Democratic Services MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - AGENDA

THURSDAY 5 NOVEMBER 2015 7.00pm

COUNCIL CHAMBER CIVIC OFFICES, CENTRAL

DEADLINE FOR REQUESTS TO SPEAK IN OBJECTION TO PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON THIS AGENDA: 12 NOON MONDAY 2 NOVEMBER 2015

Requests to speak in objection to an application, or on another item on the Agenda, or any written representations, please e-mail:

E-mail: [email protected]

Written Representations to be received no later than 12:00noon Wednesday 4 NOVEMBER 2015

Any other enquires about this meeting please contact:

Dino Imbimbo, Committee Manager (Tel: 01908 252458).

PLEASE NOTE PARTS OF THIS MEETING MAY BE RECORDED http://cmis.milton-keynes.gov.uk/CmisWebPublic

Membership: Chair: Councillor A Geary Vice Chairs: Councillors Exon and White Councillors: Baume, Bint, Buckley, Gowans, Green, Lewis, Morla, C Williams and P Williams

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

(1) Milton Keynes Council Democratic Services Division, Civic Offices, 1 Saxon Gate East, Milton Keynes, MK9 3EJ Tel: Milton Keynes (01908) 691691 Fax: (01908) 252511 Hays DX 31406 Milton Keynes 1

Health and Safety Please take a few moments to familiarise yourself with the nearest available fire exit, indicated by the fire evacuation signs. In the event of an alarm sounding during the meeting you must evacuate the building immediately and follow all instructions provided by the fire evacuation officer who will identify him/herself should the alarm sound. You will be assisted to the nearest designated assembly point until it is safe to return to the building. Mobile Phones Please ensure that your mobile phone is switched to silent or is switched off completely during the meeting. Agenda Agendas and reports for the majority of the Council’s public meetings can be accessed via the Internet at: http://cmis.milton-keynes.gov.uk/cmiswebpublic/ Wi Fi access is available in the Council’s meeting rooms. Recording of Meetings The proceedings at this meeting may be recorded for the purpose of preparing the minutes of the meeting. 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

Comments, Complaints and ComplimentMilton Keynes Council welcomes comments, complaints and compliments from members of the public in order to make its services as efficient and effective as possible. We would appreciate any suggestions regarding the usefulness of the paperwork for this meeting, or the conduct of the meeting you have attended. Please use the slip overleaf by detaching it and passing it to the Committee Manager. Alternatively the slip can be returned by post to Democratic Services, Milton Keynes Council, Civic Offices, 1 Saxon Gate East, Milton Keynes, MK9 3EJ, or you can e-mail your comments to [email protected] If you require a response please leave contact details, ideally including an e-mail address.A formal complaints / compliments form is available online at http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/complaints/

(2) ------Meeting Attended: Development Control Committee Date of Meeting: 5 NOVEMBER 2015 Comments:……………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………. ………………………………………………………………………………………………….

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

(3) AGENDA 1. Welcome and Introductions. 2. Apologies. 3. Minutes. To approve, and the Chair to sign as a correct record, the Minutes of the meetings of the Development Control Committee on 8 SEPTEMBER 2015 (Item 3a) (Pages 6 to 12) and 1 OCTOBER 2015 (Item 3b) (Pages 13 to 27) and the meetings of the Development Control Panel on 17 SEPTEMBER 2015 (Item 3c) (Pages 28 to 41) and 15 OCTOBER 2015 (Item 3d) (Pages 42 to 58) 4. Declaration of Interests. Members to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests, or personal interests (including other pecuniary interests), they may have in the business to be transacted, and officers to disclose any interests they may have in any contract to be considered.

5. Public Participation: Questions, Deputations and Petitions. To consider the following items in accordance with the written Rules of Procedure for Public Participation in the Determination of Planning Applications: (a) Questions: To receive questions from members of the public, in accordance with Standing Orders, not related to planning applications. (b) Deputations: Any deputations will be reported to the Committee. (c) Petitions: Any petitions will be reported to the Committee. 6. Planning Applications. To consider Planning Applications and receive representations from objectors, of which notice has been given, and replies from applicants in accordance with the Council’s Procedure Rules. The deadline for requests to speak in objection to a planning application and for Ward Councillor requests to speak, either in favour or in objection to a planning application is 12.00 noon on MONDAY 2 NOVEMBER 2015. Any additional written representations must be received by 12:00 noon on WEDNESDAY 4 NOVEMBER 2015. 7. Pasqual Drive, Medbourne - Draft Development Brief To consider Item 7 (Pages 284 to 319)

(4)

INDEX OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING:

Item Reference Address Ward Town/Parish Report Plan Appendix Page Page Page

App 14/02212/FUL Land At Corner of: Olney Olney Town 71 98 104 01 Major Road Council And, Warrington Road, Olney

App 15/00670/FUL St Giles Residential Stony Stratford 147 171 181 02 Home, Town Council St Giles Mews, Stony Stratford

App 15/00671/LBC St Giles Residential Stony Stratford Stony Stratford 214 220 223 03 Home, Town Council St Giles Mews, Stony Stratford

App 15/01025/REM Land At: Danesborough 228 235 239 04 Glebe Farm, And Walton Parish Council South of A421, Newport Road

App 14/02799/FUL Road, Newport 251 266 269 05 Newport Pagnell Pagnell South Town Council

(5)

ITEM 3(a)

Minutes of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE held on TUESDAY 8 SEPTEMBER 2015 at 7.00 pm.

Present: Councillor A Geary (Chair) Councillors: Baume, Bint, Gowans, Green, Morla, White and C Williams.

Officers: A Rose (Service Director [Planning & Transport]), S Bridglalsingh (Head of Legal Services, Procurement, Planning & Property), A Horner (Head of Development Management), N Wheatcroft (Team Leader [Strategic Applications Team]), S Agimal (Engineer), J Cotton (Case Manager [Planning]), S Gee (Senior Planning Officer) and T Milner (Committee Manager).

Apologies: Councillors Buckley, Lewis and P Williams.

Number of Public Present: 11

DCC31 CHAIRMANS WELCOME – The Chair welcomed Members of The Committee, Officers and Public to the meeting. DCC32 DECLARATION OF INTERESTS Councillor C Williams asked that it be noted that he had a pre- determined view in respect of Application 3 (15/01063/FUL), he had met the applicants on many occasions and would therefore not be taking part of any form of discussion in respect of the matters to be considered. Councillor A Geary asked that it be noted that in respect of Application 3 (15/01063/FUL), he was a licensed Lay Minister for the Anglican Christian Church. He had not met the applicants and held no predetermined view on the merits of the application. DCC33 REFERRAL FROM CONSTITUTION COMMISSION The Committee heard from Councillor A Geary in respect of a referral from the Constitution Commission about speaking arrangements for the Development Control Committee and the Development Control Panel. A number of Committee members expressed concern about the Constitution Commission’s recommendation. In response,

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 8 SEPTEMBER 2015 PAGE 1 COMMITTEE CHAIR’S INITIALS ……………. (6)

Councillor White informed the Committee that there was a Working Group looking at the Scheme of Delegation, and once completed, the Working Group could look at the speaking arrangements and look at incorporating a review of the Committee’s time management process. Councillor Geary proposed that the recommendation be rejected, this was seconded by Councillor White, and it was unanimously; RESOLVED – 1. That the referral from Constitution Committee be rejected. 2. That a Working Group to consist of the Chair and Vice-Chairs of this Committee be requested to undertake the urgent review of the Speaking Arrangements at the Development Control Committee/Panel, with the view to have one coherent policy. 3. That the Constitution Commission be thanked for bringing the item to the attention of the Development Control Committee. DCC34 REPRESENTATIONS ON APPLICATIONS Councillor C Williams (Milton Keynes Council) spoke in support of application 15/01063/FUL, construction for use by the community and church with associated facilities including new vehicular accesses onto Wallinger Drive and Manifold Lane, parking, cycle parking and landscaping, resubmission of application number 14/00406/FUL with amendments to allow for phased development at Community Centre, Manifold Lane, . DCC35 PLANNING APPLICATIONS 15/01448/REM RESERVED MATTERS APPLICATION PURSUANT TO OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION 14/01544/OUT FOR ACCESS, APPEARANCE, LANDSCAPING, LAYOUT AND SCALE FOR 61 NEW DWELLINGS AT BROOOKLANDS DBW PHASE 1E, FOR LAND AT BROOKLANDS NORTH OF BROUGHTON BROOK TO THE WEST OF THE AND A509, EASTERN EXPANSION AREA, MILTON KEYNES FOR DAVID WILSON HOMES The Committee was advised by the Senior Planning Officer that since the publication of the report an updated report had been written and published. The Committee heard from the Senior Planning Officer that the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions as set out in the report and revised conditions set out in the updated report that included an amendment to

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 8 SEPTEMBER 2015 PAGE 2 COMMITTEE CHAIR’S INITIALS ……………. (7)

conditions 4 and 5. It was reported that additional conditions had also been recommended for the approval of details relating to hard landscaping and boundary treatments, as all details had not as yet been agreed.

Councillor Geary proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed, this was seconded by Councillor White. The Committee heard from Councillor Bint, who enquired about further clarification: (a) On the type of car ports being built and if a similar design to garages; (b) As to the size of parking spaces; (c) As to whether each dwelling had 1 allocated parking space; (d) On courtyard lighting around car parking; and (e) On the contrary to policy process around ‘pepper-potting’. The Senior Planning Officer told the Committee that condition 13 dealt with the matter of car ports, and he recognised that car ports should not be converted into garages, the difference with this proposed development was different structures of the open sides and roofing compared to other similar development sites. The allocated parking spaces provided were in line with Council guidelines and policies. It was reported that at least 1 parking space would be allocated for each dwelling and as the Officer was aware of courtyard lighting issues on other development sites, condition 7 related to lighting submission of lamps and how electricity supply would be managed. The Committee heard from the Service Director (Planning & Transport) that pepper potting was not an exception to policy in respect of this application and that it was compliant. Councillor Bint requested that the officers be thanked for all their hard work and input on this application, particularly on the dealings with residents in the ward.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 8 SEPTEMBER 2015 PAGE 3 COMMITTEE CHAIR’S INITIALS ……………. (8)

On being put to the vote the motion to support the officer recommendation was carried, and it was; RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the officer report and the update report and additional conditions. 15/00499/REM RESERVED MATTERS APPLICATION PURSUANT TO OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION 05/00291/MKPCO FOR APPROVAL OF ACCESS, APPEARANCE, LANDSCAPING AND LAYOUT FOR DEVELOPMENT PARCELS C1, B1, F, R, J, G, N AND P (PART) FOR LAND OFF WATLING STREET (V4), WESTERN EXPANSION AREA, AREA 10.3 – PHASE 3 FOR ABBEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD The Committee heard from the Team Leader (Strategic Applications Team) that final comments had been received from the Urban Design Officer, who had raised a number of detailed points on the layout and various structures on the site, however, the issues raised were not fundamental. Additionally, Anglian Water confirmed that they had no comments on the application of the site. Therefore, the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

Councillor Geary proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed, this was seconded by Councillor White. The Committee heard from the Team Leader (Strategic Applications Team) that there was a typing error and to make point 5.12 read more clearly at the end of the fourth sentence after the words ‘character to the street’ to include the words ‘there will be no detrimental impact to the appearance to the street scenes’.

The Committee was reassured to hear that an Advisory Note could be added to the Design Code to ensure that the materials mix condition was met for this development.

In response to concerns raised over affordable housing, the Committee heard that the developer was proposing to provide 30% of affordable

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 8 SEPTEMBER 2015 PAGE 4 COMMITTEE CHAIR’S INITIALS ……………. (9)

housing in accordance with S106 Tenure Agreement. To provide reassurance to the Committee on this issue, the Chair requested that the Team Leader (Strategic Applications Team) look at providing a report on affordable housing to a future meeting of the Committee.

