balance to be acceptable and to accord with the policy requirements of the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. Details of s106 obligations and a condition regarding the re-location of the mural will be provided in an update paper prior to Development Control Committee. In accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, it is therefore recommended that planning permission is granted subject to a s106 and the conditions set out below.
(94)
9.0 CONDITIONS
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin 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 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2) No development shall take place above slab level until a Schedule of the external materials to be used in the construction of the development have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The Schedule shall include detailed specification, photo examples, RAL numbers and/or samples, as appropriate. The development shall thereafter be carried out in full accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the development.
Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies D2 and D3 of Plan:MK (2019).
3) Notwithstanding the approved drawings, no development shall take place above slab level until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These details shall include existing trees and/or hedgerows to be retained and/or removed accurately shown with root protection areas; existing and proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; visibility splays; areas of hard surfacing materials; proximity between street lights and tree planting; pedestrian access and circulation areas; civic space / public park furniture, play equipment, bins etc.; proposed and existing functional services above and below ground such as cables, pipelines, substations. Soft landscape works shall include planting plans at a minimum scale of 1:200 with schedules of plants noting species, plant supply sizes and proposed densities; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with tree, plant and grass establishment; and the implementation programme. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. If within a period of two years from the date of the planting of any tree or shrub, that tree or shrub, or any tree and shrub planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted or destroyed, dies, becomes severely damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with trees and shrubs of equivalent size, species and quantity. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of the building(s) or the completion of the development whichever is the sooner or in accordance with a programme agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To protect significant trees and hedgerows, safeguarding the character of the area and preserving habitat and to minimise the effect of
(95)
development on the area in accordance with Policies NE4 and NE5 and Policy D1 of Plan:MK (2019).
4) All existing trees, woodlands and hedgerows to be retained as shown on the approved plans shall be fully protected in accordance with the latest British Standards (currently BS 5837:2012 'Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction- Recommendations') by the time construction begins. All protective measures must be in place prior to the commencement of any building operations (including any structural alterations, construction, rebuilding, demolition and site clearance, removal of any trees or hedgerows, engineering operations, groundworks, vehicle movements or any other operations normally undertaken by a person carrying on a business as a builder). The Root Protection Area (RPA) within the protective fencing must be kept free of all construction, construction plant, machinery, personnel, digging and scraping, service runs, water-logging, changes in level, building materials and all other operations. All protective measures shall be maintained in place and in good order until all work is complete and all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Signs informing of the purpose of the fencing and warning of the penalties against destruction or damage to the trees and their root zones shall be installed at minimum intervals of 10 metres and a minimum of two signs per separate stretch of fencing.
Reason: To protect significant trees and hedgerows, safeguarding the character of the area and preserving habitat and to minimise the effect of development on the area in accordance with Policies D2, D5 and NE1 of Plan:MK (2019).
5) No development above slab level shall take place until a Biodiversity Enhancement Scheme and Management Plan has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the development.
Reason: To maintain and enhance local biodiversity and ecology in accordance with Policy NE3 of Plan:MK (2019).
6) No development shall take place until details of the proposed finished floor levels of all buildings and the finished ground levels of the site, in relation to existing site levels of surrounding property, has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved levels.
Reason: To ensure that construction is carried out at suitable levels having regard to drainage, access, the appearance of the development and the amenities of neighbouring properties in accordance with Policies D3 and D5 of Milton Keynes' adopted Plan:MK (2019).
(96)
7) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted a detailed design, and associated management and maintenance plan, for a foul and surface water drainage scheme, based on sustainable drainage principles for the site shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the local planning authority. The management and maintenance plan shall include a detailed time table for the implementation of the foul and surface water drainage scheme. The approved drainage scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved detailed design and in accordance with the approved time table for implementation and be retained thereafter.
Reason: To ensure satisfactory and sustainable foul and surface water drainage to prevent the increased risk of contamination and flooding on or off site in accordance with Policies FR1 and FR2 of Plan:MK (2019).
8) No building or use hereby permitted shall be occupied or the use commenced until the Suds scheme for the site has been completed in accordance with the approved Sustainable Drainage Strategy. The Suds scheme shall be managed and maintained thereafter in accordance with the agreed management and maintenance plan.
Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of surface water disposal and that the principles of sustainable drainage are incorporated into the proposal and maintained for the lifetime of the proposal in accordance with policies FR1 and FR2 of Plan:MK (2019).
9) No development, including any works of demolition, shall take place until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP shall include site procedures to be adopted during the course of construction including: routes for construction traffic to include details of restriction of deliveries during construction to avoid school pick up / drop off Method of prevention of mud being carried onto the highway location of site compound loading and unloading of plant and materials the erection and maintenance of security fencing/hoardings and lighting proposed temporary traffic restrictions parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors
The development shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved CEMP.
Reason: To ensure there are adequate mitigation measures in place, in the interests of highway and pedestrian safety and in order to protect the amenities of existing and future residents in accordance with Policies CT2,CT3, D1 and D5 of Plan:MK
(97)
10) Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted the car parking area shown on the approved drawings shall be constructed, surfaced and permanently marked out. The car parking area so provided shall be maintained as a permanent ancillary to the development and shall be used for no other purpose thereafter.
Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision at all times so that the development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or the safety on the neighbouring highway
11) Prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted the scheme for parking and manoeuvring and the loading and unloading of vehicles shown on the approved drawings shall be provided and shall be used for no other purpose thereafter.
Reason: To enable vehicles to draw off, park, load/unload and turn clear of the highway to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway
12) Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the proposed bicycle parking shown in the approved drawings shall be provided and be retained thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that adequate parking facilities are provided to serve the development
13) No development shall take place until an assessment of ground conditions to determine the likelihood of any ground, groundwater or gas contamination of the site has been carried out in accordance with the Environment Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination'. The results of this survey detailing the nature and extent of any contamination, together with a strategy for any remedial action deemed necessary to bring the site to a condition suitable for its intended use, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before construction works commence. Any remedial works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved strategy and validated by submission of an appropriate verification report prior to first occupation of the development.
Should any unforeseen contamination be encountered the Local Planning Authority shall be informed immediately. Any additional site investigation and remedial work that is required as a result of unforeseen contamination will also be carried out to the written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the site is fit for its proposed purposed and any potential risks to human health, property, and the natural and historical environment, are appropriately investigated and minimised in accordance with Part B of Policy NE6 of Plan:MK (2019).
14) The development shall not be occupied or the use commenced until details of a scheme for the management of the car park has been submitted and
(98)
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme approved shall be implemented and remain thereafter unaltered unless agreed in writing by the local planning authority. For the avoidance of doubt the scheme to include the provision and allowance of cars from the campus to park within the development car park. Details to include all measures, signage and operating hours.
Reason: to avoid the displacement of parking in the interests of highway safety and convenience.
15) No works or development above slab level shall take place until a sustainability checklist under Policy SC1 of Plan:MK (2019) has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The sustainability checklist will set our measures (identifying the size/extent, location, financial cost and specification of the space and works) to achieve zero carbon as advised under Milton Keynes Council Supplementary Planning Document Sustainable Construction Guide Adopted April 2007. The works or development shall not be occupied until the approved measures set out in the sustainability checklist have been implemented.
Reason: To reduce the resource consumption of new development and to achieve zero carbon growth in accordance with Policy SC1 of Plan:MK (2019).
16) No building or use herby permitted shall be occupied or the use commenced until a lighting plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. If any lighting is required within the vicinity of existing or newly created bat features, it shall be low level, with baffles to direct the light away from the features, thus preventing severance of bat commuting and foraging routes. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the development or the commencement of the use and shall be subsequently retained in that form thereafter.
Reason: To ensure the Protected Species is adequately protected and in accordance with policies D1 and NE2 of Plan:MK.
(99)
(100)
(101)
(102)
A1.0 FULL CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS
A1.1 Parish - Stantonbury
Support
Further to the main Meeting of Stantonbury Parish Council (SPC) on 18th July 2018, where we recorded our support for the proposal. SPC have continued to be in discussion with the Aldi representatives to propose solutions for the re-location of the mural. Throughout our discussions Aldi have demonstrated a willingness and responsibility over the protection of this valued asset.
The current discussions incorporate the following: • Full photographic and historical documentation of the original mural project • Core samples underway to assess the best option for removal of the wall • Relocation of the wall as a feature elsewhere in the locality/within the parish boundary (likely to be lain down and resin/epoxy surface overlaid) • Cost of above absorbed by Aldi • Potential new art project to capture life in Stantonbury as it is now
SPC supports the Aldi application and this much needed investment in the Stantonbury community. Local residents are keen to finally see the retail offer improved having felt neglected for many years.
Whilst SPC acknowledge there will be a small increase in traffic, it is our belief this will be outweighed by the benefits to the community and that the key journeys for shopping will not coincide with school drop-off times.
A1.2 Ward - Stantonbury - Cllr Minns
No comments received
A1.3 Ward - Stantonbury - Cllr Petchey
A1.4 No comments received.
A1.5 Ward - Stantonbury - Cllr Walker
A1.6 No comments received
A1.7 MKC Urban Design
I don’t object to the principle of a large food store on this site. I am concerned about some aspects of the design. Such as;
• I’d like to see more use of red brick in order to help add visual interest in the façade and to help relate the proposed store to the character of the existing context. • Whilst I understand why the front of the proposed store overlooks the car park and the health centre it is regrettable that there isn’t a positive elevation
(103)
overlooking Tyrill Street as the development turns its back on the neighbouring residential area that it serves. • I’m concerned that the proposed plinth detaches the development from its context. I understand that the gradient needs to be addressed, but feel it could be done in a more sympathetic manner. • I am concerned that the loss of the square to the east of the proposed store and west of the existing school will result in a significant loss of sunlight / daylight into existing classrooms and a poor environment between the two buildings.
OBJECTIVES OF URBAN DESIGN (POLICY D2A, CS 13)
Character- A place with its own identity
The proposed development has identified red brick as the prominent material used within Stantonbury campus. Whilst I don’t object to the introduction of a modern building style I do think red brick should be used in the façade not just within the proposed plinth. This would help relate the building to its context better and ensure the building relates well to and enhance the surrounding environment.
There is no unacceptable loss of privacy; However, I am concerned that the loss of the square to the west of the proposed store and east of the existing school will result in a significant loss of sunlight / daylight into existing classrooms.
I’m not convinced that the current proposal makes a positive contribution to the character of the area in which it is located.
Continuity and enclosure - A place where public and private spaces are clearly distinguished
The proposed development defines public and private areas reasonably well. However the main building entrance addresses the car park and turns its back on the nearest street and the nearest community that it serves.
Quality of the public realm - A place with attractive and successful outdoor areas
The proposed development builds on much of the existing public realm and the proposed retaining wall separates the store from the rest of the local centre and the school, resulting in a narrower pedestrian path through the development which the retaining wall and the proposed eastern elevation do not provide an active façade over.
As a result with the exception of the proposed car park the proposed public realm is not well related to and overlooked by buildings providing natural surveillance, with active ground floor uses along main routes.
By proposing a narrow route between buildings without adequate surveillance the development creates an alley way that potentially feels unsafe.
The proposed development, in particular the blank rear elevation, would have a detrimental impact upon the outlook and setting of adjacent houses.
(104)
Ease of movement - A place that is easy to get to and move through
The existing development is integrated with the surrounding paths, for example the colonnade has a direct relationship with the path to Tyrill Street, and this path is now proposed to go into a blank rear elevation. The surrounding paths should be re-configured to work with the proposed building.
Legibility - A place that has a clear image and is easy to understand
The proposed store will provide a visual landmark to help with orientation, particularly from the grid road and redway networks.
Diversity - A place with variety and choice
The proposed demolition limits the possible uses within the local centre.
Adding more red brick to the proposed façade would add further visual interest which is appropriate to the character of the area.
The proposed design adds to the contemporary, innovative, exemplar architecture that reflects Milton Keynes’ reputation as an ambitious, forward thinking, and innovative 21st Century city.
Scale
The proposed store is broadly in scale with other buildings in the immediate vicinity in terms of their height and massing. Arguable, if the pitch of the roof was reversed then the scale would work better with the surrounding context.
Landscaping and Boundary Treatments
The landscape proposals should seek to screen the proposed store from Tyrill Street and the redway because the north and west elevations are blank and don’t positively contribute to the public realm.
The proposed development should be amended in order to address the comments below.
• Adding more red brick to the proposed elevations would add visual interest through the careful use of detailing, which would be appropriate to the character of the area. • I’m concerned that the proposed plinth detaches the development from its context. Could the gradient be addressed more sympathetically than a retaining wall? • I ‘am concerned that the loss of the square to the east of the proposed store and west of the existing school will result in a significant loss of sunlight / daylight into existing classrooms and result in a narrow low quality space..
(105)
• The landscape proposals should seek to screen the proposed store from Tyrill Street and the redway because the north and west elevations are blank and don’t positively contribute to the public realm.
A1.8 MKC Public Art Officer
Overview – The Bicycle Wall forms part of the public art collection in Milton Keynes, it has a heritage value as it dates from the period of time when artists were invited to engage with communities as a vehicle for community development and cohesion. From this practise many artworks in the public realm were produced. Clearly having had the direct involvement of local people in their creation there tends to be a strong ownership and attachment to these pieces by the public, which means a sensitive approach to change is required.
In response to the information sent by Dan Templeton I would like to raise the following points:
Method statement – this is a statement written by an engineer and we would seek a specialist opinion on the process, a specialist with experience of dismantling and relocating ceramic tiles.
Location - relocating an artwork that is to be viewed on a vertical plane to a horizontal plane will impact on the viewers experience, no longer will the piece be able to be seen as intended or as a whole
Damage during removal – there is a risk that a large amount of the tiles will be damaged during the process of removal and relocation, although a proposal is made for these to be remade and replaced, the percentage of damage is uncertain and may impact upon the integrity of the piece. Again we would ask that a specialist comments on this risk.
Risk of damage – the proposed new location offers up additional risk of anti-social behaviour and damage. The tiles were not designed and made to be located on the flat and in addition to damage created by people walking on the surface an assessment of the durability of the tiles to weather and ground moisture should be obtained.
Overall I am unable to support the proposal for the Bicycle Wall removal and relocation until such a time as the points above are addressed and relevant and specialist information is presented for consideration.
To obtain specialist advice the agent could search for a conservator on the conservation register which is available online
No comments received on updated Method Statement.