The Committee heard from Councillor Bint, who enquired about further clarification: (a) On the type of car ports being built and if a similar design to garages; (b) As to the size of parking spaces; (c) As to whether each dwelling had 1 allocated parking space; and (d) On courtyard lighting around car parking. The Team Leader (Strategic Applications Team) advised the Committee that condition 17 referred to car ports and fully met the required standard and areas for parking, and that condition 4 controlled the courtyard lighting issue. On being put to the vote the motion to support the officer recommendation was carried, and it was; RESOLVED –

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the officer report and the officer’s update. 15/01063/FUL CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING FOR USE BY THE COMMUNITY AND CHURSH WITH ASSOCIATED FACILITIES INCLUDING NEW VEHICULAR ACCESSES ONTO WALLINGER DRIVE AND MANIFOLD LANE, PARKING, CYCLE PARKING AND LANDSCAPING, RESUBMISSION OF APPLICATION NUMBER 14/00406/FUL WITH AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW FOR PHASED DEVELOPMENT AT COMMUNITY CENTRE, MANIFOLD LANE, SHENLEY BROOK END FOR SHENLEY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP The Committee heard from the Team Leader (Strategic Applications Team) that following discussions with the applicant, an amendment was proposed to condition 14 with the removal of the second part of the sentence. The amended condition would read ‘The levels shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.’ The DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 8 SEPTEMBER 2015 PAGE 5 COMMITTEE CHAIR’S INITIALS ……………. (10)

recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions as set out in the report and the update to condition 14. Councillor Geary proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed, this was seconded by Councillor White. The Committee heard from Councillor C Williams, speaking in favour of the application, he did not participate in the debate or vote on this item.

In response to the Committee’s concerns about guarantees that Phase 2 of the application would be completed and that conditions were met, the Team Leader (Strategic Applications Team) reassured the Committee that if Phase 2 was not completed, the appearance would not be detrimental to the area and she was confident with the proposed building works being undertaken. The applicant confirmed that solar panels would be put forward as part of the phased development.

On being put to the vote the motion to support the officer recommendation was carried, and it was; RESOLVED –

That planning permission be granted subject to the completion of a draft S106 securing the carbon off- set contribution and the conditions set out in the officer report and the update to condition 14. 15/01244/MMAM VARIATION OF CONDITION 1 (APPROVED PLANS) ATTACHED TO APPLICATION 15/00171/REM FOR THE SUBSTITUTION OF HOUSE TYPES AND MINOR APPLICATIONS TO THE SITE PLAN AT SITE OF FORMER COUNCIL DEPOT, SHERWOOD DRIVE, FOR PADIGM HOUSING GROUP The Committee heard from the Team Leader Strategic Applications Team that there was no update to the initial report and therefore, the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

Councillor Geary proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed, this was seconded by Councillor White.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 8 SEPTEMBER 2015 PAGE 6 COMMITTEE CHAIR’S INITIALS ……………. (11)

The Committee heard from Team Leader (Strategic Applications Team) that to provide clarity to Councillor Bint’s query of point 1.4, the word ‘proposed’ should have read ‘approved’. Councillor Bint requested that if something was approved or proposed, the correct wording should be used. Additionally, at point 5.5, part way through the third sentence, the word ‘not’ should be inserted in between the words ‘is’ and ‘ideal’.

On being put to the vote the motion to support the officer recommendation was carried unanimous, and it was; RESOLVED –

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the officer report and the minor amendments.

THE CHAIR CLOSED THE MEETING AT 8.00PM

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 8 SEPTEMBER 2015 PAGE 7 COMMITTEE CHAIR’S INITIALS ……………. (12)

ITEM 3(b)

Minutes of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE held on THURSDAY 01 OCTOBER 2015 at 7.00 pm.

Present: Councillor A Geary (Chair) Councillors: Baume, Bint, Buckley, Green, Gowans, Lewis, Morla, White and P Williams.

Officers: A Rose (Service Director - Planning and Transport), N Wheatcroft (Team Leader Strategic Applications Team), S Gee (Senior Planning Officer), K Lycett (Senior Planning Officer), S Agimal (Engineer - Development Management [Highways]), P Caves (Engineer - Development Management [Highways]), J Robinson (Senior Planning Obligations Officer), S Peart (Conservation and Archaeology Manager), A Coleman (Passenger Transport Manager), D Blandamer (Urban Designer), J Bartlam (Trainee Solicitor), J Cotton (Solicitor - Case Manager Planning) and D Imbimbo (Committee Manager).

Apologies: Councillor C Williams.

Also Present: Councillor Bald and Mr D Coate (Viability Consultant)

Number of Public Present: 70

DCC36 CHAIRMANS WELCOME The Chair welcomed Members of The Committee, Officers and Public to the meeting. DCC37 MINUTES That the Minutes of the meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 3 September 2015 and the meeting of the Development Control Panel on 20 August 2015 be approved as accurate records and signed by the Chair as such. DCC38 DECLARATION OF INTERESTS Councillor White asked that it be noted that he was a member of the Milton Keynes Development Board and would therefore stand down from the Committee during consideration of Item 7 Development Brief for C3.3S Councillor A Geary asked that it be noted that in respect of

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 01 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 1 COMMITTEE CHAIR’S INITIALS ……………. (13) Application 15/02071/TCA he would step down from the Committee during consideration of this application as the applicant was known to him. Councillor A Geary asked that it be noted that in respect of application 15/00913/FUL he had met with the applicant in his former capacity of Leader of the Council when a scheme was being considered for the site, however he had not discussed any detail at that stage or since discussed this application with the applicant. Councillor Morla asked that it be noted that in respect of applications15/00699/REM and 15/01492/FUL were in her Ward, however, she had not discussed the applications with anyone and maintained an open mind. DCC39 REPRESENTATIONS ON APPLICATIONS Ms M Osbourne, Mr M Galloway and Mr A Francis spoke in objection to application 15/00913/FUL, Demolition of existing Agora building, re-instatement of Radcliffe Street, reconfiguration of existing car park (total car parking spaces 207) and construction of a new mixed-use development including 100 residential units, 8 x ground floor retail units with retail storage (GIA 3276.3sqm), associated hardstanding and landscaping work at Land at The Agora Centre, Church Street, Wolverton. Mr N Hollingsworth, Mr N Weeks and Mr A Ross exercised the right of reply. Ms D Shephard (Deputy Town Clerk) spoke on behalf of Town Council in objection to application 15/01302/MKCOD3 Single-storey classroom teaching block, new car park and new vehicle and pedestrian access from McConnell Drive; extensions and alterations to play areas to include new fenced play and games courts at Bushfield School, Moon Street, Wolverton. Mr R Ferrington (MKC Project Leader (Capital)) exercised the right of reply. Mr D Kayondo and Councillor Bald (MKC) spoke in objection to application 15/00825/FUL Residential development of 131 units (amended description) at Land at Site 4A And 5, Holden Avenue, Oxley Park The Applicant Mr B Maynard and his agent Mr A Clarke exercised the right of reply. Councillor Rook (Ravenstone Parish Council) spoke in objection to application 15/02071/TCA Notification of intention to remove wispy branches to two Willow Fronds at Bluebell Cottage, Bay Lane, Ravenstone.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 01 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 2 COMMITTEE CHAIR’S INITIALS ……………. (14) DCC40 PLANNING APPLICATIONS 15/00913/FUL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING AGORA BUILDING, RE-INSTATEMENT OF RADCLIFFE STREET, RECONFIGURATION OF EXISTING CAR PARK (TOTAL CAR PARKING SPACES 207) AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING 100 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 8 X GROUND FLOOR RETAIL UNITS WITH RETAIL STORAGE (GIA 3276.3SQM), ASSOCIATED HARD-STANDING AND LANDSCAPING WORK AT LAND AT THE AGORA CENTRE, CHURCH STREET, WOLVERTON FOR BRICKHILL PROPERTIES (MK) LTD The Panel heard from objectors who emphasised and re-iterated points of objection made during the consultation process and in the subsequent representations to the reports. In particular concern was expressed in respect of the compatibility of the proposals with the Neighborhood Plan, Parking provision and related congestion, the incongruity of the design and scale in the locality and the downgrading of bus shelters and routes. The Objectors also told the Committee that the scheme failed to deliver the correct mix of affordable housing or make the full £1.6m S106 contribution due to having paid in excess of the market value for the site, which was not seen as justification. The applicant and his agents told the Committee that in respect of parking whilst there was a very small reduction in the number of spaces, the number of spaces remaining was consistent with that required by the Milton Keynes Parking Standards for the proposed development. The developer also confirmed that in respect of the bus stops they would be subject to agreement and legal contract in terms of design and size, and that the proposed scheme would not result in a material impact on traffic compared to the present arrangement. The Committee was told that the scheme was designed to deliver accommodation, retail units and employment for local people. The Committee heard from the representative of the Town Council that the scheme was supported by the Town Council and in its view the scheme was in accord with the requirements of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 01 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 3 COMMITTEE CHAIR’S INITIALS ……………. (15) Neighbourhood Plan. It was confirmed that the Developer had worked closely with the Town Council to design an acceptable scheme. Members of the Committee expressed disappointment that the scheme proposed to deliver 25% affordable housing rather than the 30% required by policy, the Team Leader Strategic Applications Team, told the Committee that viability of the scheme had been thoroughly tested both by Officers and an external consultant and based on that evidence the 25% affordable housing element was deemed acceptable. It was also confirmed that whilst the highways engineers and transport officers had raised concerns no formal objections to the scheme had been made. It was noted that a significant number of representations had been submitted since the publication of the agenda however no new issues were raised within those documents. The Officer told the Committee that there was an additional condition proposed in respect of the highway works, ‘Prior to commencement of development and notwithstanding the details on the submitted drawings (Full details), (including Engineering details) of the required highways and traffic works not required by other conditions of this permission shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be provided in full in accordance with the approved details prior to first occupation of any part of the development. Reason: In order to minimise the danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and the development’ Councillor A Geary proposed that the officer recommendation to approve the application subject to the conditions as detailed in the Committee report, a s106 Obligation as referred to in the report, and together with the additional condition be agreed, this was seconded by Councillor White. Members of the Committee noted that many of the objections were based on the hope that a ‘better’ scheme than that proposed could be developed on the site but that this was not a consideration in this instance. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 01 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 4 COMMITTEE CHAIR’S INITIALS ……………. (16) The Committee heard from the Viability Consultant that the purchase price of the land had not been taken account of in the viability study as that would not be a material consideration, instead a ‘benchmark’ value had been used. It was confirmed that the viability assessment had been conducted in line with the requirements of the NPPF and other industry standard methodology. The Team Leader Strategic Applications Team, confirmed that it was the Officers view that the scheme on balance was seen to conform with the Neighbourhood Plan as it provided for a development that would see regeneration, this had been confirmed by the Town Council. It was noted that in respect of paragraph W1 of the Neighbourhood plan there were a large number of aspirations detailed therein, the scheme was considered to meet a number of them and that in respect of how a planning application was assessed it was rare for a scheme to meet all elements of a policy, again on balance the scheme was considered to be broadly compliant with the Neighbourhood Plan. Councillor White proposed that condition 26 be amended so that the reason reflected the need to ensure that the viability and vitality of Wolverton Town Centre was supported. He also proposed that condition 45 be amended to ensure that bus stop locations and design be controlled such that Wolverton was not downgraded as a transport exchange. It was proposed that the responsibility to reword the conditions to reflect these changes be delegated to the Service Director - Planning and Transport, to be done in consultation with the Chair, and Vice Chairs, this was seconded by Councillor Bint. The Committee heard that the development was designed to be sustainable and the application had an accompanying sustainability statement which demonstrated that the criteria were met, a Carbon Offset payment was also proposed. It was also noted that in respect of ‘pepper potting’ of the affordable housing the scheme was considered acceptable as the proposal was compliant with what was found to be the preferred option in many developments from affordable housing providers. It was confirmed that the affordable units would be of a similar design and quality as other units

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 01 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 5 COMMITTEE CHAIR’S INITIALS ……………. (17) The Conservation Officer confirmed that he was satisfied that the style of the proposed development would work within the context of the locality but did hold concerns about the scale of parts of the scheme in that there was too much four story development. The Committee asked whether the inclusion of an overage clause in the s106 could be added. Councillor Bint also proposed that an additional condition be applied to ensure that each unit had a dedicated parking space allocated and marked, this was seconded by Councillor Exon. The Chair adjourned the meeting to allow the Solicitor - Case Manager Planning to consider and advise the Committee on the inclusion of an overage clause. On resuming the meeting the Solicitor - Case Manager Planning, told the Committee that a ‘review’ clause (not an ‘overage clause’) could be used in s106 agreements for large scale developments, planned to be completed over a number of years in phases and where the applicant has agreed to its inclusion, however, this was a smaller development that was not proposed to be completed in phases and it would therefore not be appropriate to apply, also the applicant has indicated that he was not prepared to include such a clause, and therefore it was advised that a clause should not be included in this instance. The Viability Consultant concurred with the advice based on experience of Inspectors ruling against review mechanisms unless there is a phased development. The Committee accepted the advice. The proposal to approve the application subject to a s106 Obligation the conditions as detailed in the Committee report, together with the amended condition as detailed above and to include the amendments to conditions 26 and 45, and the additional condition to be delegated to the Service Director - Planning and Transport, in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chairs, was carried, and it was; RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted subject to a s106 Obligation the conditions as detailed in the

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 01 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 6 COMMITTEE CHAIR’S INITIALS ……………. (18) Committee report, together with the amended condition as detailed above and to include the amendments to conditions 26 and 45, and the additional condition to be delegated to the Service Director - Planning and Transport, in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chairs 15/01302/MKCOD3 SINGLE-STOREY CLASSROOM TEACHING BLOCK, NEW CAR PARK AND NEW VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS FROM MCCONNELL DRIVE; EXTENSIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO PLAY AREAS TO INCLUDE NEW FENCED PLAY AND GAMES COURTS AT BUSHFIELD SCHOOL, MOON STREET, WOLVERTON FOR MILTON KEYNES COUNCIL The Committee heard from the representative of Wolverton and Greenleys Town Council that the Town Council held strong reservations and concerns in respect of Roads Safety due to the entrance arrangements and difficulties with visibility, the Town Council recognised the need for the additional school places and supported the application in principle. It was recommended that should the Committee agree to approve the application consideration be given to an informative recommending that the speed limit on McConnell Drive be reduced from 60mph to 40 mph to make exiting the site safer. The applicant confirmed that a 3 stage Road Safety Assessment was to be carried out and the scheme amended as required as it was completed.

The Officer reported that since writing the report objections had been formally withdrawn in writing by Sport and that it had been confirmed by the Countryside Officer that the submitted Biodiversity Assessment was acceptable.

The Officer further reported that an updated report from the Highways Engineer had been published which confirmed that the proposal had been thoroughly assessed in terms of highway safety, access and parking. It was summarised that it would be unreasonable to expect the modest increase in traffic from these works would result in an increase in the occurrence of road traffic accidents. On this basis, in terms of highway issues, it was confirmed that the application could be supported, and that the Officer recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 01 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 7 COMMITTEE CHAIR’S INITIALS ……………. (19) conditions as detailed in the report.

Councillor Morla had to leave the meeting for short while and did not take part in the debate or vote.

Councillor A Geary proposed that the Officer recommendation be agreed, this was seconded by Councillor White.

The Committee sought clarification on how many additional pupils there would be year on year and how many additional vehicle movements this would generate, the Officer confirmed that there was a top limit of an additional 120 pupils.

Councillor Exon proposed that should the committee approve the application, it be agreed to add an informative to request that the relevant officer initiate the necessary procedure to seek a reduction in the speed limit from 60mph to 40 mph on McConnell Drive, from the junction of the H2 Millers Way to the 30mph signs, this was seconded by Councillor Bint.

On being put to the vote the proposal to approve the officer recommendation and to add the informative was carried unanimously, and it was;

RESOLVED –

1. That the application be approved subject to the conditions as detailed in the Committee report, and;

2. That an informative be added to ask officers to initiate the necessary arrangements to introduce a reduced speed limit of 40mph on McConnell Drive.

15/00825/FUL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 131 UNITS (AMENDED DESCRIPTION) AT LAND AT SITE 4A AND 5, HOLDEN AVENUE, OXLEY PARK FOR LINDEN HOMES The Committee heard representations from an objector and the Ward Councillor who expressed concern that the proposed development would put additional strain on health facilities and the lack of primary school places, it was noted that there was no planning permission in place to develop a school on Oxley Park. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 01 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 8 COMMITTEE CHAIR’S INITIALS ……………. (20) The Committee also heard that there remained a need for a further community centre building. The Ward Councillor expressed concern that whilst land could be made available for the construction of an additional community centre and money was to be set apart within the S106 agreement to fund a facility there remained a 12 month limitation on the offer of land in Oxley Park from the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) which was not a realistic timescale. Objectors also commented that the density was too high and that parking provision was inadequate as tandem parking featured in the plans and there was a lack of street parking provision. The Developer told the Committee that provision had been made within the S106 agreement for financial contributions towards education and health facilities and a Community Centre. The Committee heard that the scheme had been revised to ensure that it complied with all policies, and that whilst it was recognised that ‘Tandem Parking’ was not an option favoured by the Committee the parking provision complied fully with the Milton Keynes Council Parking standards. It was noted that the revised plans significantly reduced the amount of tandem parking in respect of what had originally been proposed. The Officer reported that the scheme was fully compliant with policy and that parking exceeded the required provision as set out in the Milton Keynes Parking Standards. It was likewise confirmed that the S106 contributions that were proposed were in accordance with Council policy. The Officer reported that he had been engaged in negotiation with the HCA to extend the period that the HCA would make available plots of land to facilitate the provision of a Community Centre, however, this was not possible as the sites proposed were identified to be delivered as part of the Government’s Custom Build initiative. The Officer told the Committee that his recommendation had been revised to take account of the amendments to the S106 agreement as detailed in the published update report and that the recommendation was that the application be granted subject to the completion of a S106 legal agreement to include the s106 matters set out in the main report as updated by the published DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 01 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 9 COMMITTEE CHAIR’S INITIALS ……………. (21) update report to include the provision of 43 x affordable housing units consisting of a tenure mix of 25% Affordable Rent (including 5% at a level broadly equivalent to Social Rent) and 5% Shared Ownership and financial contributions towards social infrastructure, leisure, recreation and sport, education, public transport and Redway and footways as set out in para 1.1 of the update paper. And subject to the conditions set out in Section 6 of the main report. Councillor A Geary proposed that the Officer recommendation be agreed, this was seconded by Councillor White. The Committee was advised that the HCA could not be required to extend the period that was agreed for the provision of details of the Community facilities, however this did not prevent the Committee making a request in this respect. The Chair undertook to write to the HCA in this respect. Likewise the Committee was concerned that there had been a number of S106 contributions from various schemes for Health facilities yet NHS England had thus far not made adequate provision for the expansion of Westcroft and Oxley Park, the Chair undertook to write to the relevant body to make the concerns known. It was also confirmed that there remained 48% of the units with Tandem Parking, whilst not in keeping with the wishes of the Committee it was a significant reduction on the original proposals and was nevertheless compliant with the existing Parking Standards. The Committee commented that the applicant had met and exceeded the requirements for affordable homes, and fully met the aspirations for S106 contributions, that the various representative bodies’ design aspirations had been taken account of following good communications, and the mix of house types was impressive, and that this should be commended. RESOLVED – 1. That planning permission be granted subject to the completion of a s106 matters set out in the main report as updated by the published update report to include the provision of 43 x affordable housing units consisting of a tenure mix of 25% Affordable Rent (including 5% at a level broadly DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 01 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 10 COMMITTEE CHAIR’S INITIALS ……………. (22) equivalent to Social Rent) and 5% Shared Ownership and financial contributions towards social infrastructure, leisure, recreation and sport, education, public transport and Redway and footways as set out in para 1.1 of the update paper. And subject to the conditions set out in Section 6 of the main report, and 2. That the Chair write to the HCA to seek an extension of the period the land will be made available for a Community Hall, and; 3. That the Chair write to the relevant body to seek to have Health facilities prioritised in the Westcroft and Oxley Park area. The Committee agreed to extend the meeting to consider the business on the agenda. 15/00699/REM RESERVED MATTERS PURSUANT TO OUTLINE PERMISSION 12/01851/MKPCO FOR APPROVAL OF ACCESS, APPEARANCE, LANDSCAPING, LAYOUT AND SCALE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 206 DWELLINGS AND 360SQM OF COMMERCIAL FLOORSPACE (USE CLASS A1, A2, A3, A5, B1 AND D1) AT KINGSMEAD SOUTH SITES 1 AND 2, WHADDON ROAD, KINGSMEAD FOR TAYLOR WIMPEY The Officer reported that since the publication of the report the applicant had responded to the Highways Officers request for clarification on a number of points, the Highways Officer had therefore confirmed that he had no objections to the scheme, and therefore the recommendation remains to approve the application subject to the conditions as detailed in the committee report. Councillor A Geary proposed that the Officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor White. It was noted that the parking allocation exceeded the requirement under the Parking Standards by over 100 spaces, although there remained a number of Tandem spaces. On being put to the vote the proposal to grant the application subject to the conditions as set out in the committee report was carried unanimously, and it was; RESOLVED –

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 01 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 11 COMMITTEE CHAIR’S INITIALS ……………. (23) That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the committee report. 15/01492/FUL ERECTION OF 34 X DWELLINGS WITH RELOCATED SITE ACCESS AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE AND LANDSCAPING WORKS AT LAND AT THE GABLES, LOWER END ROAD, WAVENDON FOR LEA VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD The Officer reported that Highways Officer had now received the updated tracking information that had been requested, this had been deemed acceptable. It was also reported that the Transport Statement had been amended to take account of a 40mph zone in Lower End Road, Road Safety Officers had confirmed that they did not object to a 30mph limit, the Highways Officer had therefore agreed that this should be included as recommended in condition 9 of the report. The Officer confirmed that the recommendation remained that the applications be approved subject to the conditions as detailed in the committee report. Councillor A Geary proposed that the Officer recommendation be agreed, this was seconded by Councillor White. On being put to the vote the proposal to grant the application subject to the conditions as set out in the committee report was carried unanimously, and it was; RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the committee report. 15/02071/TCA NOTIFICATION OF INTENTION TO REMOVE WISPY BRANCHES TO TWO WILLOW FRONDS AT BLUEBELL COTTAGE, BAY LANE, RAVENSTONE FOR MR JOHN CAPLIN Councillor A Geary stood down from the Committee during consideration of this application and took no part in the proceedings. Councillor Exon (Vice Chair took the Chair) The Committee heard from the Chair of Lavendon Parish Council that the Parish Council Objected to the application as it held concerns that the applicant would not adhere to the limitation of any

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 01 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 12 COMMITTEE CHAIR’S INITIALS ……………. (24) works agreed and that the tree was at risk. The Committee was reminded that the tree was situated in a conservation area and was a prominent feature. It was requested that should the Committee be minded to grant the application any work was conditioned to be done under supervision of a Council Officer. Alternatively the Parish Council would request that a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) was put on the tree. The Officer told the Committee that the application was for permission to carry out maintenance works on the tree and specified ‘wispy’ branches to be pruned. The Committee was advised that it would be unreasonable to condition that any work be carried out under supervision. Councillor Exon proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed, this was seconded by Councillor White. Members of the Committee considered the benefits of making a TPO in respect of the tree. The Committee was advised by the Solicitor - Case Manager Planning, that a TPO would offer no additional protection to the tree as it was situated in a conservation area and therefore already benefitted from the same level of protection that a TPO would offer. On being put to the vote the proposal to agree the officer recommendation was carried, and it was; RESOLVED – That no objections be raised to the works. DCC41 C3.3S CMK DRAFT DEVELOPMENT BRIEF Councillor White stepped down from the Committee for this Item and left the room. The Committee considered a report in respect of the C3.3S Central Milton Keynes (CMK) Development Brief, The Urban Designer reminded the Committee that Land at C3.3S in CMK was one of the sites that transferred from the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) to the Milton Keynes Development Partnership (MKDP). MKDP was required to initiate the preparation of a Development Brief prior to marketing or disposing of any of its larger sites. The Council has adopted a protocol for the preparation of development briefs, which sets out a process for stakeholder engagement. The protocol included the Development Control Committee as a consultee DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 01 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 13 COMMITTEE CHAIR’S INITIALS ……………. (25) at the formal consultation stage and the report was before the Committee for that purpose. Members of the Committee were invited to comment on the Development Brief. Members were reminded that they could still respond to the consultation on an individual basis. Members of the Committee commented that the site was prominent and overlooked adjacent estates therefore creating a ‘landmark’ development ought to be a priority, ideally visible from a reasonable distance. It was also commented that the pedestrian route depicted on the plans was not the actual route used as pedestrians tended to favour a more direct route across the carparks on the site. The Committee expressed concern about the process in developing the briefs. It was recognised that the Service Director and the Cabinet member were meeting to discuss this issue however it was asked that the following points be considered; The Document was produced by officers acting under contract to the landowner and did not necessarily reflect what was wanted by the Council. There was no independent input from a planning officer (other than as described above) The Officer report detailed options which were not reflected in the document, and example being a reference to the use of the site for a hotel in the report but not the brief. An early draft of the document referred to the site as being in the primary shopping area, this had been taken out following representations at the delegated decision stage, however, the report had not been amended to acknowledge the difference. The Brief does not give adequate weight to the recently made Neighbourhood plan. These failings represent a fundamental process flaw. The Service Director - Planning and Transport, confirmed that the Cabinet member had undertaken to consider the process issues and address these with the Leader of the Council, however, in respect of the assertion that the neighbourhood plan had not been given adequate weight responded by stating that in her view the document dealt with policy accurately and that the ordering presented within the document was legally correct. It was confirmed that the policy context was correct in how it was set out. The Committee heard from Councillor Thomas, of Central Milton Keynes Town Council, during consideration of this item. RESOLVED – 1. That the report and Development Brief be noted

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 01 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 14 COMMITTEE CHAIR’S INITIALS ……………. (26) 2. That the Comments passed by the Committee be considered when a final decision is made to approve the Development Brief. THE CHAIR CLOSED THE MEETING AT 10:34PM

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 01 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 15 COMMITTEE CHAIR’S INITIALS ……………. (27)

ITEM 3(c)

Minutes of the meeting of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL held on THURSDAY 17 SEPTEMBER 2015 at 7:00 pm.