A1.9 Conservation Manager
Initial comments
(106)
The Bicycle Wall Mural possesses a degree of heritage asset and can, as such, can be considered a ‘heritage asset’ (or ‘non-designated heritage asset’) as defined above.
The significance of Milton Keynes new town is now established in planning policy, having first been referenced in the Council’s Core Strategy, policy CS19 (adopted 2013), subsequently replaced by the new local plan, Plan:MK policy HE1 (adopted 2019).
In addition to constituting a heritage asset as defined by the NPPF, Plan:MK sets out that Milton Keynes Council will undertake a ‘local list’ (MK New Town Heritage Register) under which, such assets will be considered. The purpose of the MK New Town Heritage Register is to establish the local and national significance of Milton Keynes, to identify key themes within that significance and individual or groups of assets that contribute to it.
The significance of the new town of Milton Keynes is set out in the MK New Town Heritage Register’s Statement of Significance document (adopted by MKC 2017). This gives an overview within both local and national contexts. The document sets out that it is significant for eleven key reasons, which include:
• As the largest, most ambitious and most economically successful British New Town. • For its illustration of an important moment of transition in the history of British architecture and town planning, from utopian modernism to a more nuanced engagement with place-making, site context and existing buildings, and environmentally- and community-focussed design. • For the role of the Milton Keynes Development Corporation as a political entity, with one of the leading public sector architects' departments of the era. • For the consistent high quality of landscaping and public realm, with generous provision of trees, planting, parkland and public art • For a strong identity which is recognised nationally (and internationally) and valued locally.
The selection criteria, adopted by Milton Keynes Council in 2017, must be met in order for assets to be added to the register, it ensures that they make a genuine, quantified contribution to the wider significance. The significance that assets on the register possess must be taken into account when considering planning applications directly or indirectly affecting them.
At present, the Council has received nominations for assets to be considered by the register, however these are yet to go through the selection panel and final sign off stages. As such, the bikes mural cannot be formally considered for the register at this point, however it is entirely appropriate to use the adopted selection criteria to make an informal assess whether it possesses sufficient heritage significance to be added to the list. The mural itself falls with the ‘ART1 Significant public artworks’ category, although the mural and building could be considered as a whole within ‘RES5 Significant community buildings’. The building was completed within the time frame specified, it is within the designated area and is sufficiently intact and thus, meets the
(107)
required criteria. In respect of the General criteria, it would meet the following (three required in order to be added to the list): GEN1 Design Quality: The criteria state that all artworks will satisfy these criteria. GEN2 Group and Townscape Quality: The asset, due to its size, location and appearance is a local landmark. GEN5 Rarity: The mural is one of only a small collection of surviving community artworks. GEN6 Communal Value: The mural was produced by a community during the early phases of the new town in order to help them settle and to foster community identity. Its appearance is representative of this period and the mural is well known and appreciated locally. It is particularly important to the wider story of MK.
Development Principle
The local centre itself has been nominated for the heritage register, however it considered that without the mural, these would neither constitute a non-designated heritage asset as defined in the NPPF nor fulfil three of the general criteria for the heritage register. As such, the principle of redevelopment can be accepted in concept, this will however rely on establishing credible and legitimate preservation of the mural since failure to do so would result in its total loss. An acceptable solution needs to be established and agreed before permission can be granted to avoid its loss post decision.
Development Detail
At present the proposal allows for the dismantling of the mural, complete with the wall to which it is mounted, and relocation to a horizontal position within the ground nearby. Unfortunately, this is not acceptable. A horizontal orientation will prevent appreciation of the mural as a whole, as is currently possible, since the viewer would not be able to obtain the distance or angle necessary. Mounting within the ground is likely to lead to considerable damage from general wear and tear from foot traffic and the opportunity to vandalise the entire mural, as opposed to only the lower sections, as is the case when mounted vertically. In additional, a non-permeable base and non-permeable sealing on the face (the latter is proposed in the submitted specification) will lead to the retention of moisture in what is ultimately soft clay medium. This is in turn likely to lead to the tiles becoming friable and ultimately the face delaminating. This process is likely to exacerbated by it position close to the trees, the potential for root damage, reduced direct sunlight and consequent higher levels of moisture. A vertical position will allow for run-off of rainwater, more straightforward isolation from ground moisture, greater air flow around it and therefore improved evaporation. A position that has a better relationship with the finished scheme should be submitted. In addition to the need to find an acceptable location, that is if the mural is not to be retained in-situ, the Local Planning Authority must be satisfied that the proposal to dismantle the mural is a credible one and likely to succeed, rather than fail and lead to total loss of the mural at a later stage. A method statement has been submitted,
(108)
this acknowledges the delicate nature of the mural and proposes a method that avoids attempting to separate the tiles from the wall. Unfortunately it is not clear from this statement whether the author of the statement possesses any particular expertise in the relocation of artworks or experience of comparable projects. It is presumed that the author has some expertise in structural / building issues but again, this is not made clear from the information submitted. As such, respectfully, the statement cannot be considered a credible proposal at this stage. The minimum requirement is to have a method statement that has been prepared by or in partnership with, consultants that possess the necessary expertise and experience.
Conclusion
Whilst the redevelopment of the site is acceptable in principle, the total loss of Bicycle Wall Mural is not acceptable. Whilst the proposal allows for the relocation of the mural, the proposed location is not acceptable and the proposed method statement cannot be held to be credible or authoritative at this stage without further expert involvement. As such, under the considerations of section 16 of the NPPF, in particular paragraph 197, the harm caused would not be balanced by any heritage benefits arising from the scheme. Whilst there are likely to be other non-heritage benefits arising, it is entirely possible in this case to ‘avoid or minimise the conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal’ (para 190 of the NPPF) by allowing for the satisfactory relocation of the mural. No heritage assessment has been submitted with the application as required by paragraph 196 of the NPPF and section B of policy HE1 of Plan:MK. The proposal would therefore fail to meet the requirements of the NPPF and policy HE1 of Plan:MK
Updated comments following submission of Specialist Method statement
Firstly, the report adds a lot more detail around the methodology for the relocation of the mural. Having read the more detailed considerations and recommendation in the report I am satisfied that this would be a viable option for moving the mural. Obviously this is conditional on the owner engaging suitably qualified personnel at each stage, as is recommended in the report. We will need to think about how we secure this exact specification of removal i.e. whether the report can form part of a planning condition etc.
The second consideration is the proposed location. In my opinion the laying down of the mural remains unacceptable and I remain concerned over the proposed site. I note that the report commissioned by the owner also expresses concerns over the siting, angled installation, recommending that the best option is in fact for vertical display:
[regarding the siting, being remote] ‘The location for the mural is close to the original site and therefore acknowledges the community values that this mural represents, to an extent. The site is close to the subway and the mural has the potential to be seen from the road. Within the
(109)
site, however, it is awkwardly positioned behind trees and away from the main public entrance to the new building’.
[angled installation, foot traffic, vandalism, loss of visual impact] ‘Therefore, the proposed location of the mural is deemed adequate, however in terms of displaying the mural at an angle, much of the visual impact of the mural will be lost and it will become an easy target for foot traffic and vandalism. Keeping vandalism to a minimum is best achieved in areas of high footfall with good lighting therefore vertical display is the best option’.
I note that it also shares my concerns over ‘sealing’ the mural and that this should be avoided, however this appears to be dependent on its location. Confirmation should be sought over whether the current proposal would in fact require a coating due to its angled installation and proximity to the trees:
While the salts themselves do not cause damage, it is their crystallisation on or in the body of the ceramic following periods of wetting and drying. These salt crystals take up a larger area than the solution they were in, which causes the exfoliation of the glaze from the surface. The body type of the tiles is porous and allows for movement of moisture within the capillary system. The previous method statement (see Appendix C) recommends an application of an epoxy resin coating; however, this will seal in any moisture, and soluble salts will be concentrated within the tile with the potential for the disintegration of the body. This exchange of moisture should not be impeded by impervious coatings (Torraca, 2009). Depending on the final position of the mural, the optimal decision would be to leave it with no coating.
As it stands, I would consider that the report shows an acceptable specification for the removal of the mural, but that the proposed location and angled installation would cause harm to the heritage asset. The degree of harm would be appreciable given the diminished stature and visual impact arising in addition to the potential for deterioration, damage and vandalism inherent in the proposal.
The NPPF instructs LPA’s to assess the significance of assets, and that ‘They should take this into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise any conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal’ (Paragraph 190). In this case, where the principle of moving the mural is acceptable, minimising the harm would be required and to require the applicant to find and acceptable site and type of installation.
The harm caused to a heritage asset must be given weight in reaching a final decision, forming part of a balanced judgement under paragraph 197 of the NPPF.
Clearly, if the mural is designated by the DCMS then the paragraphs of the NPPF relating to designated heritage assets take effect and listed building consent will be required. In considering such an application the statutory duty of s.16 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 must be met. Where harm is found to be caused to listed building by a proposal, case law has set out that ‘great weight’ must be attributed to this.
(110)
A1.10 Highways
Initial Objection
Transport Statement
The transport statement (TS) has included a TRICS analysis. The calculation of the impact has been made by subtracting the existing floor areas (1359m2) from the proposed (1790m2) to give a net increase of 431m2 and then using the trip rate for discounted retail. However, I would question this methodology because the existing A1 use is not a discounted retail use. In other words I suggest that using this methodology is providing too many trips to the existing situation. The extraction of the trip rates from the printouts in appendix E does not match those quoted in table 5.1.
The TS has not assessed the existing parking situation. During my site visit I noticed that the existing car park which will be lost to the food store had significant level of parking activity. Given that the A1 units were all closed, then this will result in a direct displacement of cars to other areas. Pedestrian and cycle access There appears to be several issues with pedestrian and cycle access which need to be addressed.
1. The existing car park surfacing for the health centre is noted as retained but the existing path to the east of this has been severed by the development. 2. The existing footpath which runs north – south between the site and the school has been reduced in width. At the point where the steps enter the site close to the south east corner of the store the width remaining is about 1.2m. At the far north of the site (north east corner of store) the pedestrian access is all but severed. 3. The new footpath link from the west side of the site (close to the pole sign) is too narrow and needs to be at least 2m in width. 4. The plans are noted that to the south west there will be an extension for pedestrians to link with the dentist surgery. This needs to be shown on a plan. 5. The narrow widths are not providing suitable cycle access.
Car parking
Under the council’s adopted car parking standards the car parking requirement for a 1790m2 A1 food store is 128 spaces (1 space per 14m2). The submitted plan has shown 122 spaces although 9 of these are parent and child spaces which do not form part of the council’s standards. The 3 electric charging spaces are noted as being passive. This is not acceptable and the spaces require charging posts. There appears to be scope for a further 5 spaces to be located in the landscaping area accessed off the health centre parking access road (south side of site).
Updated comments
FINAL COMMENTS
(111)
The main issues that were to be resolved were on parking and traffic impact.
Parking Under the council’s adopted car parking standards the car parking requirement for a 1790m2 A1 food store is 128 spaces (1 space per 14m2). The submitted plan shows 119 spaces (this is 3 spaces fewer than originally submitted due to reposition of the building on the site). The applicant provided a TRICS analysis to indicate that maximum demand for spaces (on a Saturday) would be 102. The level of parking proposed is therefore considered acceptable.
It has been pointed out and following surveys by the applicant that there were 31 cars likely to be displaced with the development during the weekday and no more than 3 spaces on a Saturday. The applicant has stated that these can be accommodated within the proposed car park. While I can accept this principle it needs to be able to be controlled so that there are no restrictions on their use by the wider campus. Were there to be parking controls put in to restrict parking to a limited period or for the car park to be customer only then this would displace those cars (31) to other areas. The applicant, other than stating that they can be accommodated in the development car park, did not provide any other assessment of the impacts. If you are happy that the car park management can be secured by condition to ensure that non-customers can park unrestricted then I have no objections on the scheme for parking.
Traffic impact Following information provided by the applicant and additional analysis carried out by ourselves the comments and conclusions on traffic are as follows.
It is predicted that traffic will be 55 trips in and 56 out (111 in total). This is the PM peak (worst case). From the car park survey we have actual generations of 14 in and 6 out, giving a net increase in trips of 91 (41 in and 50 out).
Given this is not an insignificant amount of traffic we could not ignore the potential impact. Analysis was carried out using an application on a different site on Linford Wood which included analysis for the H3/V7 roundabout. This had a 2016 base and a 2021 forecast year. This was a little out of date but did assist in the analysis over the following years.
2016 Base 2016 Plus Aldi Traffic Increase 2021 Base 2021 Plus Aldi Traffic Increase
The key observations are: i) Based on 2016 flows - the roundabout is shown to operate just within capacity. In addition the impact is shown to be modest. ii) Based on 2021 flows - this is more likely to represent current conditions. The base shows the roundabout close to theoretical capacity with queues on H3
(112)
East which is consistent with views on google maps. Adding in the Aldi obviously makes things worse but the impact is actually quite small. Maximum RFCs up from 0.97 to 0.99 on H3 East and 0.91 to 0.95 on V7 South. Queues are up by 7 vehicles and 2 vehicles respectively.
Based on the additional work that we have carried out it can be concluded that the impact from the development is modest and as such the application in terms of traffic impact is accepted.
I have no objections subject to the following conditions:
1. Condition to manage the car park to allow non-customers to use it unrestricted.
2. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted the car parking area shown on the approved drawings shall be constructed, surfaced and permanently marked out. The car parking area so provided shall be maintained as a permanent ancillary to the development and shall be used for no other purpose thereafter.
Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision at all times so that the development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or the safety on the neighbouring highway.
3. Prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted the scheme for parking and manoeuvring and the loading and unloading of vehicles shown on the approved drawings shall be provided and shall be used for no other purpose thereafter.
Reason: To enable vehicles to draw off, park, load/unload and turn clear of the highway to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway.
4. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the proposed bicycle parking shown in the approved drawings shall be provided and be retained thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that adequate parking facilities are provided to serve the development.
(113)
ITEM 6(c)
Application Number: 19/00466/FUL
Description Demolition of the existing buildings on the site, construction of 48 residential units and six ground floor commercial units. Retention of existing access, provision of car parking, bin and cycle storage and associated landscaping
At 55 - 65 Queensway, Bletchley, Milton Keynes, MK2 2DR
For Malhi Developments Ltd.