Present: Councillor: White (Chair) Councillors: Bint, McLean and C Williams.

Officers: D Kirk (Team Leader Minor Applications), P Caves (Engineer, Development Management [Highways]), J Horner (Planning Officer), K Sharma (Senior Planning Officer), A Smith (Senior Planning Officer), D Hird (Planning Officer), P Bartos (Planning Officer), M Ellison (Senior Conservation Officer) R Proctor (Senior Enforcement Officer), N Ahmad (Planning and Environment Team, Legal Services) and D Imbimbo (Committee Manager).

Apologies: Councillor A Geary

Also Present: Councillors Crooks and Morris

Number of Public Present: 21

DCP19 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS The Chair welcomed Councillors, Officer Colleagues and the Public to the meeting and explained the procedures to be adopted. DCP20 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor McLean asked that it be recorded that in respect of application 15/01613/FUL he would be speaking in objection to the application and would therefore stand down from the Panel for that matter and not partake of the decision making. Councillor C Williams asked that it be recorded that in respect of application 15/00669/FUL he was the Ward Councillor and had been approached by an objector for advice but had not expressed any view in respect the merits of the application, he had not had opportunity to meet with the applicant, in the interest of transparency he would take no part in the determination of the application. Councillor Bint asked that it be recorded that in respect of application 15/01729/FUL he was one of the Ward Councillors but had not discussed the application with the other Ward Councillors who were to speak in objection to the application and held no pre-determined position.

Councillors White and McLean asked that it be recorded that in

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 17 SEPTEMBER 2015 PAGE 1 PANEL (28) respect of application 15/00681/FUL and 15/01420/LBC the applicants agent who would be speaking in support of the application was well known to them but at no time had they discussed the application or expressed any view and were open minded in respect of it. No other declarations were made in respect of the matters considered. DCP21 REPRESENTATIONS ON PLANNING APPLICATIONS Councillors Crooks and Morris (Ward Councillors) spoke in objection to application 15/01729/FUL Change of use from single family dwelling (Use Class C3) to five bedroom house in Multiple Occupation (HiMO) (Use Class C4) for five persons (Retrospective) at 10 Kidderminster Walk, Broughton, Milton Keynes for Mr Matthew Lachlan. The applicant, Mr Lachlan, exercised the right of reply. Mr M Brown spoke in objection to application 15/01579/FUL Proposed single storey rear and side extension, new dormer window to front, additional roof window to rear, addition of ground floor window to side and new flat roof to existing 2 storey rear projection at 21 Wood Street, , Milton Keynes for Mrs Kathryn Walker. The applicant, Mrs Walker, exercised the right of reply. Mr M Pebody and Councillor McLean, (Ward Councillor), spoke in objection to application15/01613/FUL Minor material amendment to application 15/00425/FUL to reduce height and size of timber summerhouse at 138 Weston Road, Olney, for Mr Joseph Wheeler The Applicant submitted a written response (Published in additional papers) Mr W Bethune, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of application 15/00681/FUL Partial demolition of garden walls to provide on plot parking space and 15/01420/LBC at 3 Bridge Street Olney for ScopeRight Ltd. The application having been recommended for refusal. DCP22 APPLICATIONS 15/01729/FUL CHANGE OF USE FROM SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (USE CLASS C3) TO FIVE BEDROOM HOUSE IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION (HIMO) (USE CLASS C4) FOR FIVE PERSONS (RETROSPECTIVE) AT 10 KIDDERMINSTER WALK, BROUGHTON, MILTON KEYNES, FOR MR MATTHEW LACHLAN The Panel heard from Councillors Crooks and Morris that the officer recommendation to refuse the application was welcomed as the proposal would result in an over concentration of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HiMO) which would adversely impact on the character of a residential area that

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 17 SEPTEMBER 2015 PAGE 2 PANEL (29) was unsuitable for a premises of this nature due to the associated problems of parking in a narrow and congested location, smells from refuse and noise. The Applicant told the Panel that the property had been let as a HiMO for 11 years and no problems had been reported. The Panel heard from the Officer that a Site Inspection had been undertaken, attended by Councillors White and C Williams, there was no update on the published reports and that the recommendation remained to refuse the application for the reason detailed in the report. The Planning Officer explained that an initial application for a 6 lettable room HiMO had been submitted and subsequently withdrawn as it was identified that this would result in an over concentration in the area, a new application had been submitted for a 5 bedroom HiMO and had initially been assessed as being acceptable. Following the deferral of the determination of the application at the meeting of the Panel on 20 August a further HiMO had been identified at No. 4 Kidderminster Walk, this therefore meant that the concentration was in excess of the standard and the recommendation to refuse the application made on these grounds. Councillor White proposed that the Officer recommendation be agreed, this was seconded by Councillor Bint. Members of the panel who had attended the Site Inspection commented that the site was large enough to accommodate the proposed development and there was no reason to refuse the application other than due to the concentration in the area. The Panel recognised that should this application be refused the newly identified unauthorised HiMO would then be eligible for approval, Members of the Committee expressed concern that the applicant who had acted correctly throughout and followed Officer advice would be penalised due to an unauthorised HiMO should the application be refused. Councillor Bint urged the Panel to refuse the application for the reason stated in the report and sought additional clarity in respect of the parking arrangements as it was clear that whilst two additional on-site parking spaces were to be made available the existing spaces did not meet the minimum standard in terms of their size. The

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 17 SEPTEMBER 2015 PAGE 3 PANEL (30) Highways Engineer confirmed that whilst the existing spaces were non-compliant they had been provided when the property was originally built and had been deemed acceptable and that would not provide for a sustainable reason for refusing the application. The Panel heard that the property was situated on a road that was owned by a management company rather than a public road, any access arrangements were a civil matter and could not form part of the consideration. On being put to the vote the motion to refuse the application was lost. Councillor White proposed that the application be granted, contrary to policy on the grounds of fairness due to the sequence of events that had resulted in an over-concentration of HiMO’s being identified. Subject to the following conditions; 1. The house shall not be operated with more than 5 lettable rooms at any time. Reason: To control future intensification of the application property. 2. Within 3 months of the date of this notice, the following shall be undertaken: A) All internal bedroom walls and (where there is a habitable room above or below) bedroom ceilings and floors shall meet the sound insulation standard of a minimum value of 40dB. B) Proof that the above standards have been achieved shall be provided by the submission of a noise assessment to the Local Planning Authority. The noise assessment shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 8233:1999 (Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction in Buildings) and shall demonstrate that the sound insulation achieves the minimum values as stated above. The submitted details shall include the test methodology and results with all supporting data. Reason: To avoid nuisance from noise and vibration between the proposed dwelling units. 3. Within two months from the date of this decision notice the parking area shown on the approved plan shall be sited and marked out in accordance with the approved details and thereafter that area shall not be used for any other purpose. Reason: To enable vehicles to park and turn clear of the highway to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 17 SEPTEMBER 2015 PAGE 4 PANEL (31)

4. Within three months of this permission the development hereby permitted a landscaping scheme, which shall include details of both soft and hard landscaping shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall show the numbers, types and sizes of trees, shrubs and plants to be planted and their location in relation to proposed buildings, roads, footpaths, hard surfacing and services (including those underground). All planting in accordance with the scheme shall be carried out within the first planting season following the approval of a detailed scheme. Any trees or shrubs removed, dying, severely damaged or diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with trees or shrubs of such size and species as may be agreed by the Local Planning Authority. All other landscaping, including hard landscaping, shown in the approved scheme shall be laid out prior to the occupation of the development and be retained thereafter. Reason: To protect the appearance and character of the area and to minimise the effect of development on the area. This was seconded by Councillor C Williams. Councillor C Williams asked that as this was a proposal to grant the application contrary to policy a recorded voted be taken. On being put to the vote the proposal to grant the application was carried, the voting being as below; Councillor Bint - Against Councillor McLean - For Councillor White - For Councillor C Williams - For RESOLVED – That the application be granted subject to the conditions as detailed above. 15/01593/FUL CHANGE OF USE FROM COMMUNITY POLICE OFFICE AND SUB-STATION (USE CLASS SUI GENERIS) TO BUTCHERS (USE CLASS A1) 7 HIGH STREET OLNEY FOR MR G PETERS The Officer reported that there was no update on the Panel report and that the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 17 SEPTEMBER 2015 PAGE 5 PANEL (32) conditions detailed within the report. Councillor White proposed that the Officer recommendation be agreed, this was seconded by Councillor Bint. The Panel noted the representations received in writing from the objector in respect of the impact of a third butchers premises in the same area, and considered whether this would breach paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Members of the Panel recognised that whilst competition was not favoured by the existing butchers it was not reasonable to restrict business, the Officer advised that saved Policy TC1 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 -2011 encouraged retail development in the Town Centre. On being put to the vote the proposal to approve the application subject to the conditions as detailed in the report was carried, and it was; RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the reports. 15/01728/FUL FIRST FLOOR FRONT EXTENSION ABOVE AN EXISTING GARAGE, AND INTERNAL ALTERATIONS AND DOOR AND WINDOW ALTERATIONS AT 23 MOUNTSFIELD CLOSE, NEWPORT PAGNELL FOR MR ROGER SHARPE The Officer reported that there was no update on the Panel report and that the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions detailed therein. Councillor White proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor Bint. On being put to the vote the proposal to grant the application was carried unanimously, and it was; RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the Panel report.

15/01579/FUL PROPOSED SINGLE STOREY REAR AND SIDE EXTENSION, NEW DORMER WINDOW TO FRONT, ADDITIONAL ROOF WINDOW TO REAR, ADDITION OF GROUND FLOOR WINDOW TO SIDE AND NEW FLAT ROOF TO EXISTING 2 STOREY REAR PROJECTION AT 21 WOOD STREET, WOBURN SANDS, MILTON KEYNES FOR MRS KATHRYN WALKER

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 17 SEPTEMBER 2015 PAGE 6 PANEL (33) The Panel heard representations from a neighbour that he held concerns that the proposed extension would compromise the structure of his property due to the lack of foundations. The Panel also heard that the incorporation of a dormer window would be out of character with the street scene. The applicant confirmed that all measures would be taken in respect of ensuring the property was properly constructed and that in respect of the dormer window it was designed to be constructed using materials sympathetic to the Victorian Terrace.

The Officer reported that two additional plans had been submitted which demonstrated the extent of the extension. There was no other update on the reports. The Panel heard that whilst the subject property formed part of a terrace where there was no other dormer window the opposite side of the street featured properties that had them and that the proposal was not seen to be unduly detrimental to the street scene as a whole and that the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions as detailed in the Panel report.