Statutory Target: 23/05/2019
Extension of Time: Yes – 09/08/2019
Ward: Bletchley Park Parish: Bletchley & Fenny Stratford Town Council
Report Author/Case Officer: Elizabeth Verdegem Senior Planning Officer
Contact Details: 01908 252462 [email protected]
Team Manager: Niko Grigoropoulos Development Management Manager [email protected]
1.0 RECOMMENDATION
1.1 It is recommended that permission is granted subject to conditions set out in this report and completion of a S106 agreement.
2.0 INTRODUCTION
The Site
2.1 The application site is within Bletchley Town Centre, designated as part of the Primary Shopping Area, and part of the Central Bletchley Prospectus area (Plan:MK Policy SD16). The frontage on to Queensway (southern elevation) is also designated as Primary Shopping Frontage. The site lies approximately 350 metres east of Bletchley train station (approximately 600 metres walking distance, 10 minute walk).
2.2 The site is directly bounded by Queensway to the south, and Cawkwell Way to the north. To the north of the site are residential areas outside the town centre designation. Further mixed use properties along Queensway are located to the
(114)
east, west and south, mostly with ground floor retail or other similar uses, and some with flats or other commercial above. Directly to the east and west are further commercial units, with Oxford Street beyond to the east and Albert Street beyond to the west.
2.3 The site itself is a 0.22 hectare parcel of land which features a “C” shape arrangement of buildings, and two vehicle accesses, open to the north-east corner, and under the building on the northern elevation, into an internal parking area. The public entrances to units 55-65 are to the south off Queensway. The site currently contains 5 retail units accessed off Queensway, with storage building to the rear of the site.
The Proposal
2.4 The application proposes 48 residential flats and 6 commercial units, with an internal courtyard for parking and landscaping. The application originally proposed 34 parking spaces (amended to 33 spaces), and retains the existing vehicular access of Cawkwell Way in the north-east corner. Spaces 25-33 are accessed directly off Cawkwell Way.
2.5 The site is divided into Block A and Block B. Block A is the southern block, facing Queensway and is proposed to be 5 storeys high, with the 4th and 5th storey set back from the southern elevation. The ground floor would be in commercial use and provide 6 units – proposed as 4x retail, 1x café/restaurant and 1x hot food takeaway, publically accessed from Queensway. Residential pedestrian access would also be from Queensway and from the internal courtyard.
2.6 Block B is 3 storeys high and entirely in residential use, although part of the ground floor is taken up with car parking, internal cycle parking and bin store, and one ground floor flat. Pedestrian residential access would be from the internal courtyard.
2.7 The application has been revised during the application process to make some amendments to the parking layout and access arrangements, including provision of pedestrian margin on Cawkwell Way, and removal of one parking space to improve visibility.
2.8 The proposal includes no affordable units, and the applicants presented a viability assessment to support and justify their case that providing affordable units would make the scheme unviable. S106 contributions have been agreed an assessment of both of these aspects is included later in this report.
(115)
2.9 A summary of the proposed accommodation is as follows:
Type of Number of Number of Market Number of Affordable house Units Units Units Studio flat 2 2 0 1-bed flat 15 15 0 2-bed flat 31 31 0 Total 48 dwellings 48 market units 0 affordable units (100%) (0%)
Non-residential floorspace Floorspace Unit A (A5 use – hot food 94.2 sqm takeaway) Unit B (A1 use) 93.3 sqm Unit C (A1 use) 96.5 sqm Unit D (A1 use) 78.2 sqm Unit E (A1 use) 87.7 sqm Unit F (A3 use – 87.0 sqm restaurant/cafe) Total 536.9 sq.m. non-residential floorspace
Reason for referral to committee
2.10 The application has been referred to committee as a result of the proposal being a departure from the development plan and referral by Cllr Rankine and Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council.
Scope of debate/decision
2.10 This application proposal is a full planning application and so all matters are to be considered.
3.0 RELEVANT POLICIES
National Policy
3.1 National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019)
Section 2 - Achieving sustainable development Section 5 - Delivering a sufficient supply of homes Section 8 - Promoting healthy and safe communities Section 9 - Promoting sustainable transport Section 11 - Making effective use of land Section 12 - Achieving well-designed places
In addition, the Planning Practice Guidance is also a material consideration
The Development Plan
(116)
3.2 Neighbourhood Plan
There is no neighbourhood plan for the area.
3.3 Plan: MK (March 2019)
The Council received the Inspector’s final report into Plan: MK and concluded that Plan:MK, as amended by main modifications, is sound and provides an appropriate basis for the planning of the Borough up to 2031. The plan was taken to Cabinet (5 March) and Council (20 March) for approval and adoption. Plan:MK was adopted at Council on 20 March 2019 and now forms part of the statutory development plan for Milton Keynes, and includes the Policies Map that indicates land use in the Borough.
Policy DS1 - Settlement Hierarchy Policy DS2 - Housing Strategy Policy DS4 - Retail and Leisure Development Strategy Policy ER9 - Character and Function of the Shopping Hierarchy Policy ER18 - Non-Retail Uses on Ground Floors in Town Centres Policy HN1 - Housing Mix and Density Policy HN2 - Affordable Housing Policy HN4 - Amenity, Accessibility and Adaptability of Homes Policy CT1 - Sustainable Transport Network Policy CT2 - Movement and Access Policy CT3 - Walking and Cycling Policy CT5 - Public Transport Policy CT6 - Low Emission Vehicles Policy CT10 - Parking Provision Policy FR1 - Managing Flood Risk Policy FR2 - Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) and Integrated Flood Risk Assessment Policy NE3 - Biodiversity and Geological Enhancement Policy D1 - Designing a High Quality Place Policy D2 - Creating a Positive Character Policy D3 - Design of Buildings Policy D5 - Amenity and Street Scene Policy CC1 - Public Art Policy SC1 - Sustainable Construction
3.4 Supplementary Planning Documents/Guidance
Parking Standards SPD (January 2016) New Residential Development Design Guide (April 2012) Affordable Housing SPD (March 2013) Sustainable Construction Guide SPD (April 2007) Milton Keynes Drainage Strategy - Development and Flood Risk SPG (May 2004)
(117)
3.5 Human Rights Act 1998
There may be implications under Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol regarding the right of respect for a person's private and family life and home, and to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. However, these potential issues are in this case amply covered by consideration of the environmental impact of the application under the policies of the development plan and other relevant policy guidance.
4.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 Relevant Pre-application Advice
The applicants sought pre-application advice on this proposal which commented on the suitability of the height of the building, the need to design this height appropriately and the need to provide a sufficient and justified number of parking spaces.
4.2 Application Site
19/00121/FUL The demolition of the existing buildings on the site, construction of 48 residential units ( 17 x one bed, 31 x two bed) and six ground floor commercial units of A1, A3, A5 and B8 uses. Retention of existing access, provision of car parking, bin and cycle storage and associated landscaping. Withdrawn 18.02.2019
5.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS
A1.1 Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council
Initial comments received
Objection. Proposal does not meet the Parking Standards, and will not provide enough parking for the number of proposed residents. Concern that no Retail Impact Assessment has been completed, and that loss of large store to be replaced by 6 smaller units will be detrimental to the sustainability of the town centre. Concern that access will be constrained within the courtyard and lead to increased deliveries from Queensway thereby increasing congestion. Concern about safety and congestion during construction regarding deliveries and access (that might be able to be overcome with stringent conditions).
Additional comments
Requests application is referred to DCC.
A1.2 Cllr Nabeel Nazir – Bletchley Park
No comments received. (Councillor Nazir had not been elected when consultation on this application was undertaken and therefore was not consulted of the proposal; no comments were received from his predecessor).
(118)
A1.3 Cllr Allan Rankine – Bletchley Park
Supports measure to regenerate Queensway, but expresses concerns from residents that the proposal is a departure from the development plan, the lack of parking and the lack of retail impact assessment. Requests referral to DCC given the scale, impact, strength of local opinion and departure from the development plan.
A1.4 Cllr Elaine Wales – Bletchley Park
No comments received.
A1.5 MKC Urban Design
No objection in terms of design, considers development to be of an appropriate scale and size for the location. Requests materials schedule be secured by condition.
A1.6 MKC Highways
Initial comments
Notes the shortfall in parking for the retail uses, but expects the impact of this to be limited given the linked trips and other available parking in the area. Queries the conclusions of the Transport Assessment in terms of available parking in the vicinity and number of cars per household, However, overall concludes that the amount of parking is likely to be acceptable, given the location and proximity to public transport options. Has concerns regarding the pedestrian access along Cawkwell Way and the associated visibility/access from the spaces fronting Cawkwell Way. Considers that overall traffic generation will not have a significant impact on the highway.
Comments following re-consultation
Parking amounts acceptable, recommends standards car and cycle parking conditions. Considers Cawkwell Way layout has been improved, with the pedestrian area secured by condition. Has some concerns regarding visibility from the parking spaces directly off Cawkwell Way, does not object but considers it finely balanced.
A1.7 MKC Flood and Water Management Officer (Lead Local Flood Authority)
Initial comments
Objection, based on lack of supporting information to show acceptable drainage scheme, and that permission will be required from Anglian Water to discharge to the sewer to the east of the site.
(119)
Comments following re-consultation
Objection as permission will be required from Anglian Water to discharge to the sewer to the east of the site. No comments regarding the details of the drainage scheme.
A1.8 MKC Landscape Architect
Initial comments
Requests tree survey and protection information for the trees to the front of the site on Queensway. Landscape plan acceptable for the current layout.
Additional comments following further information
Accepts that tree survey information has been submitted and comments should be received from the Tree Officer.
A1.9 MKC Landscape Services (Tree Officer)
No comments received.
A1.10 MKC Countryside Officer
No comments received.
A1.11 MKC Housing
States that the development should comply with the affordable housing SPD and provide 30% affordable housing.
A1.12 MKC Archaeology
No comments to make.
A1.13 Anglian Water
Notes that Anglian Water assets in the vicinity will need to remain publically accessible or be diverted at a cost to the applicant. Notes that the applicant requires connection to the sewer for surface water run-off and will require further detail and evidence that this is acceptable, by condition.
A1.14 Neighbour/ Third Party Representations
Comments have been received from approximately 5 addresses. The material planning considerations are summarised below:
Concern on lack of proposed day time parking for the shops; Concern on loss of employee spaces for the retail units;
(120)
Concern regarding loss of the large retail unit, currently occupied by a popular convenience shop; Concern regarding impact on local employment and local businesses; Concern that proposal does not fit with the current plans for the Town Centre; Concern regarding highway safety on Cawkwell Way, given associated parking spaces accessed directly off Cawkwell Way and lack of visibility, particularly if residents reverse out of these spaces; Concern that the applicant’s survey of surrounding parking areas is inaccurate, and there is no space to cope with additional requirement for employee visitor parking; and Concern regarding the impact on traffic/Queensway as a result of the construction period.
6.0 MAIN ISSUES
Principle of development Highway matters and parking Impact on character of the area Impact on Heritage Assets Design Residential amenity Landscape Ecology Drainage and flood risk Sustainable construction S106 matters
7.0 CONSIDERATIONS
Principle of development
7.1 The application will result in a loss of commercial space, and the reduction in the amount of A1 retail floorspace in Queensway. The existing 5 units will be replaced with 6 smaller commercial units, 2 of which are proposed in non-A1 (non-retail) use, and the proposal therefore will result in a loss of overall retail floorspace. Policy ER18 of Plan:MK allows for non-retail (non-A1) uses on ground floors in town centres, subject to the following restrictions:
1. The proposed use is appropriate within a town centre setting. 2. There is not an existing over-concentration of non-class A1 uses within the town centre boundary. 3. The general restrictions on the location and proportion of non-retail uses set out in table 6.3 are met (non-retail uses in that block not exceeding 45% of the total frontage of that block). 4. The proposed use would enhance the vitality of the town centre by extending the range of facilities offered and/or stimulating activity outside normal shopping hours. 5. They would not have an adverse effect on any nearby residential property. 6. The proposed use would maintain an appropriate window display to avoid the creation of a dead frontage.
(121)
7.2 The addition of residential use and an A3 and A5 unit to the ground floor within the site is considered appropriate within the town centre boundary (point 1), and there is not an over concentration of non-A1 uses within the town centre that would be exacerbated by this proposal (point 2). In addition, an increase in residential use, to increase evening and night-time activity is considered appropriate for increasing the vitality of the town centre and would not have an adverse effect on nearby residential properties (points 4 and 5)
7.3 In terms of the primary shopping frontage, the current make-up of the site is a mixture of A1 and sui generis uses, being shops, opticians, pawn-brokers and betting shops. The primary frontage of the site would remain in 67% retail use, and for the block as a whole, this would result in 55% of the block remaining in A1 use, therefore complying with Point 3. All six units would have a primary active frontage, controlled through advert consent and separate applications for the shop fronts where necessary, and would overall therefore maintain an active frontage (point 6). Therefore, while concerns have been expressed by third parties relating to the loss of retail in the town centre, the proposal complies with the retail policies within the development plan, and maintains an adequate amount of retail floorspace in this location.
7.4 Part B of Policy ER18 states that residential use will be encouraged above ground floor level. There are also no restrictions on non-retail uses off Cawkwell Way, and therefore the use of the remainder of the site (aside from the Queensway primary shopping frontage) for residential use is considered in accordance with this policy, and is therefore supported in principle.
7.5 In addition, Policy DS4 and SD16 of Plan:MK requires the Council to prepare a Central Bletchley Prospectus to promote mixed-use development and intensify development in sustainable locations, close to the station with good transport links. The redevelopment of the site as a mixed use complex of retail, other commercial units and residential is therefore considered appropriate for the site and its location.
Highway matters and parking
7.6 The site currently has informal space for 25 cars and it is proposed to provide 33 formalised allocated spaces on the site, 1 space per retail unit and the remaining spaces allocated to the flats. The Council’s Parking Standards for Zone 2 indicate a need for up to 151 spaces on site, when taking into account the requirement for the commercial uses and allocated spaces for the flats. The proposal is therefore clearly below the amount required in the Parking Standards. The applicant has stated that they would reserve one space per commercial unit, with the remaining 27 spaces being for the flats, which would equate to approximately one allocated for every two flats.
7.7 For clarity, if it was considered that the parking for the commercial units was not required (given the town centre location, access to public car parks and public transport, etc.), the site would provide 33 spaces for the 48 units, which would equate to approximately 2 spaces for every 3 flats.