Councillor White proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor McLean. The Senior Conservation Officer told the Panel that the property was not in a Conservation Area, however the Panel should satisfy itself that the development was in keeping with the Victorian Terrace of houses. Members of the Panel recognised the concerns raised by the objectors and advised that any issues relating to the risks to the structural integrity of neighbouring properties were matters that would be considered by Building Control. On being put to the vote the proposal to grant the application was carried, and it was; RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the Panel report. 15/01613/FUL MINOR MATERIAL AMENDMENT TO APPLICATION 15/00425/FUL TO REDUCE HEIGHT AND SIZE OF TIMBER SUMMERHOUSE AT 138 WESTON ROAD OLNEY FOR MR JOSEPH WHEELER

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 17 SEPTEMBER 2015 PAGE 7 PANEL (34) Councillor McLean stood down from the Panel during consideration of this application. The Panel heard objections to the application from a neighbour and the ward Councillor in respect of the potential detrimental impact on the neighbours amenity. The Panel heard that when the structure had been originally proposed the drawing submitted indicated that the structure would be separated from the fence line and had been approved on that basis, it transpired that the drawings did not accurately reflect the proximity of the structure to the hedge. This having been known to the objector at the time he would have made representations. The Objectors asked the Panel to consider conditions to ensure that the conifer hedge that separated the properties be maintained at a minimum height of 2.75 meters, the air extractor fans be of a style and design that do not generate undue noise and that the side window is sealed and cannot be opened. The Applicant had not been able to attend the meeting but had submitted written representations. The Officer reported that there was no update on the Panel report and that the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions detailed therein. Councillor White proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor Bint. The Officer confirmed that it would be reasonable to apply conditions as requested in respect of the conifer hedge and the extractor fan but a condition in respect of the window would not be seen as reasonable in the circumstances. Members proposed that the conditions be amended to read; 1. The approved development shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings/details: REF 4 electronically registered on 14th July 2015 REF 2 electronically registered on 14th July 2015 REF 3 electronically registered on 14th July 2015 REF 5 electronically registered on 14th July 2015 Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in accordance with the requirements of The Town and

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 17 SEPTEMBER 2015 PAGE 8 PANEL (35) Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Amendment No. 3) (England) Order 2009. 2. The outbuilding hereby permitted shall not be used for any purpose other than those incidental to the use of a dwelling and for no other purposes whatsoever and no trade or business shall be carried on therefrom. Reason: To ensure that the development does not prejudice the amenities of the locality. 3. The current boundary hedgerows within the ownership of the applicant to the north, east and west of the approved building shall be retained at a height of at least 2.75 metres and shall not be cut back below this or removed without the permission of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the area. 4. The two extractor fans shall accord with BS 8233 for external noises and achieve 30dB indoor noise levels in a bedroom between the hours of 023:00 - 07:00 and 35 dB between 07:00 and 23:00. Reason: To ensure that the extractor fans would not have an adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties. On being put to the vote the proposal to grant the application subject to the conditions as detailed above was carried unanimously, and it was; RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the Panel report amended as above. 15/01656/FUL REMOVAL OF CONDITION 3 (CAR PARKING) ATTACHED TO APPLICATION 14/00888/FUL AT 2 BRIDGE STREET OLNEY FOR MR AND MRS MORRELL The Officer reported that the incorrect title/description had been published on the Committee report and should have read as above. The Officer further reported that there was no update on the Panel report and that the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions detailed therein. Councillor White proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor C Williams.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 17 SEPTEMBER 2015 PAGE 9 PANEL (36) On being put to the vote the proposal to grant the application was carried unanimously, and it was; RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the Panel report. 15/00681/FUL PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF GARDEN WALLS TO PROVIDE ON PLOT PARKING SPACE AT 3 BRIDGE STREET OLNEY FOR SCOPERIGHT LTD

The Panel heard from the Applicants Agent that the proposal sought to provide off road parking for the dwelling as it had become increasingly difficult to park due to the amount of development that had taken place in the vicinity of the property. It was proposed to ensure that the work was carried out in such a way as to ensure that the heritage asset was protected as much as possible. The Officer reported that there was no update on the Panel report and that the recommendation remained to refuse the application for the reason stated therein. Councillor White proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor Bint. The Senior Conservation Officer told the Panel that whilst the wall in question was not of the same construction material as the main listed building it did remain part of the listing and should be protected and retained. Also if the application was granted the work would result in the partial demolition of a outbuilding, the Panel heard that to justify granting the application the Panel needed to be satisfied that the need for a parking space outweighed the importance and benefit of retaining the wall and outbuilding in its current form. The Senior Conservation Officer told the Panel that in his view the wall and outbuilding contributed to the story of the listed building and its demolition was not warranted to provide for parking. The Legal advisor confirmed that the Panel was required to take special regard of the listed building when considering the application. Members of the Panel recognised that the wall had been subjected to a repair in recent times using modern bricks and this contributed to the question of its value as a heritage asset.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 17 SEPTEMBER 2015 PAGE 10 PANEL (37) On being put to the vote the refuse the application was lost. Councillor White proposed that the application be granted subject to the below conditions. 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To prevent the accumulation of planning permissions; to enable the Local Planning Authority to review the suitability of the development in the light of altered circumstances; and to comply with section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. (D11) 2. Prior to the commencement of the development details of the proposed new access shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the local planning authority and the parking space shall not be brought into use until the access has been laid out and constructed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the development. The motion to grant the application was seconded by Councillor C Williams before being put to the vote whence it was carried, and it was RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed above. 15/01420/LBC PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF GARDEN WALLS TO PROVIDE ON PLOT PARKING SPACE AT 3 BRIDGE STREET OLNEY FOR SCOPERIGHT LTD The Panel considered the matters raised in considering application 15/00681/FUL, The Officer reported that there was no update on the Panel report and that the recommendation remained to refuse the application for the reasons stated therein. Councillor White proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor C Williams. On being put to the vote the proposal to refuse the application was lost. Councillor White proposed that the application be

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 17 SEPTEMBER 2015 PAGE 11 PANEL (38) granted subject to below conditions; 1. The works to which this consent relates shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this consent. Reason: To prevent the accumulation of listed building consents; to enable the local planning authority to review the suitability of the works in the light of altered circumstances; and to comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. (D12) 2. The brick wall, where dismantling is necessary to allow the opening to be created, shall be reconstructed using bricks reclaimed from the wall using traditional methods and a cement-free lime putty based mortar. Reason: to preserve the character and special interest of the listed building in accordance with saved policy HE4 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011, Adopted December 2005. 3. Prior to any works commencing on the site, the applicant will employ a competent archaeologist, surveyor or architect to record the building to a scheme agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The record will comprise a report with plans, elevations and sections of the building at a scale of 1:50 drawn to the standards set by English Heritage (2006). This will be accompanied by a written description of the building and its development, together with a photographic record of the interior and exterior. All photographs will be dated and annotated. Two copies of building recording report will be deposited with Milton Keynes Historic Environment Record prior to building works or demolition commencing, and within three months of the recording survey being completed. The project details and a digital version of the report will also be added to the Archaeology Data Service OASIS website. Reason: To ensure that affected heritage assets are adequately recorded pursuant to paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework Advisory: A Brief for this work can be provided to the applicant by the Archaeological Officer' This was seconded by Councillor C Williams before being put to the vote whence it was carried, and it was; RESOLVED –

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 17 SEPTEMBER 2015 PAGE 12 PANEL (39) That the application be granted subject to the conditions as detailed above. 15/01302/MKCOD3 SINGLE-STOREY CLASSROOM TEACHING BLOCK, NEW CAR PARK AND NEW VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS FROM MCCONNELL DRIVE; EXTENSIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO PLAY AREAS TO INCLUDE NEW FENCED PLAY AND GAMES COURTS AT BUSHFIELD SCHOOL, MOON STREET, WOLVERTON FOR MILTON KEYNES COUNCIL The Chair told the Panel that this application had been reviewed and was defined as a ‘Major’ application and therefore the Panel could not consider it has no delegated authority to do so existed, it would therefore be referred to the Development Control Committee for determination. 15/01310/FUL APPLICATION FOR 23 STATIC HOLIDAY CARAVANS TO REMAIN ON SITE THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AT COSGROVE LODGE PARK, COSGROVE, MILTON KEYNES FOR WHILTON MARINA LIMITED The Officer reported that there was no update on the Panel report and update paper and that the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions detailed therein. Councillor White proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor Bint. On being put to the vote the proposal to grant the application was carried, and it was; RESOLVED – That the application be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the Panel report. 15/00669/FUL CHANGE OF USE CLASS OF OUTBUILDING IN SIDE GARDEN TO SUI GENERIS TO CARRY OUT COSMETIC PROCEDURES (RETROSPECTIVE) AT 1 UPPER WOOD CLOSE, SHENLEY BROOK END, MILTON KEYNES FOR DR AMIT GOYAL Councillor C Williams stood down from the Panel and took no part in the determination of this application. The Officer reported that there was no update on the Panel report and update paper and that the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions detailed therein. Councillor White proposed that the officer

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 17 SEPTEMBER 2015 PAGE 13 PANEL (40) recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor Bint. Members of the Panel sought clarification in respect of the Parking arrangements, the Officer told the Panel that adequate on-site parking was available taking account of the staffing arrangements. On being put to the vote the proposal to grant the application was carried, and it was; RESOLVED – That the application be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the Panel report.

THE CHAIR CLOSED THE MEETING AT 9.42 PM

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 17 SEPTEMBER 2015 PAGE 14 PANEL (41) ITEM 3(d)

Minutes of the meeting of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL held on THURSDAY 15 OCTOBER 2015 at 7:00 pm.

Present: Councillor: A Geary (Chair) Councillors: Eastman (Substituting for Councillor C Williams), Green, Lewis and White.

Officers: S Manley (Interim Head of Development Management), D Kirk (Team Leader Minor Applications), P Caves (Engineer, Development Management [Highways]), K Lycett (Senior Planning Officer), K Sharma (Planning Officer), P Klemm (Planning Officer), D Hird (Planning Officer), P Bartos (Planning Officer), V Blane (Planning and Environment Team, Legal Services) and D Imbimbo (Committee Manager).

Apologies: Councillors C Williams and P Williams

Also Present: Councillors Alexander, Bald and Webb

Number of Public Present: 22

DCP23 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS The Chair welcomed Councillors, Officer Colleagues and the Public to the meeting and explained the procedures to be adopted. DCP24 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor Green asked that it be recorded that in respect of applications 15/01319/FUL and 15/01320/LBC she knows the applicant and therefore would stand down from the Panel for these matters and not partake of the decision making. Councillor Green asked that it be recorded that in respect of application 15/01254/FUL she would stand down from the Panel for this matter and not partake of the decision making. Councillor Eastman asked that it be recorded that in respect of application 15/02255/FUL he was the Ward Councillor and friend of the applicant and would therefore stand down from the Panel for this matter and not partake of the decision making. Councillor A Geary asked that it be recorded that in respect of application 15/01359/FUL the applicant was a cousin of his sister in law and he would therefore stand down from the Committee for this matter and not partake of the decision making.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 15 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 1 PANEL (42) No other declarations were made in respect of the matters considered. DCP25 REPRESENTATIONS ON PLANNING APPLICATIONS Councillors Bald (Ward Councillor) spoke in objection to elements of application 15/01319/FUL Change of use from dwelling house (use class C3) to residential institution (use class C2) and conversion and internal alterations to provide care home for autistic adults at Howe Park House, 32 Hengistbury Lane, Tattenhoe, Milton Keynes The applicant, Mr G Richards, exercised the right of reply. Mr A Ledson spoke in objection to application 15/01359/FUL Demolition of existing garage and erection of 2 x dwellings with car ports, associated access, parking and landscaping at 37 Northampton Road, Lavendon, Olney. The applicant’s Agent, Mr I Lapsley, exercised the right of reply. Councillor Webb, (Ward Councillor), spoke in objection to application 15/01779/FUL Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of four terraced dwellings and creation of new road access (resubmission of 14/02877/FUL) at 118 Watling Street, Bletchley, Milton Keynes The applicant’s Agent, Mr M Lake, exercised the right of reply. Mr P Allen, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of application 15/01254/FUL Variation to condition 5 of planning permission 13/02312/FUL to remove Code for Sustainable Homes Level 6 Star and replace with a 100% reduction in CO2 Emissions, to be confirmed by an EPC Certificate at 6 Prospect Place, Newport Road, . The application having been recommended for refusal. DCP26 APPLICATIONS 15/01914/FUL DEMOLITION OF THE SUFFOLK PUNCH PUBLIC HOUSE AND CLEARING OF THE SITE INCLUDING THE CAR PARK AND ASSOCIATED WORKS AT THE SUFFOLK PUNCH , 1 LANGCLIFFE DRIVE, HEELANDS FOR MR BOB GOSS The application was withdrawn by the applicant. 15/01319/FUL CHANGE OF USE FROM DWELLING HOUSE (USE CLASS C3) TO RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTION (USE CLASS C2) AND CONVERSION AND INTERNAL ALTERATIONS TO PROVIDE CARE HOME FOR AUTISTIC ADULTS AT HOWE PARK HOUSE, 32 HENGISTBURY LANE, TATTENHOE FOR MR GARETH RICHARDS Councillor Green withdrew from the Panel for this Item and took no part in the determination of the application. The Panel heard representations from the Ward