(122)
7.8 The applicant has justified the reduced amount of parking through their Transport Assessment and has concluded that the amount of parking would be sufficient, given the type of housing proposed and the proximity to the train station and bus links. The applicant states that this proposal represents a balance between the effective use of the land, and achieving a viable higher density development, against providing a suitable amount of parking on site. Highway Officers are prepared to accept the amount of parking on site, given the justification within the Transport Statement.
7.9 Given that Plan:MK proposes a higher density of development within Central Bletchley, and the applicant has provided justification to suggest that a lower proportion of parking would be appropriate on this site, it is considered that the amount of parking proposed (despite the shortfall in relation to the parking standards in this location is acceptable. A summary of the car parking on the site is included below:
Parking Standards Provided Requirement - Zone 2 House No of Allocated Unallocated Allocated Unallocated Type units Studio 2 1 per unit (2 0.33 unallocated flat required) (0.66 required) 1-bed 15 1 per unit (15 0.33 unallocated 27 spaces 0 spaces flat required) (4.95 required) 2-bed 31 1 per unit (31 0.33 unallocated flat required) (10.23 required) A1 use 4 units/ 1 per 33 sqm n/a 356 sqm (10.8 required) A3 use 1 unit/ 1 per 3 sqm 6 spaces (1 n/a n/a 87 sqm (29 required) per unit) A5 use 1 unit/ 94 1 per 2 sqm n/a sqm (47 required) Totals 135 allocated 16 unallocated 33 allocated 0 unallocated spaces spaces (15.84) spaces spaces Site 151 spaces required across the 33 spaces provided across Total site the site
7.10 The Council’s Highways Officer expressed concerns with the pedestrian route along Cawkwell Way, as well as the vehicle access to the site and parking spaces on Cawkwell Way, including the reduced visibility because of the site layout and position of pillars, which was shown to be not adequate through the visibility splays.
7.11 In response the applicant removed one of the parking spaces and provided revised visibility diagrams. Highways Officers still have concerns that there is restricted visibility from these spaces, but have confirmed that they are not objecting to the proposal and that the situation is “finely balanced”.
7.12 For pedestrian access, a new pedestrian footway if proposed from Oxford Street onto Cawkwell Way on the south of side of the road, moving into a dropped curb demarcated path in front of the proposed parking spaces on the northern boundary
(123)
of the site. Adjusted road markings and tactile paving crossings are proposed to facilitate this and increase accessibility. Highways Officers consider that the revised plan addresses and improves on the existing pedestrian access, where there is no footpath on Cawkwell Way at present, and recognises that the proposal is a suitable option given the constraints of the site. The details of these works will be secured by condition and will require the applicant to enter into a S278 Agreement to complete the works.
7.13 Concern has been expressed from third parties regarding construction traffic and congestion, and given the size constraints of the site and the access, and its position in relation to the frontage on Queensway, it is considered appropriate to require a construction management plan by condition. This will ensure that any impact on surrounding areas and roads is limited and controlled, and will reduce the impact on public and surrounding residential amenity during the construction phase.
7.14 Overall and on balance, it is therefore considered that the access and parking at the site is acceptable and that the proposal is not contrary to the requirements of policies CT2, CT3 and CT10 of Plan:MK.
Impact on character of the area
7.15 The Council’s Urban Design Officers have no concerns with the redevelopment of the site, including the demolition of the current building, which has little architectural merit. The proposed buildings, the 5 storey A-block and 3 storey B-block, are higher than the existing and surrounding buildings which are 2-3 storeys. However, given the aims within Central Bletchley to intensify use and increase density, and given that the fourth and fifth storeys are set back from the street to reduce their vertical impact, it is considered that the replacement with a high quality building will not have a negative impact on the character of the area, and will set a positive benchmark for the future development of Queensway.
7.16 Materials should be secured which reflect the existing materials found within Queensway, and this will be secured by condition.
7.17 It is therefore considered that the proposal complies with Plan:MK policies D1 and D2 in creating a new positive character for the site and the surrounding town centre.
Impact on Heritage Assets
7.18 The site is not in a conservation area, and there are no listed buildings in proximity. There are therefore no concerns regarding impact on heritage assets.
Design and Layout
7.19 As above, redevelopment of the site at this size if considered appropriate for the location, given the move towards higher densities in Central Bletchley. The Council’s Urban Design Officer is content with the design of the building, provided materials are chosen to match materials already in use within the Queensway.
(124)
Designing Block A to be set back at higher levels to create the integrated balconies and reduce the vertical impact of the building is considered an appropriate response to the context of the site.
7.20 Policies SD16 and HN1 states that the Central Bletchley Prospectus area will guide development by encouraging densities of 150-250 dwellings per hectare. The proposal of 48 dwellings on a 0.22 hectare site constitutes approx. 218 dwellings per hectare, notwithstanding the retention of retail use on the ground floor, which is required by policy. The residential density is therefore considered acceptable.
7.21 The application proposes no affordable housing and the applicant’s case in terms of the viability of this and other S106 matters will be discussed in the section below. The residential mix consists of studio, 1- and 2-bed flats, and this is considered acceptable given the town centre location, and the constraints of the site in terms of site area, and the need to retain ground floor retail and provide parking.
Residential amenity
7.22 To the north of the site are dwellings off Oxford Street, the closest of which is no. 5 which is subdivided into flats and which does have side elevations windows facing onto the development site. In any case, no. 5 is approximately 14 metres from the northern elevation of the proposed development, and there are therefore no concerns regarding privacy and overlooking, in accordance with the guidance set out in the New Residential Design Guide SPD.
7.23 There are a small number of flats above shops already within Bletchley Town Centre. The closest of which are to the east, across Oxford Street, these are approximately 18 metres away. Again, there are therefore no concerns regarding privacy or overlooking between the existing and proposed flats.
7.24 The floorplans for the proposal show that the development complies with the Nationally Described Spaces Standards, as required by Policy HN4 of Plan:MK and is therefore acceptable.
7.25 The application proposed and restaurant/cafe unit and a takeaway unit. Given the proximity of the proposed residential units, it is considered appropriate to secure a ventilation and extraction strategy, by condition, to be secured prior to the occupation of the units, to ensure no impact in terms of odour and associated noise and therefore comply with policy NE6 of Plan:MK.
Landscape and Ecology
7.26 The site as existing is devoid of trees or any vegetation, although there are trees off the site to the front, within the adopted highway, which are close to the buildings, and could potentially be affected by the construction works. The Council’s Landscape Officer requested a tree survey which was provided. No comments were subsequently received from the Trees Officer. Therefore a tree protection plan, to ensure that construction works do not affect the existing mature trees, will be secured by condition.
(125)
7.27 A Landscaping scheme is proposed to improve the public realm within the internal car park area. Given the site contains no planting at present, and landscaping improvement would be considered to represent an enhancement in biodiversity of the site. As there have been some minor amendments to the proposal to amend the parking/access layout since the landscape comments, revised detailed plans will be secured by condition.
7.28 Given the above, it is considered that the proposal complies with Plan:MK polices D1 and D2 in providing an appropriate landscaping scheme to enhance the character of the area and the site, and provides a net gain in biodiversity in accordance with Policy NE3.
Drainage and flood risk
7.29 The applicants have provided a drainage scheme for the site which is accepted by the Council’s Flood and Water Management Officer, although their objection is maintained due to the scheme requiring connection to the Anglian Water sewer to the east of the site. Any connections to offsite works will require land owner permission, and permission from Anglian Water, and access to the land can be agreed outside of the permission for this site. Anglian Water have not objected to the proposal, and the applicant will need to obtain the necessary licence from them in order to complete the drainage scheme. The implementation of the drainage scheme will be secured by condition, and it is therefore considered that the proposal complies with Plan:MK Policies FR1 and FR2 in providing an appropriate drainage scheme for the site.
Sustainable construction
7.30 The applicant has provided a Sustainability Statement that sets out the energy efficiency of the building, and proposes solar photovoltaic panels to the roofs of the building. These will be secured by condition. The remaining carbon generated by the building will be covered by contribution to the carbon offsetting fund, and secured through the S106 Agreement, as detailed below.
S106 matters
7.31 The applicant has proposed no affordable housing as part of this application, on the grounds of viability, and supported the application with a Viability Appraisal. The Council appointed independent viability assessors to review this assessment who concluded that the proposal would indeed be unviable with any affordable housing included.
7.32 In addition, they noted that the proposal would be unlikely to be viable at all, even when assessed without any affordable housing or S106 contributions. However, it is up to the applicant whether they wish to pursue their scheme, should they gain planning permission, and they have not made any case to avoid S106 contributions on the grounds of viability, which the Council would be unlikely to accept anyway.
7.33 The applicant has therefore agreed to the following S106 contributions:
(126)
Education Contribution Total Early Years £21,962.09 Primary pupils £108,518.58 Secondary pupils £116,797.96 Post 16 pupils £25,333.94
Leisure, Recreation & Sports Provision Cost Maintenance Cost Local Play £27,594.00 £19,622.40 Neighbourhood Play £26,280.00 £33,638.40 Community Hall £8,135.59 n/a Local Parks £3,504.00 £5,080.80 District Parks £7,008.00 £10,161.60
Transport Contribution Travel Planning £4,857 Passenger Transport £20,000
Social Infrastructure: Contribution Library £8,672.40 Crematorium/Burial Grounds £3,504.00 Museums and Archives £6,132.00 Health Facilities £60,006.00 Waste Management £9,898.80 Waste Receptacles £4,800.00 Voluntary Sector £7,270.80 Public Art £8,672.40
Carbon Offsetting: Contribution Carbon Neutrality (Estimated if applicable) £15,255
Total Contribution: £562,705.76 Per Unit: £11,723.04
7.34 These contributions meet the tests for obligations as outlined at paragraph 204 of the NPPF and are in accordance with CIL Regulations 122 and 123, and are therefore considered appropriate and acceptable contribution to offset the impact of the development.
8.0 CONCLUSIONS
8.1 This proposal represents a high quality mixed use scheme for Bletchley Town Centre. The proposal represents an appropriate balance between high density development, to make an effective use of land, and the provision of a suitable amount of parking and appropriate access to the site. Commercial use and an active primary shopping frontage is maintain onto Queensway. Although there is a lack of affordable housing proposed, the applicant has agreed to make appropriate contributions to offset the impact of the development on surrounding infrastructure.
(127)
8.2 Overall, the application is therefore considered to be acceptable, and is recommended for approval subject to the completion of the S106 Agreement and the conditions below.
9.0 CONDITIONS
Expiration 1. The development hereby permitted shall begin 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 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Materials 2. No development shall take place above slab level until a schedule of the external materials to be used in the construction of the development have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The Schedule shall include detailed specification, photo examples, RAL numbers and/or samples, as appropriate. The development shall thereafter be carried out in full accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the development.
Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies D2 and D3 of Plan:MK (2019).
Implementation of car parking 3. No building or use hereby permitted shall be occupied or the use commenced until the car/vehicle parking area shown on the approved plans 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 thereafter.
Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision at all times so that the development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or the safety on the neighbouring highway in accordance with Polices CT2 and CT10 of Plan:MK (2019).
Implementation of cycle parking 4. No building or use hereby permitted shall be occupied or the use commenced until the cycle parking provision shown on the approved plans has been completed. Thereafter, the cycle parking provision shall be kept free of obstruction and shall be available for the parking of cycles only.
Reason: To ensure the provision and availability of adequate cycle parking in accordance with Policy CT3 and CT10 of Plan:MK (2019).
Pedestrian/Road Improvements 5. Development shall not be occupied until details of the proposed highway access works shown in plan 18161 / SK01 have been submitted and improved in writing by
(128)
the local planning authority. Development shall not be occupied until the works have been constructed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure the safety and convenience of pedestrians and users of the highway in accordance with Policies CT2 and CT3 of Plan:MK (2019).
Construction Management Plan 6. No development, including any works of demolition, shall take place until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP shall include site procedures to be adopted during the course of construction including:
routes for construction traffic method of prevention of mud being carried onto the highway location of site compound loading and unloading of plant and materials the erection and maintenance of security fencing/hoardings and lighting proposed temporary traffic restrictions parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors.
The development shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved CEMP.
Reason: To ensure there are adequate mitigation measures in place, in the interests of highway and pedestrian safety and in order to protect the amenities of existing and future residents in accordance with Policies CT2 of Plan:MK.
Details of extraction/ventilation system 7. The units permitted for A3 and A5 use shall not be occupied, or the use commenced, until the details of the means of ventilation for the extraction and dispersal of odorous smells/fumes, including details of its method of construction, odour control measures, noise levels and its appearance and finish has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be installed before the use commences and thereafter shall be permanently maintained in accordance with the specified scheme.
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of nearby premises and the area generally in accordance with Policy D5 of Plan:MK (2019).
Tree Protection 8. All existing trees, woodlands and hedgerows to be retained as shown on the approved plans shall be fully protected in accordance with the latest British Standards (currently BS 5837:2012 'Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction-Recommendations') by the time construction begins. All protective measures must be in place prior to the commencement of any building operations (including any structural alterations, construction, rebuilding, demolition and site clearance, removal of any trees or hedgerows, engineering operations, groundworks, vehicle movements or any other operations normally undertaken by a person carrying on a business as a builder). The Root Protection Area (RPA) within the protective fencing must be kept free of all construction, construction plant, machinery, personnel, digging and scraping, service runs, water-logging,
(129)
changes in level, building materials and all other operations. All protective measures shall be maintained in place and in good order until all work is complete and all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site.
Signs informing of the purpose of the fencing and warning of the penalties against destruction or damage to the trees and their root zones shall be installed at minimum intervals of 10 metres and a minimum of two signs per separate stretch of fencing.
Reason: To protect significant trees and hedgerows, safeguarding the character of the area and preserving habitat and to minimise the effect of development on the area in accordance with Policies D2, D4 and NE1 of Plan:MK (2019).
Landscaping Scheme 9. Notwithstanding the approved drawings, no development shall take place above slab level until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
If within a period of two years from the date of the planting of any tree or shrub, that tree or shrub, or any tree and shrub planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted or destroyed, dies, becomes severely damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with trees and shrubs of equivalent size, species and quantity.
All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of the building(s) or the completion of the development whichever is the sooner or in accordance with a programme agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To protect significant trees and hedgerows, safeguarding the character of the area and preserving habitat and to minimise the effect of development on the area in accordance with Policies NE4 and NE5 and Policy D1 of Plan:MK (2019).