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 15 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 2 PANEL (43) Councillor who told the Committee that there had been a positive engagement between the developer and residents however there remained some concerns in respect of Traffic and Car parking arrangements, the gates and fencing, and the drive and landscaping. It was noted that the location of the car park near the boundary with the neighbouring property could cause disturbance there were concerns that the number of vehicles attending could be high, and it was hoped this could be located near the front of the house. In respect of the gates and fencing, there was a single entry point to the site which was proposed to be controlled by electric gates, the gates on site at this time are wooden and compliment the area, these should be retained. The proposed drive is gravel, this was likely to generate noise and an alternative such as tarmac would be a preferred option for local residents. It was also requested that mature evergreen trees that had been removed be replaced. The Applicant, in response to the points raised, it was confirmed that the maximum number of vehicles likely to be on the site at any one time was 3 or 4, If the car parking spaces were to be moved the mature trees on site, which were protected, would need to be felled, The applicant confirmed he was willing to use alternative surface materials for the drive to seek to reduce any noise, he was also willing to retain the wooden gates. It was also confirmed that replacement trees had been planted. The Officer reported that traffic movement had been assessed and it was considered unlikely to cause any detriment to residents in the vicinity. The Panel was reminded that the site was within the vicinity of a listed building and therefore any proposal to alter the materials used for the driveway would require a full assessment to be undertaken by the conservation officer. The Officer confirmed that the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions detailed within the report amended as detailed in the published additional papers. Councillor A Geary proposed that the Officer recommendation be agreed, this was seconded by Councillor White. It was noted that there was a typing error in paragraph 5.5 of the Panel report in that the final sentence should read ‘was considered to comply’.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 15 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 3 PANEL (44) Councillor Lewis, in recognition of the difficulty in imposing a condition in respect of the driveway surfacing materials due to the listed status, proposed that an additional conditions be agreed in the terms; ‘Notwithstanding the detail shown on plans hereby approved, details of the surfacing material shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority’, and thereafter implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to the development being brought into use, and; ‘Notwithstanding the detail shown on plans hereby approved, details of the proposed gates shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, and thereafter implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to the development being brought into use.’ This was seconded by Councillor Eastman. Councillor A Geary accepted these amendments to his motion On being put to the vote the proposal to approve the application subject to the conditions as detailed in the report, amended as detailed in the published additional papers and the additional conditions as above was carried unanimously, and it was; RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the report, amended as detailed in the published additional papers and the additional conditions as above. 15/01320/LBC LISTED BUILDING CONSENT FOR CHANGE OF USE FROM DWELLING HOUSE (USE CLASS C3) TO RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTION (USE CLASS C2) AND CONVERSION AND INTERNAL ALTERATIONS TO PROVIDE CARE HOME FOR AUTISTIC ADULTS. REMOVAL OF ASBESTOS INVOLVING REPLACEMENT AND REMOVAL OF CEILINGS AT HOWE PARK HOUSE, 32 HENGISTBURY LANE, TATTENHOE FOR MR GARETH RICHARDS The Officer reported that there was no update on the Panel report and that the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions detailed therein. Councillor A Geary proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor White. On being put to the vote the proposal to grant the

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 15 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 4 PANEL (45) application was carried unanimously, and it was; RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the Panel report.

15/01807/FUL FIRST FLOOR SIDE EXTENSION AND REAR TIMBER MOBILITY ACCESS GATES AT 73 BRADVUE CRESCENT, BRADVILLE, MILTON KEYNES FOR MR MICHAEL YATES

Councillor White proposed that determination of the application be deferred to allow a site inspection to be undertaken as this had been asked for by Councillor Walker a Ward Councillor, this was seconded by Councillor A Geary. The proposal was agreed by acclamation. RESOLVED – That determination of the application be deferred to allow a site inspection to be undertaken 15/01359/FUL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING GARAGE AND ERECTION OF 2 X DWELLINGS WITH CAR PORTS, ASSOCIATED ACCESS, PARKING AND LANDSCAPING AT 37 NORTHAMPTON ROAD, LAVENDON, OLNEY FOR MR BEN BROCK Councillor A Geary stood down from the Panel during consideration of this application. Councillor White (Vice Chair) took the Chair for this Item. The Panel heard objections to the application in respect of the potential detrimental impact on the neighbours amenity and the conservation area in general. The objector told the Panel that there were strongly held concerns among neighbours that the sheer size, bulk and scale of the proposal was out of keeping with the rural nature of the site and was an overdevelopment of the site totally out of keeping with the conservation area and was in direct contravention of Saved Policy D2 (i) and (ii) of the Local Plan. The applicant’s agent responded to say that the design was such that it took account of the conservation area, the neighbours amenity and the listed building using a bespoke design for the plot. Materials to be used were in keeping with the conservation area. The agent told the panel that

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 15 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 5 PANEL (46) the size and scale of the proposal was suitable for the site and not as suggested in the panel report. The Officer reported that a Site Inspection had been undertaken on 12 October attended by Councillor Eastman, there was no update on the Panel report and the published additional papers, and that the recommendation remained to refuse the application for the reasons as amended in the published late papers. It was confirmed that the reason for refusal was not in respect of the design of the proposed development. Councillor White proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor Lewis. Councillor Eastman confirmed that on having attended the Site Inspection he held strong concerns about the amount of space available on the plot and concurred with the Officers assessment. On being put to the vote the proposal to refuse the application for the reasons detailed in the additional published papers was carried unanimously, and it was; RESOLVED – That planning permission be refused as The proposed development for erection of two dwellings in the rear garden of number 37 Northampton Road, by virtue of its scale, design and bulk, is considered to detrimental to the rural character of the local area resulting in an overdevelopment of the site. The proposed development will also adversely affect the character of the Lavendon Conservation area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Saved Policies D2 (i and ii) and HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 and Policy CS19 of the Core Strategy and advice given National Planning Policy Framework. 15/02255/FUL CHANGE OF USE FROM DISUSED PUBLIC CONVENIENCE TO INTERNET RADIO BROADCASTING STATION AT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE, TICKFORD STREET, NEWPORT PAGNELL FOR CRMK The Officer reported that there had been one further letter of objection that raised no new matters and that there was no update on the Panel report and that the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 15 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 6 PANEL (47) Councillor A Geary proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor White. On being put to the vote the proposal to grant the application was carried unanimously, and it was; RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the Panel report. 15/01827/FUL DEVELOPMENT OF TWO DETACHED DWELLINGS AT LAND BETWEEN 4 AND 4A, PADDOCK WAY, BLETCHLEY FOR MR DAVID JAY

The Officer reported that there was no update on the Panel report and published update report and that the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions detailed therein. Councillor A Geary proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor White. On being put to the vote the proposal to grant the application was carried unanimously, and it was; RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the Panel reports. 15/01888/FUL CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DETACHED DWELLING AND CONVERSION OF OLD SCHOOL HALL TO DWELLING INCLUDING DEMOLITION OF FRONT QUARTER AT LAND TO THE REAR OF, 32 HIGH STREET, STONY STRATFORD FOR MR MATTHEW HUTTON The Officer reported that there was no update on the Panel report and published update report and that the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions detailed therein. Councillor A Geary proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor White. On being put to the vote the proposal to grant the application was carried unanimously, and it was; RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the Panel reports.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 15 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 7 PANEL (48) 15/01783/FUL SINGLE STOREY/PART TWO STOREY REAR, PART FIRST FLOOR AND PART TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION (RESUBMISSION OF 15/00843/FUL) AT 19 PATTISON LANE, WOOLSTONE, MILTON KEYNES FOR MRS JOANNA MCLELLAN SMITH The Officer reported that there was no update on the Panel report and published update report and that the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions detailed therein. Councillor A Geary proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor White. On being put to the vote the proposal to grant the application was carried unanimously, and it was; RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the Panel reports. 15/01779/FUL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND ERECTION OF FOUR TERRACED DWELLINGS AND CREATION OF NEW ROAD ACCESS (RESUBMISSION OF 14/02877/FUL) AT 118 WATLING STREET, BLETCHLEY, MILTON KEYNES FOR BIRCH (MK) LTD The Panel heard representations from the Ward Councillor who reminded the Panel that a previous application had been rejected and his assertion that the present scheme had not changed a great deal, it was his view that the proposed design was not in keeping with the character of the area and represented an over intensification of development on the site. Comment was passed that there was a covenant on the land, the Panel was reminded by the Legal Officer that this was not a planning consideration. The Ward Councillor also commented that there appeared to be some confusion in respect of the position of the access driveway. The applicants agent confirmed that access would be via the existing access. The Panel heard that following the previous rejection of the plans had been modified significantly in consultation with planning officers. The Panel was assured that the scheme was fully compliant with all Council Policies. The Officer reported that in addition to the removal of condition 7, which was a duplication of condition

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 15 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 8 PANEL (49) 3, as detailed in the published additional paper, it was also recommended that a further two conditions and an informative to read as below be added; ‘1. Within two calendar months of the new access being brought into use the existing Watling Street access shall be stopped up by raising the existing dropped kerb and reinstating the footway / verge and highway boundary to the same line, level and detail as the adjoining footway / verge and highway boundary. Reason: To limit the number of access points along the site boundary for the safety and convenience of the highway user. 2. No wall, gate, door or any other means of enclosure shall be attached to the car port structures. Reason: to ensure the parking spaces remain open and accessible at all times. Informative: The applicant will be required to enter into a s.278 agreement for works within the highway. The applicant should contact the council’s Highway Services team for advice on the information required to complete this process.’ and that the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report together with the additional conditions and informative. Councillor A Geary proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor White. Members of the Panel questioned whether Watling Street at its Junction with Bond Avenue and Staplehall Road could accommodate the additional traffic that was inevitable from the application. The Highways Engineer confirmed that he was satisfied that the level of usage that would be generated was acceptable. It was also recognised that the scheme whilst appearing to be a high density fulfilled the requirement of all relevant Council policies. On being put to the vote the proposal to grant the application was carried, and it was; RESOLVED – That the application be granted subject to the

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 15 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 9 PANEL (50) conditions as detailed in the Panel report with the removal of condition 7 together with the two additional conditions and informative as detailed above. 15/01932/FUL DEMOLITION OF PREVIOUS REAR AND SIDE LEAN TO EXTENSION AT CORNER OF EXISTING HOUSE. CONSTRUCTION OF A OF TWO STOREY, PITCHED ROOF EXTENSION AT JACKDAWS HOUSE, 40 STATION ROAD, WOBURN SANDS FOR MR & MRS J BREEN The Officer reported that there was no update on the Panel report and that the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions detailed therein. Councillor A Geary proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor White. On being put to the vote the proposal to grant the application was carried unanimously, and it was; RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the Panel report. 15/01254/FUL VARIATION TO CONDITION 5 OF PLANNING PERMISSION 13/02312/FUL TO REMOVE CODE FOR SUSTAINABLE HOMES LEVEL 6 STAR AND REPLACE WITH A 100% REDUCTION IN CO2 EMISSIONS, TO BE CONFIRMED BY AN EPC CERTIFICATE AT 6 PROSPECT PLACE, NEWPORT ROAD, EMBERTON FOR MR B SOUL Councillor Green stepped down from the Panel during consideration of this Item and took no part in its determination. The Officer reported that the application had been previously deferred to enable assessment of the impact of recent changes in Government guidance in respect of alternative Code Levels on the application. The Panel heard that since the withdrawal of the Code for Sustainable Homes (except for the management of legacy cases) the Local Authorities may no longer require Code Level 3, 4, 5, or 6 as part of the conditions on planning permissions. The Authority was not allowed to impose a different Code level as part of a planning permission, as the Code for Sustainable Homes had been withdrawn. In the absence of an alternative code level the authority could not ‘build’ a code value with

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 15 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 10 PANEL (51) separate conditions as this would be effectively imposing that code level in all but name. The Authority cannot, therefore require, that the applicant conform to Code Level 5 of the code for sustainable homes as conditions requiring compliance with Code Levels above 2 could not be imposed. The alternative to refusing the application was to allow the proposed modification only and not impose any code level from the Code for Sustainable Homes. With regards to energy performance the ministerial statement delivered on 25th March 2015 stated the following: ‘For the specific issue of energy performance, local planning authorities would continue to be able to set and apply policies in their Local Plans which require compliance with energy performance standards that exceed the energy requirements of Building Regulations until commencement of amendments to the Planning and Energy Act 2008 in the Deregulation Bill 2015. This was expected to happen alongside the introduction of zero carbon homes policy in late 2016. The government has stated that, from then, the energy performance requirements in Building Regulations would be set at a level equivalent to the (outgoing) Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4. Until the amendment is commenced, we would expect local planning authorities to take this statement of the government’s intention into account in applying existing policies and not set conditions with requirements above a Code level 4 equivalent.’ Therefore the Officer recommended that the application be refused for the following reason; ‘The proposed dwelling was contrary to the advice in paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and did not jointly capture the various features of the three dimensions of sustainability given in paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. It was considered that relaxing the requirement to achieve Code Level 6 of the Code for Sustainable Homes in favour of a 100% reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions, would not provide sufficient material consideration to outweigh this. The resultant development would be contrary to the specific advice in paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and would not sufficiently capture the various features of the three