Boundary Treatments 10. Notwithstanding the approved details, no development shall take place above slab level until details of the proposed boundary treatments have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include a boundary treatment plan (at a minimum scale of 1:500) detailing the position of all proposed boundary treatment and annotated or accompanied by a schedule specifying the type, height, composition, appearance and installation method of boundary treatment throughout the site. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of any part of the development and shall thereafter be retained in that form.
Reason: To provide adequate privacy, to protect the external character and appearance of the area and to minimise the effect of development on the area in accordance with Policies D1 and D2 of Plan:MK (2019).
(130)
Drainage Scheme 11. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted a detailed design, and associated management and maintenance plan, for a foul and surface water drainage scheme, based on sustainable drainage principles for the site shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The management and maintenance plan shall include a detailed time table for the implementation of the foul and surface water drainage scheme. The approved drainage scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved detailed design and in accordance with the approved time table for implementation and be retained thereafter.
Reason: To ensure satisfactory and sustainable foul and surface water drainage to prevent the increased risk of contamination and flooding on or off site in accordance with Policies FR1 and FR2 of Plan:MK (2019).
Photovoltaic Panels 12. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted the Photovoltaic Panels, shown on the approved plans, shall be in installed in full in accordance with the approved plans and brought into use. The panels shall be maintained on site thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that renewable energy is generated on site in accordance with Policy SC1 of Plan:MK (2019).
(131)
(132)
(133)
(134)
(135)
(136)
(137)
(138)
(139)
(140)
(141)
(142)
A1.0 FULL CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS
A1.1 Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council
Initial comments
Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council wishes to object to the proposed development for the following reasons:
i The development does not meet the parking standards set out in the Milton Keynes Council Parking SPG for zone two and the parking is inadequate for the needs of the residents and users of the proposed development (providing less than 40% of the parking deemed necessary if the SPD requirements were taken into account). Although the parking provision has been based upon a parking stress and occupancy survey which indicated that there was significant spare parking capacity in the location at present, but this does not match the experience of local people. In any event 48 residential units would result in significant parking stress. Even if adequate parking were to be provided at the rear the proposed development would be likely to increase on-street parking in Queensway by residents (as demonstrated by the recent residential development on the opposite side of the road where parking is available to the rear but residents are using Queensway). On-street parking is already limited in Queensway and this impact is likely to be detrimental to the sustainability of the retail offer in Queensway and to impede access to local services for residents. We note that in the pre-application advice provided by MKC provision of parking was identified as being the most challenging aspect of this development and we submit that the parking survey evidence provided does not justify the number of spaces proposed.
ii No retail impact assessment had been undertaken and the loss of larger anchor store space and its replacement with smaller units (of which there were already several vacant in the area ) may be very detrimental to the future sustainability of the local economy. This lack of a retail impact assessment does not inspire confidence in the proposed development.
iii Regular ongoing access to the residential and retail units is also considered likely to be problematic with all deliveries being via the courtyard parking which has limited turning space or in practice being via Queensway.
iv The council had concerns about safety and congestion during the construction period. All construction traffic to the site was planned to be via Cawkwell Way and Princes Way which includes some narrow stretches (eg near Steptoe's Furniture), there is a 7.5 tonne weight restriction and this area may be unsuitable for HGVs/construction traffic. The proposed hours for construction related activity are 8.30 am to 5.30 pm Monday to Friday and 8.30 am to 1 pm on Saturday but if vehicular access is permitted throughout these times the congestion may result in safety issues. (These concerns may be able to be met by stringent conditions.)
(143)
Further comments
“My Town Council is strongly opposed to the proposed development in its current form and would wish to register to speak at DCC if/when this application is considered.” “The Town Council would like to call this in and speak against it.”
A1.2 Cllr Nabeel Nazir – Bletchley Park
No comments received. (Councillor Nazir was not elected when consultation on this application was undertaken; no comments were received from his predecessor).
A1.3 Cllr Allan Rankine – Bletchley Park
“Although I am supportive of measures to regenerate Queensway, residents and the Town Council have contacted me to relay concerns that the proposed development is a departure from the Local Plan. The Town Council and residents have strong reservations about the proposed parking provision for this development and the lack of a retail impact assessment. Given the scale and impact of this development, the strength of local opinion and the potential departure from planning guidelines for this area I am formally recommending that the planning team send this application to DCC for detailed scrutiny.”
A1.4 Cllr Elaine Wales – Bletchley Park
No comments received.
A1.5 MKC Urban Design
“The principle of a mixed-use scheme with residential development above a commercial use ground floor is acceptable as it will help support both the town centre and the bus and train station.
The proposed scheme is proposing demolishing an existing retail development with limited architectural merit, replacing it with a mixed-use building combining retail on the ground floor, addressing Queensway, with residential use above and to the rear of the site. The south elevation is taller than the existing context. However, the top two storeys are set back from the building line in order that south facade responds to the height of the current context.
The proposed design seems broadly acceptable in terms of scale and design. The proposed development is replacing a building of little architectural merit.
The building materials are yet to be finalised, they need to reflect materials in the existing high street and should be conditioned.
Queensway has a range of architectural styles. The proposed development is proposing a modern built-form character. The elevations are regularly punctuated by glazing on both the commercial and residential floors. This will help animate Queensway and provide overlooking of Cawkwell Way to the rear (north) it is
(144)
important that the materials are sensitively chosen in order that they complement the existing materials and colours on Queensway.
The proposed development is of acceptable quality in terms of layout and appearance, and will make a positive contribution to the character of the area in which it is located.
The proposed development has good continuity of street frontage facing Queensway with the main building entrances addressing the street and a secondary residential access addressing the proposed parking area. The ground floor relationship Block B has with Cawkwell Way isn’t ideal. There is no ground floor surveillance of the street and the entrance to the apartments is hard to find between parked cars, as well as being underneath the first floor. However, on balance the proposed surveillance from the first and second floors that this scheme offers is an improvement visually on the existing, largely blank elevation.
The parking for the apartments needs to be identified as a private space. This can be achieved through materials, but given the town centre location it might be worth considering a gate to the parking court.
The proposed development offers no additional public realm. However, the proposed buildings are accessible, attractive, related well to and overlook the neighbouring streets providing natural surveillance, with active ground floor uses along Queensway and with parked vehicles not being visually dominant.
In terms of the prevention of crime, I am concerned about the proposed parking along Cawkwell Way, as the first floor overhangs the proposed parking spaces. This creates an environment which isn’t secure and where people cannot be seen. However, this concern should be viewed against the benefit of good natural surveillance of the public realm from the first and second floor of the proposed development.
The proposed development achieves acceptable separation distances.
The proposed development achieves good ease of movement as it is located in a highly accessible location. The development will be well connected with convenient routes along streets giving priority to walking, cycling and public transport.
The proposed design helps to reinforce existing street edges. The increased height and modern design of the proposed development may provide a memorable building to help with orientation on the walk down Queensway.
The ground floor units will be reasonably adaptable spaces, capable to be used by a range of commercial activities in response to changing conditions.
The proposed design and scale will help add to the variety of building form, use and tenure along Queensway.
The design will allow for some visual interest where this is appropriate to the character of the area.
(145)
Whilst the proposed buildings are five storeys (block A) and 3 storeys (block B) in height within an existing context of two and three storey buildings. It is my view that the proposed height is acceptable for a town centre location and the manner in which the fourth and fifth storeys are set back ensure that the proposed development relates well to the scale of the other buildings in the immediate vicinity in terms of height and massing.
There is no unacceptable visual intrusion or loss of privacy, sunlight and daylight
In terms of design, I don’t object to this application.
The building materials are yet to be finalised, they need to reflect materials in the existing high street and should be conditioned.”
A1.6 MKC Highways
Initial comments
“Car Parking Under the council’s parking standards the parking requirement is:
Proposed Allocated Unallocated 48 x 1 & 2 bed flats 48 spaces (1 space per unit) 16 spaces (0.33 spaces per unit)
536m2 of A1 16 spaces (1 space per 33m2)
Total 80 spaces Provided 34 spaces (28 residential plus 6 retail).
Shortfall 46 spaces
The proposals include a mix of A1, A3 and A5 uses. Under the parking standards, standalone A3 and A5 units provide for high levels of parking as the standard is 1 per 3m2. In a high street location such as this, these type of units are unlikely to generate this level of demand as their use is linked significantly with other functions in the locality. In order to provide a like for like comparison with the existing uses an all A1 use class has been calculated. For the same reasons, even A1 use would be expected to include a significant level of linked trips so the impact is likely to be over stated.
Existing Allocated Unallocated 5 x 1 and 2 bed units 5 3
1534m2 of A1 47 spaces (1 space per 33m2)
Total 55 spaces
(146)
Provided 22 spaces
Shortfall 33 spaces
Based on the assumptions as stated above the impact is an increased shortfall of 13 spaces.
However, with this direct comparison methodology in the evenings the retail use will cease (or significantly reduce). The shortfall against the parking standards based just on the residential use is 36 spaces (64 – 28) if all on site spaces could be used by the residential use.
The Transport Assessment has included results from extensive parking surveys including both on and off street locations. The proposed development is closest to zone 16 which includes Regent Street, Bedford Street, St Martins Street and Oxford Street. These locations have limited capacity and occupancy was shown to be high within the resident permit control zones. This appears to be consistent with the town council’s comments in their objection. At the present time residents from this development would not be able to apply for a zone 16 permit and their ability to do so would be under the control of the council’s parking team. It is not possible to apply for permits in other zones or transfer their use between zones. This means that the council is able to control and ensure that the impact to existing local residents within the on-street residential permit areas need not be made worse from this development.
Some of the on street locations allow unrestricted on street parking in the evenings and all day Sundays. Surveys of these locations show that there is spare capacity including close by on Cawkwell Way (for example the larger section on this street has evening and overnight occupancy of 13-20%). During the day (Mondays – Saturdays) these spaces are not available for longer than 2 hours and if there is demand for all day parking then alternative locations would have to be sought. It is likely that residents would use the Long Stay Albert Street parking (this has plenty of spare capacity overnight and evenings). My concern would be that if a large overspill from this development focuses on this car park it would negatively impact during the day for visitors to the town as during the day it is mainly at capacity.
The TA includes Census car ownership levels for flats at 0.6 per unit and all households 0.8 per unit. It is not explained in the TA how Census data (which is from 2011) and includes existing and older stocks of development is directly comparable to the site which will be new and to modern standards. While actual car ownership might be lower than 1 per unit I am not convinced that it will be as low as 0.6 per unit and a figure between the two is more likely. Were actual ownership to be 0.6 per unit then the demand for allocated spaces could be accommodated within the 28 spaces provided on site.
Given the location of the site in terms of walking and public transport accessibility and the availability of public parking options as described above I have no objections to the scheme for parking. Recommended that 1 space is provided for electric vehicles.
(147)
Cycle parking This is acceptable. Details of cycle parking can be conditioned.
Pedestrian Access Although the general location of the site is very accessible the walking environment in the vicinity of the site is poor with a mix of commercial vehicles and pedestrians without separate facilities for pedestrians in some parts of Cawkwell Way.
The applicant proposes a 1.2m hatched area along the Cawkwell Way frontage. Although this is some improvement I am of the opinion that this could be reinforced with a perhaps a change in surface material. In addition, I would require the provision of tactile crossing points at the junctions of Oxford Street and Albert Street. These could be secured by a pre-commencement condition and the physical works managed within a s278 agreement.
Vehicle access The plans include visibility splays which within the TA are stated to have an “x” distance of 2.4m. This appears not to be the case even with the 1.2m margin stated on the plans. The “x” distance is measured to be 2m. There are additional points of conflict from the individual spaces numbered 25-34 caused by the short “x” distance and the support pillars of block B. The pillars would also cause restricted inter visibility with pedestrians.
The TA only mentions “likely” speeds and not actual speeds. This makes the visibility splays uncertain.
Traffic The proposed 48 unit residential development will generate an estimated 18 movements in the am peak and 19 movements in the pm peak. (137 across the whole day). This will have a negligible impact on the highway. In fact it will be slightly less than this due to the demolition of the 5 existing residential units.
Traffic from the commercial development between existing and proposed is using the same floor area of 589m2. There are other existing buildings on site that are not included in the figures but are described as storage in the TA. This means that some traffic would have been generated from the other building on site but have not been added to the traffic figures. This understates the existing situation so the TA can be considered robust.
Conclusion The applicant is asked to provide a response to the vehicle access section which has a layout creating points of conflict and an “x” distance of 2m when it’s stated as being 2.4m.”
Comments following submission of further information
“Car parking Acceptable. Please refer to my previous comments and I recommend the standard parking condition.
(148)
Cycle parking Acceptable. Please refer to my previous comments and I recommend a standard cycle parking condition.
Pedestrian access and external highway works Following discussions with the transport consultant drawing number 18161 / SK01 included in the Transport Note (TN) was submitted. This shows an improved layout for pedestrians. The vicinity of the site is far from ideal for pedestrians with Cawkwell Way having no separate pedestrian facilities and the adjacent streets lacking appropriate crossing point treatment. The revised plan seeks to address these shortcomings and does so to my satisfaction although it is accepted that there are constraints which has restricted as to what is achievable. A recommended condition is below. Please could you ensure that this plan number is registered as an approved plan (suggest it is extracted from the TN and separately registered).
Vehicle access The applicant has submitted revised details which more clearly show the achievable visibility splays from the spaces gaining access directly onto Cawkwell Way. I remain concerned that there is still restricted visibility towards the north along the nearside channel but wider splays to the opposite channel is possible as demonstrated in the splay plans. Cawkwell Way was observed to have significant levels of activity which did act to reduce vehicle speeds. There will be times, of course when activity levels are lower and vehicle speeds will inevitably increase. Although I am not objecting this is finely balanced. Visibility along the nearside channel in the south direction is acceptable.”
Suggests three conditions to secure car parking, cycle parking and pedestrian works.
A1.7 MKC Flood and Water Management
Initial comments
“At present we object to the grant of planning permission for the following reasons:
1. Surface water flood risk concerns According to Section 2.2.3 of the Drainage Strategy (ref: M42708 R002), at the time of the topographical survey the manhole in the north-east of the site, which the development is planning to drain into, was flooded. This raises concerns over the condition of this manhole and its capacity to take water draining from the site. No information has been provided on the rainfall conditions before flooding of the manhole was detected.
In addition, according to the MicroDrainage Calculations displayed in Appendix E of the Drainage Strategy, modelling has concluded that flooding will occur on the site during a 1 in 1, 1 in 30 and 1 in 100 year event. Modelling for all three events has included a 40% allowance for climate change. However, we only require a 40% climate change allowance to be included for the 1 in 100 year event. Re-modelling of the 1 in 1 year and 1 in 30 year events without the climate change allowance
(149)
could show lower levels of flooding. Nevertheless, the flood volume for a 1 in 100 year event has been modelled at 20.1 m3 and 17.1 m3, which is a significant volume of water and therefore raises particular concerns of surface water flood risk to the site.
It is proposed that exceedance flows which cannot be stored in sub-base permeable paving during these events will flow into Cawkwell Way to the North of the site. However, it is required that surface water strategies are designed to reduce flood risk both onsite and elsewhere by incorporating appropriate flood risk management measures, including the use of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS).
2. Installation of new connection outside red line boundary It has been proposed that the site will discharge into an existing Anglian Water surface water sewer which runs underneath Oxford Street to the East of the site. This will be connected via a new surface water sewer which is to be installed at the end of Cawkwell Way. However, the proposed new surface water sewer lies outside the red-line boundary for the site. Therefore, permission will be required by the land owner to develop here. Anglian Water should be consulted where connection to an Anglian Water sewer is required and when new connections to the water supply network are required.”
Comments following submission of further information
“At present we maintain our objection to the grant of planning permission for the following reasons: 1. Installation of new connection outside red line boundary It has been proposed that the site will discharge into an existing Anglian Water surface water sewer which runs underneath Oxford Street to the East of the site. This will be connected via a new surface water sewer which is to be installed at the end of Cawkwell Way. However, the proposed new surface water sewer lies outside the red-line boundary for the site. Therefore, permission will be required by the land owner to develop here. Anglian Water should be consulted where connection to an Anglian Water sewer is required and when new connections to the water supply network are required.”
A1.8 MKC Landscape Architect
Initial comments
“My main concern with the proposal is how the existing building will be demolished and the proposed construction works carried out without harm to the existing mature trees. I am particularly concerned for the existing trees in adopted highway (Queensway) directly on the frontage to the existing building; the trees overhang the weather canopy over the footpath and extend as far as the building façade. These trees are public assets and the MKC Tree Officer should be involved and provide comments on this application.
The potential effect of development on trees, whether statutorily protected or not, is a material consideration that is taken into account in determining planning applications. Further information is required to be submitted to properly consider
(150)
the amenity / arboricultural implications and effects of the development proposals on adjacent trees. Please request the following prior to determination for review by the tree officer: Condition survey and arboricultural impact assessment of existing trees adjacent or overhanging the site Existing and retained trees with RPAs accurately surveyed, plotted and overlaid on the proposed layout and landscape plan Tree protection plan Arboricultural method statement relating to demolition and construction All details to be in accordance with BS 5837 2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations.
Details of drainage and other service runs and general details of the construction site layout (locations of cement plant, fuel bowsers, welfare facilities etc.) in relation to the trees to be retained, should also be submitted.
I am reasonably satisfied with the landscape plan although the hard landscape / SUDS paving may be of interest to Highways and drainage officer. I would recommend that planting bed G will be walked over and is in the entrance road visibility splay or I would suggest a hedge here but at the very least it needs to be hard wearing plating and no taller than 600mm in height. It could be substituted with Mahonia aquifolum or alternative. If the development is recommended for approval without layout changes then I do not see the need to condition landscape.
A pre-commencement tree protection condition will be essential.”
Comments following submission of further information
“The street trees are public assets and the potential effect of development on trees, whether statutorily protected or not, is a material consideration that is taken into account in determining planning applications. Now that further information is submitted to properly consider the arboricultural implications and effects of the development proposals on adjacent trees please request review of the submitted documents by the MKC tree officer prior to determination.”
A1.15 MKC Landscape Services (Tree Officer)
No comments received.
A1.16 MKC Countryside Officer
No comments received.
A1.17 MKC Housing
“Development should provide 30% Affordable Housing in line with the Affordable Housing SPD 2013 and as detailed below
The development requires 30% Affordable Housing units as per the Local Plan Policy H4 and the Affordable Housing SPD 2013. http://www.milton-
(151)
keynes.gov.uk/planning-and-building/planning-policy/adoption-of-the-affordable- housing-supplementary-planning-document.
The Council’s Plan 2016-20 approved at Council 8 June 2016 has the Key Priority: “Housing - supporting work on a progressive Plan:MK focussed on affordable housing, economic growth, investment and future prosperity of Milton Keynes for everyone and more strongly implementing the current 30% affordable housing requirement for new homes and to review that percentage in line with current needs;”
The Tenure Mix should be at least 25% Affordable Rent (at a range of rental levels up to 80% including 5% at a level broadly equivalent to Social Rent) and 5% Shared Ownership. For this application, the mix breaks down to 12 Affordable Rent and 2 Shared Ownership.
The proposed Affordable Housing house size mix should be in line with current affordable housing need and policy; predominantly 3bed and 2bed, then 1bed and 4bed properties as appropriate for the site and development.
The Council needs Affordable housing for Rent for households in housing need –currently there are over 700 households in temporary accommodation.
The 2017 SHMA indicates that only 9.8% & 8.5% respectively of the 8,200 affordable housing needed between 2016 and 2031 should be one-bed and two-bed flats. Instead, the need is predominantly for 3 and 2 bed houses as the table below shows:
Type Size Affordable Market housing housing Flat 1 bed 9.8% 0.5% 2+ bed 8.5% 1.1% House 2 bed 32.9% 10.9%
3 bed 37.8% 57.4%
4 bed 8.5% 24.6%
5 bed 2.4% 5.5% 100% 100%
The Affordable Housing should be ‘pepper-potted’ through the development and not concentrated in clusters of more than 12 units.
Recommendation: That the development complies with the affordable housing SPD.”
A1.18 MKC Archaeology
No comments to make.
(152)
A1.19 Anglian Water
“ASSETS Section 1 - Assets Affected There are assets owned by Anglian Water or those subject to an adoption agreement within or close to the development boundary that may affect the layout of the site. Anglian Water would ask that the following text be included within your Notice should permission be granted. Anglian Water has assets close to or crossing this site or there are assets subject to an adoption agreement. Therefore the site layout should take this into account and accommodate those assets within either prospectively adoptable highways or public open space. If this is not practicable then the sewers will need to be diverted at the developers cost under Section 185 of the Water Industry Act 1991. or, in the case of apparatus under an adoption agreement, liaise with the owners of the apparatus. It should be noted that the diversion works should normally be completed before development can commence.
WASTEWATER SERVICES Section 2 - Wastewater Treatment The foul drainage from this development is in the catchment of Cotton Valley Water Recycling Centre that will have available capacity for these flows
Section 3 - Used Water Network The sewerage system at present has available capacity for these flows. If the developer wishes to connect to our sewerage network they should serve notice under Section 106 of the Water Industry Act 1991. We will then advice them of the most suitable point of connection. (1) INFORMATIVE - Notification of intention to connect to the public sewer under S106 of the Water Industry Act Approval and consent will be required by Anglian Water, under the Water Industry Act 1991. Contact Development Services Team 0345 606 6087. (2) INFORMATIVE - Notification of intention to connect to the public sewer under S106 of the Water Industry Act Approval and consent will be required by Anglian Water, under the Water Industry Act 1991. Contact Development Services Team 0345 606 6087. (3) INFORMATIVE - Protection of existing assets - A public sewer is shown on record plans within the land identified for the proposed development. It appears that development proposals will affect existing public sewers. It is recommended that the applicant contacts Anglian Water Development Services Team for further advice on this matter. Building over existing public sewers will not be permitted (without agreement) from Anglian Water. (4) INFORMATIVE - Building near to a public sewer - No building will be permitted within the statutory easement width of 3 metres from the pipeline without agreement from Anglian Water. Please contact Development Services Team on 0345 606 6087. (5) INFORMATIVE: The developer should note that the site drainage details submitted have not been approved for the purposes of adoption. If the developer wishes to have the sewers included in a sewer adoption agreement with Anglian Water (under Sections 104 of the Water Industry Act 1991), they should contact our Development Services Team on 0345 606 6087 at the earliest opportunity. Sewers intended for adoption should be designed and constructed in accordance with Sewers for Adoption guide for developers, as supplemented by Anglian Water’s requirements.
(153)
Section 4 - Surface Water Disposal The preferred method of surface water disposal would be to a sustainable drainage system (SuDS) with connection to sewer seen as the last option. Building Regulations (part H) on Drainage and Waste Disposal for England includes a surface water drainage hierarchy, with infiltration on site as the preferred disposal option, followed by discharge to watercourse and then connection to a sewer.
The surface water strategy/flood risk assessment submitted with the planning application relevant to Anglian Water is unacceptable. No evidence has been provided to show that the surface water hierarchy has been followed as stipulated in Building Regulations Part H. This encompasses the trial pit logs from the infiltration tests and the investigations in to discharging to a watercourse. If these methods are deemed to be unfeasible for the site, we require confirmation of the intended manhole connection point and discharge rate proposed before a connection to the public surface water sewer is permitted. We would therefore recommend that the applicant needs to consult with Anglian Water and the Environment Agency. We request that the agreed strategy is reflected in the planning approval. Section 5 - Suggested Planning Conditions Anglian Water would therefore recommend the following planning condition if the Local Planning Authority is mindful to grant planning approval.
Surface Water Disposal (Section 4) CONDITION No drainage works shall commence until a surface water management strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No hard-standing areas to be constructed until the works have been carried out in accordance with the surface water strategy so approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON To prevent environmental and amenity problems arising from flooding.”
A1.9 Neighbour/ Third Party Representations
Comments have been received from approximately 5 addresses. The material planning considerations are summarised below:
Concern on lack of proposed day time parking for the shops; Concern on loss of employee spaces for the retail units; Concern regarding loss of the large retail unit, currently occupied by a popular shop; Concern regarding impact on local employment and local businesses; Concern that proposal does not fit with the current plans for the Town Centre; Concern regarding highway safety on Cawkwell Way, given associated parking spaces accessed directly off Cawkwell Way and lack of visibility, particularly if residents reverse out of these spaces; Concern that the applicant’s survey of surrounding parking areas is inaccurate, and there is no space to cope with additional requirement for employee visitor parking; and Concern regarding the impact on traffic/Queensway as a result of the construction period.
(154) ITEM 7 Development Control Committee Update Address: 42 Portland Drive DCC Date: 1st August 2019
Development History/ Current Situation The site was previously occupied by a large detached bungalow. The applicant received planning permission for a house (17/02142/FUL). The building that the owner has built pursuant to planning permission 17/02142/FUL has subsequently been found not to have been built in accordance with the approved plans. This led to the submission of planning application 19/00124/FUL, which was part retrospective as it sought to retain the ground and first floors as built (larger than approved, but it sought to slightly reduce the profile of the roof, although not to the extent of the approved scheme. Relevant Planning History is included as Appendix A. Planning permission was refused for 19/00124/FUL as follows: ‘The development, by reason of its excessive bulk and scale, would result in an unacceptably harmful impact on the character and appearance of the neighbouring street scene, contrary to policies D1, D2 and D3 of the adopted Plan: MK.’ Issues Related to Original Planning Permission The Original Decision Notice and Officer Report are attached as Appendix B. The reasons as to why the original scheme was considered acceptable were set out in the Officer’s Report. In some instances where appropriate a condition can be attached, restricting some or all permitted development rights for extensions within the GPDO (Part 1, schedule 2). The permitted development rights were not restricted by condition in this case (17/02124/FUL). Enforcement Notice v. Planning Application 19/00124/FUL Reason for Refusal The roof and the single storey rear element of the house as built, were the aspects of the scheme cited in the enforcement notice. These are the most significant elements of the scheme that were not built in accordance with the approved plans. The roof, due its impact on visual amenity and the fact that it could not be undertaken as permitted development and the single storey rear element due to the fact that its scale makes it the most significant breach on the site. Some other elements that were not built in accordance with the approved plans were cited in the DCC report as being contributing factors to the application proposal 19/00124/FUL being considered unacceptable in scale and appearance in its entirety.
1
(155) However, these elements, such as the increased garage height, alterations to windows, etc. were not considered in their own right to be significant enough to be included on the enforcement notice nor were they considered to be expedient to enforce against. Officers considered that by concentrating on the two main elements in the enforcement notice, this gives the best chance of success at appeal and that if all of the minor elements had been included in the enforcement notice, would increase the risk of the enforcement notice being unsuccessful at appeal. A quashed enforcement notice would result in no remedial works being required to be undertaken. . The reason the Planning Enforcement Team have arrived at this view is because elements of a scheme which in themselves do not cause sufficient harm to warrant specific enforcement action should be managed by the submission of a retrospective planning application. To include development that is likely to be acceptable in planning terms and subsequently the subject of a (dismissed) successful appeal by an appellant, would only serve to weaken our case. The service of an enforcement notice is based on the level of harm caused by unauthorised development and the expediency of taking such enforcement action (i.e. the development enforced against must cause material harm to “interests of acknowledged importance” and doing so addresses such harm. Parts of development which has been carried out in breach of planning control, when looked at in isolation may be acceptable by themselves and it may be permissible to be regularised by the submission of a retrospective planning application. Including such elements within an enforcement notice would only serve to dilute the premise of the enforcement notice. Enforcement History The site was visited a number of times by different enforcement officers at the early stage of the build and discrepancies were picked up against the approved scheme, which it was felt that they could have been addressed through the retrospective planning application process. Formal action was not instigated at this time due to the fact that the discrepancies that were identified were not of a significance to cause serious planning harm. However as the construction progressed it became apparent that the divergence from the approved scheme was more extensive and officers informed the owner that he would be required to submit a full application for the entire building. A new application was received in January 2019, however there were a number of discrepancies with the accuracy of the drawings and site inspections were subsequently carried out by Officers to seek to verify the submission of amended drawings by the applicant. The recent (now refused) application as amended was deemed to be an acceptable reflection/representation of the current build on the ground, although not an acceptable form of development and the officer’s recommendation was to refuse planning permission.
2
(156) On the 25th April 2019 we served an enforcement notice for the reduction of the roof height and pitch and reduction of the rear ground floor extension to the dimensions contained within 17/02142/FUL.