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 15 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 11 PANEL (52) dimensions of sustainability given in paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.’ The Applicants agent told the Panel that the changes that were proposed would only impact in respect of the arrangements for cooking and appliances, there would remain a clear 100% reduction in the emission of CO2. The Chair adjourned the meeting for a short while to allow Members of the Panel to consider the information presented by the Officer in his verbal update. On resuming the meeting the Interim Head of Development Management explained that in the event that the Panel refuse the application, this would be classed as a ‘Legacy Case’ and therefore the Council would be able to enforce the requirement to build the structure to the original conditions thereby requiring it to be to Code Level 6, however, the changes to the guidance meant that in the event that the application was approved, notwithstanding the undertakings of the agent to build to Code Level 5 the Council would be unable to enforce anything above the equivalent of Level four. The Officer gave the Panel an explanation of the implications of removing the elements of the Code Level 6 in respect of the cooking and appliances and how it was estimated that this represented a 40% increase in carbon emission over the lifetime of the dwelling. Councillor A Geary proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor White. Councillor White stated that he was concerned that the recommended reason for refusal had been amended on several occasions in the lead up to the Panel as there appeared to be an emphasis on seeking reasons to refuse the application, he was also concerned that no reference to paragraphs 61 or 65 of the NPPF in the Officer report which may suggest that there were reasons to approve the application and on that basis he would not support the officer recommendation, Councillor A Geary stated that he recognised that the Government had changed the guidelines but he was satisfied that as this application related to an application already granted the changes to the guidance did not mean that the authority could not require the development to be built to the equivalent of Code Level 6 which had been the basis for granting the application for a

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 15 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 12 PANEL (53) dwelling in the open countryside to a standard that was at that time defined as ‘exceptional’ in terms of its ecologically sustainable design, contrary to policy, in the first instance and therefore he would support the Officer recommendation. On being put to the vote the proposal to refuse the application was carried on the Chairs casting vote, and it was; RESOLVED – That planning permission be refused for the following reason; The proposed dwelling was contrary to the advice in paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and did not jointly capture the various features of the three dimensions of sustainability given in paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. It was considered that relaxing the requirement to achieve Code Level 6 of the Code for Sustainable Homes in favour of a 100% reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions, would not provide sufficient material consideration to outweigh this. The resultant development would be contrary to the specific advice in paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and would not sufficiently capture the various features of the three dimensions of sustainability given in paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. 15/01869/FUL CHANGE OF USE OF AMENITY LAND TO PRIVATE GARDEN LAND AT 129 CROSSLANDS, , MILTON KEYNES FOR MR KRZYSGOF FICKOWSKI The Officer reported that the description had been amended to include the installation of 1.8m high timber overlap fence. Internal and external consultees and neighbours have been re-consulted (12/10/2015) and given 14 days to respond. A new site notice had been put up on 13/10/2015 and therefore It was recommended that the determination of this application be deferred by the Panel, to enable Officers to assess and take into account any consultation responses received in light of the amended description Councillor A Geary proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor White. On being put to the vote the proposal to defer the determination of the application was carried unanimously, and it was;

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 15 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 13 PANEL (54) RESOLVED – That determination of the planning application be deferred for the reason as stated above. 15/01371/FUL FIRST FLOOR SIDE EXTENSION, GROUND FLOOR REAR EXTENSION, ENTRY EXTENSION AND CONVERSION OF EXISTING GARAGE TO HABITABLE SPACE. NEW DETACHED GARAGE AT 40A BRADWELL ROAD, LOUGHTON, MILTON KEYNES FOR MRS GILL HOLMES The Officer reported that there was no update on the Panel report and that the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions detailed therein. Councillor A Geary proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor White. On being put to the vote the proposal to grant the application was carried unanimously, and it was; RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the Panel report. 15/01276/FUL CONVERT GARAGE TO ANNEX, ALTERATIONS AND SINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSION AT 6 BALSAM CLOSE, WALNUT TREE, MILTON KEYNES FOR MRS ANGELA JOHNSON The Officer reported that there was no update on the Panel report and that the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions detailed therein. Councillor A Geary proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor White. On being put to the vote the proposal to grant the application was carried unanimously, and it was; RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the Panel report. 15/01706/ADV ADVERTISEMENT CONSENT FOR 4X SIGNS AT ROUNDABOUT AT TILBROOK ROUNDABOUT, MILTON KEYNES FOR MILTON KEYNES COUNCIL The Officer reported that there was no update on the Panel report and that the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions detailed therein.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 15 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 14 PANEL (55) The Panel was advised that the application had been objected to by the Community Council as they objected in principle to advertising on roundabouts on road safety grounds and that this featured in the emerging neighbourhood plan. It should also be noted that that the emerging neighbourhood plan did not have to be afforded any weight when considering the Application. Councillor A Geary proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor White. On being put to the vote the proposal to grant the application was carried unanimously, and it was; RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the Panel report. 15/01948/ADV ADVERTISEMENT CONSENT TO DISPLAY FOUR NON ILLUMINATED SIGNS AT BROWNS WOOD ROUNDABOUT, MILTON KEYNES FOR MILTON KEYNES COUNCIL The Officer reported that there was no update on the Panel report and that the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions detailed therein. The Panel was advised that the application had been objected to by the Community Council as they objected in principle to advertising on roundabouts on road safety grounds and that this featured in the emerging neighbourhood plan. It should also be noted that that the emerging neighbourhood plan did not have to be afforded any weight when considering the Application. Councillor A Geary proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor White. On being put to the vote the proposal to grant the application was carried unanimously, and it was; RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the Panel report. 15/01949/ADV ADVERTISEMENT CONSENT TO DISPLAY THREE NON-ILLUMINATED SIGNS AT WATER MILL ROUNDABOUT, CALDECOTTE LAKE DRIVE, CALDECOTTE FOR MILTON KEYNES COUNCIL The Officer reported that there was no update on the Panel report and that the recommendation

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 15 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 15 PANEL (56) remained to grant the application subject to the conditions detailed therein. The Panel was advised that the application had been objected to by the Community Council as they objected in principle to advertising on roundabouts on road safety grounds and that this featured in the emerging neighbourhood plan. It should also be noted that that the emerging neighbourhood plan did not have to be afforded any weight when considering the Application. Councillor A Geary proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor White. On being put to the vote the proposal to grant the application was carried unanimously, and it was; RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the Panel report. DCP26 APPLICATION NUMBER: 15/01891/TPO - AT 1 WELDON RISE, LOUGHTON, MILTON KEYNES The Panel considered a Tree Preservation Order consent to crown- reduce and reshape by 25% (reduce offside limbs by 1.5 metres to give a finished canopy measuring approximately 8 metres across and 12 metres high) 1x Horse Chestnut tree that is overhanging 2 Weldon Rise. The Officer told the Panel that there was no update on the Panel report and the published additional paper and that the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the reports. Councillor A Geary proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor White. On being put to the vote the proposal to grant the application was carried unanimously, and it was; RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the Panel report. DCP27 APPLICATION NUMBER: 15/01055/TPO - AT LAND AT THE AGORA CENTRE, CHURCH STREET, WOLVERTON The Panel considered a Tree Preservation Order consent to crown lift by 3 metres 3x Plane trees (T1, T3, T4); crown lift by 3 metres, clear branches from light column and remove stubs from 1x Plane tree (T2); remove minor dead wood and crown lift to 3m to 1x Lime Tree (T5); remove minor dead wood and crown lift to 3.5 metres 1x Norway Maple tree (T12); crown lift by 3 metres and clear from road by 0.5 metres 3 x Sycamores (T30, T31, T32); remove Ivy from 1x Norway Maple tree (T33); prune back die back to healthy wood to 1x Norway Maple (T34); crown lift by 3 metres and remove dead wood to 1x Indian Bean Tree

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 15 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 16 PANEL (57) (T35) remove minor dead wood to 1x Norway Maple tree (T36); prune die back to healthy wood of 1x Norway Maple (T37); crown lift by 3 metres various shrubs and group sycamores (G1) and to remove Ivy growth to 1x Birch tree (T6); remove suckering at base and minor dead wood to 1x Lime tree (T7); remove dead wood and basical epicormic growth of 1x Lime tree (T9) The Officer told the Panel that there was no update on the Panel report and that the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report. Councillor A Geary proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor White. On being put to the vote the proposal to grant the application was carried unanimously, and it was; RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the Panel report.

THE CHAIR CLOSED THE MEETING AT 9.42 PM

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 15 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 17 PANEL (58)

A Guide to Application Reports

Introduction

The following reports have been prepared by case officers from the Development Management Section of the Council’s Planning and Transport Department. In preparing the reports the case officers have taken into account all the planning issues relating to the application including:

All National and Local planning policies and legislation. All other relevant National and local policies and legislation. Relevant case law All comments received from statutory and non statutory consultees (including neighbours and other local people). The physical features of the property/site. The details of the proposal.

Clearly there is a lot of information to be considered. To keep reports to a readable length and to make sure that the important issues are fully covered, some of the more generic considerations are not explicitly referred to in the report or are only mentioned briefly. However, all the Councillors who sit on the Development Control Committee have been trained in all aspects of considering planning applications and are aware of the underlying issues which may not have been referred to directly in the report.

What is in the report?

In respect of policies, legislation and case law, those which provide the most important advice/guidance on the issues under consideration are referred to in the report.

In respect of comments from statutory and non statutory consultees, these are not normally reported in full. Although all relevant comments received are reported, they are usually summarised. Comments that have been received relating to matters which are not material planning issues are not normally reported. If they are reported for any reason, the fact that they are not material planning issues is clearly stated in the report.

In respect of the physical features of the site and the details of the proposal, the most significant features/details and those which can not easily be seen in the plans attached to the report are described in the report.

In the Considerations section of the report, the Case officer sets out the pros and cons of the application in relation to the relevant polices, legislation and case law and the comments received from everyone who has responded to the application.

(59)

The importance of planning policy

The most important factor that the Committee must consider is the relevant planning policies. Firstly there is the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) produced by the Government, which sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. Secondly there are the Council's own planning policies, particularly the policies in the Council’s Adopted Core Strategy and Adopted Local Plan, but including other policy documents such as Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG). Planning legislation requires that all planning decisions should be in line with the relevant policies.

Further Information

You can find all the information submitted with the application, together with all the comments that the Council received at www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/publicaccess.

You can find all the Council’s planning policies at www.milton- keynes.gov.uk/planning-and-building/planning-policy.

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

(60) AMENDED PLANNING USE CLASSES

Class A1. Shops Use for all or any of the following purposes: (a) for the retail sale of goods other than hot food. (b) as a post office. (c) for the sale of tickets or as a travel agency. (d) for the sale of sandwiches or other cold food for consumption off the premises. (e) for hairdressing. (f) for the direction of funerals. (g) for the display of goods for sale. (h) for the hiring out of domestic or other personal goods or articles. (i) for the washing or cleaning of clothes and fabrics on the premises. (j) for the reception of goods to be washed, cleaned or repaired. (k) as an internet café; where the primary purpose of the premises is to provide facilities for enabling members of the public to access the internet where the sale, display or service is to visiting members of the public.

Class A2. Financial & Professional Services Use the provision of: (a) financial services. (b) professional services (other than health or medical services). (c) any other services (including use as a betting office) which it is appropriate to provide in a shopping area, where the services are provided principally to visiting members of the public.

Class A3. Restaurants & Cafes Use for the sale of food and drink for consumption on the premises.

Class A4. Drinking Establishments Use as a public house, wine-bar or other drinking establishment.

Class A5. Hot Food Takeaways Use for the sale of hot food for consumption off the premises.

Class B1. Business Use for all or any of the following purposes: (a) as an office other than a use within Class A2 (financial and professional services). (b) for research and development of products or processes. (c) for any industrial process, being a use which can be carried out in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit.

Class B2. General Industrial Use for the carrying on of an industrial process other than one falling within class B1 above.

Class B8. Storage or Distribution Use for storage or as a distribution centre.

Class C1. Hotels Use as a hotel or as a boarding or guesthouse where, in each case, no significant element of care is provided.

(REVISED 25.05.10) (61) Class C2. Residential Institutions Use for the provision of residential accommodation and care to people in need of care (other than a use within Class C3 (dwelling houses).

Use as:

(a) a hospital or nursing home (b) a residential school, college or training centre

Class C2A. Secure Residential Institutions Use for the provision of secure residential accommodation, including use as a prison, young offenders institution, detention centre, secure training centre, custody centre, short-term holding centre, secure hospital, secure local authority accommodation or use as military barracks.