Appeal: On the 13th May 2019 the owners appealed the enforcement notice on the following three standalone (standard enforcement appeal) grounds. These are not interdependent. Ground A – That planning permission should be granted for the unlawful works/development that are alleged and specified in the notice. Ground F – That the steps required within the notice are excessive and should the extent of the enforcement action should be reduced. Ground G – That the time to comply with the notice is too short and should be extended. Update Paper An Update Paper will be provided on permitted development rights/Article 4 Direction in relation to this property. Appendices Appendix A Relevant History 17/01502/FUL -Bungalow extension and redevelopment including new upper floor - (Withdrawn) 17/02142/FUL - Demolition of existing bungalow and construction of two storey dwelling. (Approved) 18/00391/FUL - Brick boundary wall of 1.1m high and railings above to max height of 1.9m with brick piers and stone details. (Approved) 19/00124/FUL - Retrospective application for the demolition of a bungalow and erection of a new dwelling with proposed alterations to existing roof form. Refused: 04/07/2019 Reason for Refusal: ‘The development, by reason of its excessive bulk and scale, would result in an unacceptably harmful impact on the character and appearance of the neighbouring street scene, contrary to policies D1, D2 and D3 of the adopted Plan: MK.’
Appendix B 17/02142/FUL- Officer Report and Decision Notice: To follow as part of a late update paper.
3
(157)
List of Current Open DC Appeals ITEM 8a
Date Documents Current Inspectorate Planning Reference Address Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Sent to PINS Position Reference Start Letter: 18 Mar 2019 Questionnaire: 25 Mar 2019 Cuckoo Hill Farm Castlethorpe Road Statement: 18/01625/OUT Hearing Elizabeth Verdegem 13 May 2019 17/02/2019 In Progress 3214365 Hanslope Milton Keynes MK19 7HQ Final Comments: Event Date: 09 Jul 2019 1 Decision Date: Outline application (all matters reserved except access) for up to 50 dwellings, including 34% affordable dwellings, surface water attenuation, open space, landscaping and associated Proposal highway works.
Originally to be determined under written reps, statement submitted 17/02/2019. Brief Summary Advised by Inspectorate that appeal to be by hearing. Hearing held 9th and 10th July. Written Statement 17/02/2019. Additional Hearing Statements submitted 13/05/2019. Applicant submitted a Unilateral Undertaking.
Date Documents Current Inspectorate Planning Reference Address Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Sent to PINS Position Reference Start Letter: 18 Mar 2019 Questionnaire: 25 Mar 2019 Malt Mill Farm Castlethorpe Road Statement: 18/00724/FUL Hearing Elizabeth Verdegem 13 May 2019 17/02/2019 In Progress 3214564 Hanslope Final Comments: Event Date: 09 Jul 2019 2 Decision Date: Proposal Demolition of Equestrian Centre and erection of 51 dwellings with associated works
Originally to be determined under written reps, statement submitted 17/02/2019. Brief Summary Advised by Inspectorate that appeal to be by hearing. Hearing held 9th and 10th July. Written Statement 17/02/2019. Additional Hearing Statements submitted 13/05/2019. S106 with Council’s legal officers for completion.
Date Documents Current Inspectorate Planning Reference Address Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Sent to PINS Position Reference Start Letter: 21 Jan 2019 Questionnaire: 28 Jan 2019 21 Jan 2019 Wilton Hall Wilton Avenue Bletchley Statement: 18/01422/FUL Hearing Lakeisha Peacock 25 Feb 2019 In Progress 3219375 Milton Keynes MK3 6BN Final Comments: 11 Mar 2019 Event Date: 07 Aug 2019 07 Aug 2019 3 Decision Date: Proposal Removal of existing function hall and erection of six detached dwellings with car parking, car port, cycle and bin storage
Determined under delegated authority and refused for loss of non-designated heritage asset and community facility. Advised by Inspectorate that the appeal is to be dealt with by an Brief Summary informal meeting. Date confirmed for 7th August 2019. Statement of Common Ground is in progress.
Date Documents Current Inspectorate Planning Reference Address Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Sent to PINS Position Reference Start Letter: 18 Feb 2019 Questionnaire: 25 Feb 2019 The Globe 50 Hartwell Road Hanslope Statement: 18/01968/FUL Hearing Elizabeth Verdegem 25 Mar 2019 21 Mar 2019 In Progress 3220584 Milton Keynes MK19 7BZ Final Comments: 08 Apr 2019 Event Date: 31 July 2019 4 Decision Date: Proposal Erection of 13 dwellings, central open space area (including SUDs) and access onto Hartwell Road.
Erection of 13 dwellings, central open space area (including SUDs) and access onto Hartwell Road – DCC refusal against officer recommendation Brief Summary Statement submitted 21/03/2019. Advised by Inspectorate that appeal to be by hearing. Hearing arranged for 31st July. S106 completed and submitted by applicant by 08/04/2019.
Date Documents Current Inspectorate Planning Reference Address Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Sent to PINS Position Reference Start Letter: 18-Apr-2019 Questionnaire: Land South of 35-36 Tathall End 25-Apr-2019 25 Apr 2019 Statement: 18/01889/FUL Hanslope Written Representation Lakeisha Peacock 23-May-2019 In Progress 3226436 Final Comments: MK19 7NF 06-Jun-2019 Event Date: 5 Decision Date: Proposal Two detached dwellings and associated parking spaces
Brief Summary Refused under delegated decision on due to the principle of development (dwelling in open countryside)
Date Documents Current Inspectorate Planning Reference Address Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Sent to PINS Position Reference Start Letter: 29 May 2019 4 Rothersthorpe Questionnaire: 05 Jun 2019 03 June 1019 Gifford Park 18/00592/FUL Written David Buckley Statement: 03 Jul 2019 02 July 2019 In Progress 3228704 Milton Keynes Final Comments: 17Jul 2019 MK14 5JL Event Date: Not arranged yet 6 Decision Date: Change of Use from C3 Dwellinghouses to C4 Houses in Multiple Occupation with 5 bedrooms and 5 occupants. Remove and reconfigure part of the fencing to allow two additional Proposal car park spaces
The reason for refusal was on the lack of parking. The existing house is short of one parking space and the Himo would also have been short of one space. At DCP it was considered Brief Summary that the shortage of parking for an Himo would be more unacceptable than it is for single dwellinghouse, due to the type of accommodation and it was refused against officer recommendation.
(158) List of Current Open DC Appeals
Date Documents Current Inspectorate Planning Reference Address Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Sent to PINS Position Reference Start Letter: 21 May 2019 46 Mitcham Place Questionnaire: 28 May 2019 28 May 2019 Bradwell Common 19/00550/FUL Written Representation Wendy Choi Statement: 25 Jun 2019 In Progress 3228829 Milton Keynes Final Comments: 25 Jun 2019 MK13 8BX Event Date: 09 Jul 2019 7 Decision Date: Proposal Change of use to garden area The application is recommended for refusal and the applicant submitted further information to support the proposal on 26 April 2019. EOT for a week to 9 May requested to process the further information but not granted. Applicant submitted an appeal on non-determination. Landscape Architect commented that the proposal would not compliant with Policy L3 of the Plan:MK and the land should be retained as part of the amenity incidental open space Brief Summary of the area. Written Statement: submitted on 25 June 2019.
Date Documents Current Inspectorate Planning Reference Address Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Sent to PINS Position Reference Start Letter: 19 Jun 19 52 Rochfords Questionnaire: 26 Jun 19 24 Jun 2019 Coffee Hall 17/03386/FUL Written Representation Jeremy Lee Statement: 24 Jul 19 In Progress 3230045 MILTON KEYNES Final Comments: 07 Aug 19 MK6 5DJ Event Date: Not arranged yet 8 Decision Date: Proposal Subdivision of existing dwelling into two dwellings.
Brief Summary Refused on character and appearance, and highways matters.
Date Documents Current Inspectorate Planning Reference Address Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Sent to PINS Position Reference Start Letter: 18 Jun 19 25 Gurnards Avenue Questionnaire: 25 Jun 19 24 Jun 2019 Fishermead 19/00184/FUL Written Representation Luke Gledhill Statement: 23 Jul 19 In Progress 3230258 MILTON KEYNES Final Comments: 06 Aug 19 MK6 2BW Event Date: Not arranged yet 9 Decision Date: Proposal Single storey side extension
Brief Summary Refused on parking, and on residential amenity / public safety matters.
Date Documents Current Inspectorate Planning Reference Address Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Sent to PINS Position Reference Start Letter: 02 Jul 2019 49 Hartdames Questionnaire: 09 Jul 2019 04 Jul 2019 Shenley Brook End 19/00233/FUL Written Representation Lakeisha Peacock Statement: In Progress 3231233 Milton Keynes Final Comments: MK5 7HP Event Date: 10 Decision Date: Proposal Erection of single-storey front extension and part single-storey, part two-storey rear/side extension.
Brief Summary Application refused under delegated powers due to the scale, height and bulk of the proposal and the impact on the amenity of neighbouring dwellings.
Date Documents Current Inspectorate Planning Reference Address Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Sent to PINS Position Reference Start Letter: 10 Jul 2019 2 Quilter Meadow Questionnaire: 17 Jul 2019 16/07/2019 HAS - Written 19/00805/FUL Milton Keynes Sharon Bayton Statement: In Progress 3232348 Representation MK7 8QD Final Comments: Event Date: 11 Decision Date: Two-storey extension adjacent to existing double garage providing additional garage space; internal modifications to increase bedroom size at first floor; replacement of existing Proposal Western boundary fence with brick wall
Brief Summary Application refused proposed extension impact on amenity of the neighbourhood.
Date Documents Current Inspectorate Planning Reference Address Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Sent to PINS Position Reference Start Letter: 09 Jul 2019 Hollington Wood Questionnaire: 16 Jul 2019 16/07/2019 Emberton Road Written Representation - 17/03386/FUL Elizabeth Verdegem Statement: 13 Aug 2019 In Progress 3228003 Newport Road s319A Final Comments: 27 Aug 2019 Emberton Event Date: Not Arranged 12 Decision Date: Public Airsoft events scheduled for once every two weeks throughout the year (with a break in Winter of variable length according to weather conditions). Occasional private Proposal bookings. (retrospective)
Brief Summary Application refused for impact on highway safety and lack of ecology information. Statement of Case currently being drafted.
(159) List of Current Open DC Appeals
Date Documents Current Inspectorate Planning Reference Address Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Sent to PINS Position Reference Start Letter: Questionnaire: Land at 34 St Peters Way, New Bradwell, Statement: Awaiting Written Representation 3223889 Milton Keynes, MK13 0ET Final Comments: Validation Event Date: 13 Decision Date: Proposal Change of use from dwelling (C3) to residential care home (C2)
Brief Summary Start Letter not yet received.
Date Documents Current Inspectorate Planning Reference Address Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Sent to PINS Position Reference Start Letter: Questionnaire: 45 Northampton Road Awaiting 19/00268/FUL Written Representation Sharon Bayton Statement: 3231756 MK46 6EY Final Comments: Validation Event Date: 14 Decision Date: Proposal Replacement of windows and doors
Brief Summary Start Letter not yet received.
Date Documents Current Inspectorate Planning Reference Address Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Sent to PINS Position Reference Start Letter: Station House Questionnaire: 500 Elder Gate Awaiting 19/01432/PANB1C Written Representation Sharon Bayton Statement: 3233359 MILTON KEYNES Final Comments: Validation MK9 1BB Event Date: 15 Decision Date: Proposal Prior notification for the conversion of part of the building from B1a Office to C3 (200 units)
Brief Summary Start Letter not yet received.
(160)
ITEM 8b Appeals - Decision Issued Lessons Learnt
Date Current Inspectorate Planning Reference Address Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Documents Position Reference Sent to PINS Start Letter: 13 Feb 2019 Questionnaire: 20 Feb 2019 18 Feb 2019 Horseshoe Farm North End Luke Statement: Appeal 18/02645/FUL Written Representation 20 Mar 2019 20 Mar 2019 3222186 Ravenstone Olney MK46 5AN Gledhill Final Comments: 03 Apr 2019 Dismissed Event Date: Arranged Decision Date: 11 July 2019 Proposal Demolition of existing stables and aviary and the erection of three dwellings.
Appeal Dismissed on the basis that housing development on the proposed site would not accord with housing policies within Plan: MK (2019) and the Ravenstone Inspector Summary Neighbourhood Plan (2019). The proposal is unacceptable in principle.
Date Current Inspectorate Planning Reference Address Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Documents Position Reference Sent to PINS Start Letter: 11-Apr-2019 Knight Racer Questionnaire: 18-Apr-2019 16 Watling Street, Bletchley Lakeisha Statement: Appeal 18/01941/FUL Written Representation 16-May-2019 15 May 2019 3225534 MILTON KEYNES Peacock Final Comments: 30-May-2019 Dismissed MK2 2BL Event Date: Decision Date: Change of use of car park area and erection of a marquee with mixed use of Shisha Smoking Bar (Use Class Sui Generis) and ancillary Cafe (Use Class A3) for a temporary Proposal period of 2 years
Inspector dismissed the appeal on 3 of the 4 refusal reasons, siting that the development would be out of keeping with the local area, an unsafe and inaccessible Inspector Summary environment and impact on the amenity of neighbouring dwellings in regard to noise pollution.
Date Current Inspectorate Reference Address Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Documents Position Reference Sent to PINS Start Letter: 22 Jan 2019 Questionnaire: Galleon Cottage Old Wolverton Road 29 Jan 2019 29 Jan 2019 Lakeisha Statement: Appeal 18/01989/FUL Old Wolverton Milton Keynes MK12 Written Representation 26 Feb 2019 02 Apr 2019 3219146 Peacock Final Comments: Allowed 5NL 12 Mar 2019 Event Date: Decision Date: Proposal Demolition of existing cottage and construction of a split-level 4 bedroom house with on-plot parking.
Inspector allowed the appeal due to consideration of a previously approved extension to the Cottage, stating that the harm resulting from the demolition of the building Inspector Summary was equitable to the harm of the approved extension and as such found no harm to Non-Designated and Designated Heritage Assets. Also considered that the design would not detract from the character of the local area .
Date Current Inspectorate Planning Reference Address Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Documents Position Reference Sent to PINS Start Letter: 27 Mar 2019 Questionnaire: 03 Apr 2019 02 Apr 2019 Annexe 16 A Station Road, WOBURN Luke Statement: Appeal 18/02508/FUL Written Representation 01 May 2019 01 May 2019 3223810 SANDS, MK17 8RW Gledhill Final Comments: 15 May 2019 16 May 2019 Dismissed Event Date: Decision Date: Proposal Conversion of existing two storey residential annex (including single storey extension) into three residential dwellings
The Inspector dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the narrow width (one lane), long length and route of the access would have an unacceptable impact on highways safety. In addition, the proposal to significantly develop the front and rear gardens into parking areas would lead to less than substantial harm to the character of the Inspector Summary conservation area. This harm would not be offset by the public benefits of the scheme. It was interesting to note that while the Inspector considered that the car park ground treatement (grasscrete) could have a limited impact, it would be the apperance of extra cars in these areas that would be detrimental.
Date Current Inspectorate Planning Reference Address Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Documents Position Reference Sent to PINS Start Letter: 27 Mar 2019 Questionnaire: Questionnaire: Merman Rise, Oxley Park, MILTON 03 Apr 2019 Luke Statement: 02 Apr 2019 Appeal 18/02919/FUL KEYNES, Written Representation 01 May 2019 3223523 Gledhill Final Comments: Statement: 30 Dismissed BUCKINGHAMSHIRE, MK4 4GS 15 May 2019 Event Date: Apr 2019 Decision Date: Proposal Change of use from dwelling (C3) to residential care home (C2)
The Inspector dismissed the appeal on the basis that existing oversubsciption of on-road parking spaces in the vicinity of the site meant that, due to a shortfall of 3 spaces Inspector Summary on-site when assessed against parking standards, the development would lead to additional on-road parking which would reduce highway efficiency, negatively impact pedestrian/road safety and hinder the ability of emergency services to respond to emergencies in the local area.
Date Current Inspectorate Planning Reference Address Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Documents Position Reference Sent to PINS Start Letter: 27 Mar 2019 Questionnaire: 7 Slated Row, Old Wolverton Road, 03 Apr 2019 Charlotte Statement: Statement: 30 Appeal 18/02406/FUL Old Wolverton, MILTON KEYNES, Written Representation 01 May 2019 3223163 Ashby Final Comments: April 2019 dismissed MK12 5NJ 15 May 2019 Event Date: Decision Date: Proposal Proposed one bedroom bungalow
(161) Appeals - Decision Issued Lessons Learnt
The inspector dismissed the appeal on the unacceptable impact upon highways safety given the narrow road and reversing distance from the parking spaces and the Inspector Summary impact upon the character and appearance of the area, given the limited private amenity space which appears overly large for the plot and the proposed materials which would appear discordant in the streetscene and would detract from the distinct character of the area.
Date Current Inspectorate Planning Reference Address Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Documents Position Reference Sent to PINS Start Letter: 16-Apr-2019 Letter sent to 39 Green Lane Questionnaire: 23-Apr-2019 PINS 7th May Wolverton Richard Statement: Appeal 18/02811/FUL Written Representation Not Required 2019 3225966 MILTON KEYNES Edgington Final Comments: Dismissed MK12 5HN Event Date: Decision Date: Proposal Loft conversion including rear dormer
Inspector noted that the scale, bulk and mass of the ' boxy flat roof design' would constitute a conspicuous intrusion into the historic rooftop vistas within the Inspector Summary Conservation Area. The dormer would therefore be incongruous and the conservation area would not be conserved or enhanced.
Date Current Inspectorate Address Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Documents Position Reference Sent to PINS Start Letter: 18 Feb 2019 Questionnaire: 25 Feb 2019 25 Feb 2019 13 Carlina Place Conniburrow Milton Christopher Statement: Appeal 18/01651/FUL Written Reprsentation 25 Mar 2019 27 Feb 2019 3221380 Keynes MK14 7DD Walton Final Comments: 23 Apr 2019 Dismissed Event Date: w/c 16 Apr 2019 Decision Date: Proposal Change of use of property from Use Class C3 (dwellinghouse) to Use Class C4 (house in multiple occupation)
Inspector agreed with argument in LPAs Statement of Case. The site is located in Conniburrow and is formed around a cul-de-sac which sits Inspector Summary off of a larger courtyard serving several other homes on Carlina Place. The parking is very tight in the surrounding locality due to this Costs : £0 arrangement. Inspector agreed that in light of this, the shortfall of on-plot parking would be unacceptable.
Date Current Inspectorate Reference Address Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Documents Position Reference Sent to PINS Start Letter: 25 Jan 2019 Questionnaire: 01 Feb 2019 04 Feb 2019 11 Baldwin Crescent Newport Pagnell Richard Statement: Appeal 18/00785/FUL Written Reprsentation 01 Mar 2019 3220433 MK16 0BS Edgington Final Comments: 15 Mar 2019 Allowed Event Date: w/c 03 Apr 2019 Decision Date: Proposal Proposed 3-bedroom detached residence
The inspector identified that there was in their view sufficient on street parking which would be able to accommodate the two spaces Inspector Summary required for the proposed dwelling, and given that the dwelling is within the settlement boundary without justification to indicate that the Costs : £0 parking was insufficient, the appeal was allowed
Date Current Inspectorate Reference Address Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Documents Position Reference Sent to PINS Start Letter: 18 Jan 2019 Questionnaire: 25 Jan 2019 24 Jan 2019 Land To The East of High Street Elizabeth Statement: Appeal 16/03119/FUL Written Representation 22 Feb 2019 22 Feb 2019 3214703 Sherington Verdegem Final Comments: 08 Mar 2019 23 Apr 2019 Dismissed Event Date: Decision Date: 16 May 2019 Proposal Residential development for 9 x dwelling houses
Residential development for 9 x dwellinghouses – DCP refusal with officer recommendation. Appeal dismissed. Pins support Council having a 5YHLS, and Sherington having a NP less than two years old, therefore having up to date policies even if the Inspector Summary Costs : £0 5YHLS is not 5 years. Therefore development plan policies hold full weight, and PIns agrees with DS5 and DS1 in that it is outside the settlement boundary and in the open countryside.
Date Current Inspectorate Reference Address Proposal & Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Documents Position Reference Sent to PINS Start Letter: 18 Feb 2019 Questionnaire: 25 Feb 2019 22 Feb 2019 11 Vernier Crescent Medbourne Lakeisha Statement: Appeal 18/01881/FUL Written Reprsentation 25 Mar 2019 4 Mar 2019 3221619 Milton Keynes MK5 6FD Peacock Final Comments: 08 Apr 2019 Allowed Event Date: Decision Date: 03 May 2019 Proposal Change of use from a six bed dwelling house to a sui generis HMO for six professional tenants.
Appeal allowed on the basis that the resultant kerbisde parking as a result of the lack of parking spaces would not result in a harmful negative impact on highways safety. Acknowledged concentration but considered that two HiMOs in area would not impact character. Inspector Summary Costs : £0 Conditions: Maximum occupants, noise mitigation scheme, refuse storage, cycle parking & drying area
(162) Appeals - Decision Issued Lessons Learnt
Date Current Inspectorate Reference Address Proposal & Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Documents Position Reference Sent to PINS Start Letter: 18 Feb 2019 Questionnaire: Questionnaire: 25 Feb 2019 22 Feb 2019. Barns To The West of Caldecote Mill Luke Statement: Appeal 18/01737/PANAGC Written Reprsentation 25 Mar 2019 Statement: 20 3221011 Caldecote Lane Newport Pagnell Gledhill Final Comments: 08 Apr 2019 Mar 2019. Dismissed Event Date: Arranged Decision Date: 02 May 2019 Proposal Change of use of property from Use Class C3 (dwellinghouse) to Use Class C4 (house in multiple occupation)
On the basis of the available evidence the inspector considered that there was significiant doubt as to whether the site was used solely for Inspector Summary Costs : £0 an agricultural use. The proposal therefore does not comply with the General Permitted Development Order 2015 (as amended).
Date Current Inspectorate Reference Address Proposal & Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Documents Position Reference Sent to PINS Start Letter: 18 Feb 2019 Questionnaire: 25 Feb 2019 Land rear of 157 Buckingham Road, Charlotte Statement: Appeal 18/00279/FUL Written Reprsentation 25 Mar 2019 3221649 Milton Keynes, MK3 5JD Ashby Final Comments: 08 Apr 2019 Dismissed Event Date: Arranged Decision Date: 01 May 2019 Proposal Proposed change of use from parking area to residential building plot for two bedroom bungalow
Appeal dismissed on the resulting signfiicant harm to the character and appearance of the area. The proposed development conflicts with Inspector Summary Costs : £0 the development plan when read as a whole, and material considerations do not lead me to a decision otherwise.
Date Current Inspectorate Reference Address Proposal & Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Documents Position Reference Sent to PINS Start Letter: 18 Feb 2019 18/02/19 Questionnaire: 25 Feb 2019 25/02/19 Land At Moat Farm Chicheley Road Written Representation Statement: Appeal 18/02155/OUT Jeremy Lee 25 Mar 2019 22/03/19 3221192 North Crawley Delegated refusal Final Comments: 08 Apr 2019 N/A Dismissed Event Date: w/c 16 Apr 2019 Decision Date: 01 May 2019 01/05/19 Proposal Outline application for residential development ( 15 units) with approval of access, with all other matters reserved.
Inspector supported Plan:MK policiesDC1, DC2 and DC5 in terms of key settlements, development within settlement boundaries and open Inspector Summary countryside. Costs : £0 Also found that development of this site would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area.
Date Current Inspectorate Reference Address Proposal & Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Documents Position Reference Sent to PINS Start Letter: 22 Jan 2019 22/01/19 Questionnaire: 29 Jan 2019 25/01/19 Tree Banks Castle Road Lavendon Written Representation Statement: Appeal 18/00619/OUT Jeremy Lee 16 Feb 2019 15/02/19 3215488 Olney MK46 4JG Delegated refusal. Final Comments: 25 Mar 2019 21/03/19 Dismissed Event Date: Not Arranged Decision Date: 24 Apr 2019 Proposal Outline planning application with some matters reserved site for construction of one detached dwelling with garage Inspector Summary Inspector supported Plan:MK policies DC2 and DC5 in terms of key settlements, development within settlement boundaries and open Costs : £0
Date Current Inspectorate Reference Address Proposal & Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Documents Position Reference Sent to PINS Start Letter: 21 Jan 2019 Questionnaire: 28 Jan 2019 6 Chievely Court Emerson Valley Chenge Statement: Appeal 18/02299/FUL Written Representation 25 Feb 2019 3219309 Milton Keynes MK4 2DD Taruvinga Final Comments: 11 Mar 2019 Allowed Event Date: w/c 5 Mar 2019 Decision Date: 03 Apr 2019 Proposal Demolition of garage and erection of a single dwelling Inspector Summary Appeal allowed on the basis that development would not significantly detract from character of the local area or street scene Costs : £0
Date Current Inspectorate Reference Address Proposal & Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Documents Position Reference Sent to PINS Start Letter: 21 Jan 2019 Questionnaire: 28 Jan 2019 27 Jan 2019 10 Home Close Bletchley Milton Lakeisha Statement: Appeal 18/01892/FUL Written Representation 25 Jan 2019 25 Feb 2019 3218763 Keynes MK3 6JE Peacock Final Comments: 11 Mar 2019 Dismissed Event Date: Date Arranged Decision Date: 28 Mar 2019 Proposal Change of use from residential to flexible use to include a partial change of use of the ground Inspector Summary Dismissed based on the impact on neighbouring residenits in regard to excessive noise as a result of the change of use Costs : £0
(163) Appeals - Decision Issued Lessons Learnt
Date Current Inspectorate Reference Address Proposal & Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Documents Position Reference Sent to PINS Start Letter: 10 Dec 2018 Questionnaire: 73 Newport Road 17 Dec 2018 31/12/18 Chris Statement: Appeal 18/01800/OUT Wavendon Written Representation 14 Jan 2019 09/01/19 3214679 Walton Final Comments: Dismissed MK17 8UJ 08 Feb 2019 Event Date: Arranged Decision Date: 12 Mar 2019 Proposal Outline permission for the demolition of existing residential dwelling and the erection of up to three dwellings with access, turning, parking and other associated works. Inspector Summary The proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Under the circumtances of this appeal, in my Costs : £0
Date Current Inspectorate Reference Address Proposal & Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Documents Position Reference Sent to PINS Start Letter: 14 Jan 2019 10 Polmartin Court Questionnaire: 21 Jan 2019 17/01/19 Fishermead Lakeisha Statement: Appeal 18/01186/FUL Written Representation 18 Feb 2019 25/01/19 3214097 Milton Keynes Peacock Final Comments: 04 Mar 2019 Allowed MK6 2JL Event Date: Arranged Decision Date: 15 Mar 2019 Proposal Change of use for C4 the house in multiple occupation. Inspector Summary Appeal allowed on the basis that the resultant kerbisde parking as a result of the lack of parking spaces would not result in a harmful Costs : £0
(164) List of Current Enforcement Appeals ITEM 8c
Date Documents Inspectorate Reference Address Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Current Position Sent to PINS Reference Start Letter: Questionnaire: Ringcroft Farm, North Crawley, Cranfield Statement: Awaiting 18/01889/FUL Written Representation Gary Dunne 3228214 Road, MK16 9HP Final Comments: Validation Event Date: 1 Decision Date: Reason Unauthorised construction of tennis Courts
Date Documents Inspectorate Reference Address Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Current Position Sent to PINS Reference Start Letter: 5 Rowton Heath Questionnaire: Oakhill Statement: Awaiting ENF/18/00268/HMO Written Representation Gary Dunne 3223756 Milton Keynes Final Comments: Validation MK5 6NA Event Date: 2 Decision Date: Reason Material change of use of the Premises from a single dwelling house to a use as a House in Multiple Occupation
Date Documents Inspectorate Reference Address Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Current Position Sent to PINS Reference Start Letter: 42 Portland Drive Questionnaire: Willen Statement: Awaiting 18/00283/COMPCH Written Representation Gary Dunne tbc Milton Keynes Final Comments: Validation MK15 9JB Event Date: 3 Decision Date: Reason Compliance of conditions relating to roof height of new build being 1.5 metres too high (18/00031/DISCON)
Date Documents Inspectorate Reference Address Decision Type Officer Key Deadlines Current Position Sent to PINS Reference Start Letter: 34 ST Peters Way Questionnaire: New Bradwell Statement: Awaiting 18/00268/HMO Written Representation Gary Dunne tbc Milton Keynes Final Comments: Validation MK13 0E Event Date: 4 Decision Date: Reason Unauthorised HMO
(165) 18/07/2019 Page 1 of 1