Class C3. Dwellinghouses Use as a dwellinghouse (whether or not as a sole or main residence) by: (a) a single person or by people to be regarded as forming a single household; (b) not more than six residents living together as a single household where care is provided for residents; or (c) not more than six residents living together as a single household where no care is provided to residents (other than a Use within Class C4) For the purposes of Class C3(a) “single household” shall be construed in accordance with section 258 of the Housing Act 2004(3).”

Class C4. Houses in Multiple Occupation Use of a dwellinghouse by not more than six residents as a ‘house in multiple occupation”. For the purposes of Class C4 a “house in multiple occupation” does not include a converted block of flats to which section 257 of the Housing Act 2004 applies but otherwise has the same meaning as in section 254 of the Housing Act 2004.”.

Class D1. Non-Residential Institutions Any use not including a residential use: (a) for the provision of any medical or health services except the use of premises attached to the residence of the consultant or practitioner. (b) as a crèche, day nursery or day centre. (c) for the provision of education. (d) for the display of works of art (otherwise than for sale or hire). (e) as a museum. (f) as a public library or public reading room. (g) as a public hall or exhibition hall. (h) for, or in connection with, public worship or religious instruction.

Class D2. Assembly & Leisure Use as: (a) a cinema. (b) a concert hall. (c) a bingo hall (d) a dance hall. (e) a swimming bath, skating rink, gymnasium or area for other indoor or outdoor sports or recreations, not involving motorised vehicles or firearms.

Sui Generis Any use which does not fall within the definition of one of the classes as specified in the Use Classes Order.

(REVISED 25.05.10) (62) DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE CODE OF GOOD PRACTICE FOR PLANNING MATTERS - GUIDANCE SUMMARY

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

GENERAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OUTSIDE THE COMMITTEE BEFORE OR AFTER RECEIPT OF A PLANNING APPLICATION

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

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

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

REVISED VERSION ADOPTED BY COUNCIL - 14 JANUARY 2005

L:\Committee\2012-13\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE\ADMIN\AGENDA PROCEDURE PACK\3. Guidance Summary.doc (63) 11 DCC members should normally only meet applicants and objectors with a Council officer present.

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

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

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

IN COMMITTEE OR CABINET

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

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

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

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

OFFICERS

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

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

REVISED VERSION ADOPTED BY COUNCIL - 14 JANUARY 2005

L:\Committee\2012-13\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE\ADMIN\AGENDA PROCEDURE PACK\3. Guidance Summary.doc (64)

ANNEX A

PROCEDURE FOR THE DETERMINATION OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (a) Council Procedure Rule 9 does not apply to the Development Control Committee and the Development Control Panel when determining planning applications.

(b) Members of the public may request the right to speak at any meeting of the Development Control Committee and the Development Control Panel to object to a planning application. The number of requests to speak will be limited to three per application (not including any right of reply). A single objector will be allowed to speak for a maximum of 3 minutes. Where there is more than one objector representing a group or organisation, they will be limited to 3 minutes to present the group or organisation’s objection, but more than one representative may speak on behalf of the group or organisation. Both the number of speakers and the time limit may be extended at the Chair’s discretion.

(c) If an application is deferred any speaker heard by the Committee when an application was first received will not be precluded from being heard again when the application is reconsidered, subject to the speaker submitting a further request to speak in accordance with paragraphs (b) and (g) of this Annex.

(d) Ward Councillors may comment on any application either within their Ward, or which has a significant impact on the residents of their Ward. If a Ward Councillor is objecting to a planning application he/she must advise the Assistant Director (Democratic Services), in order that the applicant can be offered a right of reply. Any request to speak must be submitted in accordance with paragraph (h) of this Annex.

(e) A representative of a Town or Parish Council, nominated by either the Chair or the Clerk of the Town or Parish Council, will be allowed to address the Development Control Committee, or Panel, for a maximum of 3 minutes when an application for a development within that Parish or where at the discretion of the Chair there is a significant impact on another Parish, is to be considered. Any representation will be in addition to the limit on the number of public speakers. If the Town or Parish Council is to speak in objection to, or in favour of, the application the Service Director (Law and Democratic Services) must be advised when submitting the speaking request, and in all cases no less than two clear working days before the meeting, in order that the applicant can be offered the right of reply.

1 (65)

(f) Applicants will be entitled to speak in favour of a planning application where the planning officer has recommended refusal and there have been no requests from members of the public to speak in objection. Any speech in favour will last no longer than 3 minutes.

(g) Any applicants, or their agents, will be informed when a request to speak in objection has been received and will be invited to exercise a right of reply either in writing or orally at the meeting. Any right of reply will not exceed the cumulative time given to objectors to the specific planning application. Applicants, or their agents, may invite witnesses to give evidence within the allocated time available.

(h) Any request to speak (other than exercising the right of reply) must be received by the Assistant Director (Democratic Services) by noon, two clear working days before the meeting.

(i) Depending on the volume of representations the Committee / Panel may wish to either:

(i) receive all representations and consider the related applications at the commencement of the meeting; or

(ii) follow the agenda and receive all representations as the applications are considered; or

(iii) take all representations at the commencement of the meeting and then follow the order of the agenda.

(j) Members of the Development Control Committee and the Development Control Panel may, with the consent of the Chair of the meeting, ask questions of objectors and applicants to clarify matters of fact.

(k) Deputations and Petitions under Council Procedure Rule 9.12 and Public Questions under Council Procedure Rules 9.1 to 9.10 will operate as set out in these Rules, for matters of general policy and issues not directly related to promoting, or objecting to a particular planning application, and will form part of the 30 minutes allocated for public participation.

2 (66) National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

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

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

(68) AFFORDABLE HOUSING TENURE CHANGES

Contact Officer: Sam Dix, Senior Planning Officer

Background Milton Keynes Council’s affordable housing targets and tenure splits are detailed in the 2005 Local Plan and 2013 Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). This SPD superseded an earlier version adopted in 2007, which in turn replaced Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) adopted in 2004.

All the SPDs/SPGs follow the 30% affordable housing target prescribed by the Local Plan. The tenure splits they use are different though. The current split in the 2013 SPD is: 5% shared ownership, and 25% affordable rent (at a range of levels up to 80% of market rates, and incorporating 5% broadly equivalent to social rent). In contrast, the 2004 SPG stated that the split should be: 15% shared ownership, 5% social rent, 5% low cost sale, and 5% reduced cost sale.

The earlier SPD and SPG were replaced to reflect changes in national policy. In the period between the 2004 SPG being used and being replaced, national policy changed to the effect that low-cost sale and reduced-cost sale are not recognised as affordable housing.

Considerations Several areas in Milton Keynes were granted planning permission and signed Section 106 agreements under the terms of the 2004 SPG but have not yet been delivered due to market factors and their location within very large expansion areas. Therefore these areas are technically only bound to deliver 20% affordable housing as defined under current policy guidance, as their low-cost and reduced-cost sale dwellings do not count in contemporary terms.

The Council supports the principle of altering tenure splits in these areas to current standards and officers are working to achieve this where possible. The provision of 25% affordable rent better meets the identified need than 5% low-cost sale and 5% reduced-cost sale. This is in despite of difficulties securing a full range of affordable rents, as Registered Providers frequently have to bid the maximum 80% of market rate. The reduction in shared ownership from 15% to 5% also better suits our needs as it means that less shared ownership affordable housing owned by the Council is at risk of being ‘lost’ when resold. More affordable housing is also likely to qualify for Social Housing Grant if tenures are changed from reduced-cost and low-cost sale.

Altering tenure splits can usually be considered by developers when they make reserved matters applications; however they can only be secured if the developer proposes variation to an existing Section 106 agreement linked to the outline planning permission. The Council cannot force developers to make changes. The outline consents issued remain extant and agreements signed under the terms of the 2004 standards cannot be revoked. Nevertheless, officers work with developers where there exists an appetite to revise tenures. The Development Control Committee may then consider the merits of such variations where they are proposed by the developer.

Page(69) 1 of 1

ITEM 6 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

5 NOVEMBER 2015

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

(70)

APP 01 Application Number: 14/02212/FUL Major Food store (use class A1) and petrol filling station, recycling facilities and associated parking, servicing, drainage, landscaping, access and highway works

AT Land At Corner of Lavendon Road And, Warrington Road, Olney

FOR Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd

Target: 29th December 2014

Ward: Olney Parish: Olney Town Council

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

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

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

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

1.2 The Site

The application site is an agricultural field (grade 3 agricultural land) which lies to the north of Olney. The site is 1.73 hectare and is relatively flat. Lavendon Road runs to the south of the site and Warrington Road (A509) lies to the west. The site is largely surrounded by hedgerows and there is a watercourse on the northern boundary. The site is in an area of attractive landscape and there is a Wildlife Corridor crossing part of the site. The site is within an archaeological notification area and a Scheduled Ancient Monument lies to the north. Flood Risk Zone 2 clips the northeast corner of the site. Details of the location of the site and its relationship to surrounding properties can be seen in the plans attached to this report.

1.3 The Proposal

The proposed development is for a new foodstore (use class A1) and petrol

(71) filling station with associated recycling facilities, parking, servicing, drainage, landscaping, access and highway works. The proposed foodstore would be 3,158sqm (gross external floorspace) with 1,808sqm of net retail floorspace. The petrol filling station would provide six petrol pumps (with 12 filling points) and a 107sqm (GEA) kiosk. Details of the proposal as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report.

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

2.1 National Policy

National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs: 11: Planning applications must be determined in accordance with development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 14: Presumption in favour of sustainable development 17: Core planning principles 18 – 22: Building and strong, competitive economy 23 – 27: Ensuring the vitality of town centres 28: Supporting a prosperous rural economy 32, 34 – 39: Promoting sustainable transport 56 – 66: Requiring good design 69 – 70: Promoting healthy communities 94, 96 – 97, 99 – 103: Meeting the challenge of climate change and flooding 109, 111 – 114, 118, 121 – 123: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 128 – 139: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment 196 – 197: Determining applications 203 – 206: Planning conditions and obligations

National Planning Policy Guidance (2014)

2.2 Local Policy

Core Strategy

CSA: NPPF – Presumption in favour of sustainable development CS1: Milton Keynes Development Strategy CS4: Retail and Leisure Development CS9: Strategy for the Rural Areas CS11: A Well Connected Milton Keynes CS13: Ensuring High Quality, Well Designed Places CS18: Healthier and Safer Communities CS19: The Historic and Natural Environment CS21: Delivering Infrastructure

2.3 Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 S10: Open Countryside S11: Areas of Attractive Landscape D1: Impact of Development Proposals on Locality

(72) D2A: Design of New Development D2: Design of Buildings D4: Sustainable Construction HE1: Protection of Archaeological Sites NE1: Nature Conservation Sites NE2: Protected Species NE3: Biodiversity and Geological Enhancement NE4: Conserving and Enhancing Landscape Character T1: The Transport User Hierarchy T2: Access for those with Impaired Mobility T3: Pedestrians and Cyclists T5: Public Transport T10: Traffic T11: Transport Assessments and Travel Plans T15: Parking Provision VS1: New Village Shops TC1: Olney Town Centre R4: Forecourt Shops at Filling Stations R6: Retailing Uses in the Open Countryside PO4: Percent for Art

2.4 Supplementary Planning Documents / Guidance

Parking Standards for Milton Keynes SPG (2005) Consultation Draft Parking Standards SPD (2015) Sustainable Construction SPD (2007)

2.5 Olney Neighbourhood Plan (emerging)

An emerging neighbourhood plan may be considered as a material consideration; this can depend on the stage the plan has reached and the level of consultation undertaken. The Olney Neighbourhood Plan is in the early stages of preparation with emerging preferred options for housing land allocations and indicative support for retail development on this site. Limited weight can be given to the Neighbourhood Plan at this early stage and greater weight should be given to the saved local plan policies, the policies of the Core Strategy and the NPPF.

2.6 Other Relevant Documents

Milton Keynes Council Retail Capacity Update 2011

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

3.1 The application site is in the open countryside and is out-of-centre in retail terms and therefore a key consideration is the principle of the development and the impact on the vitality and viability of Olney Town Centre. In addition, the main issues include the impact on the Scheduled Ancient Monument to the north of the site and archaeology, the character and appearance of the area,

(73) highways and parking, drainage, flood risk, groundwater protection, biodiversity and the amenity of neighbouring residential occupiers.

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

4.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the completion of a s106 agreement for the planning obligations listed at paragraph 5.53 below, a condition listing the approved plans and the conditions listed at paragraph 6.0 of this report.

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

5.1 Principle of the Development

The application site lies within the ‘open countryside’ as defined by the Local Plan Proposals Map. Saved Policy S10 states that in the open countryside planning permission will only be given for development that is wholly essential for agriculture, forestry, countryside recreation or other development which is wholly appropriate to a rural area and cannot be located within a settlement. The proposed development is therefore considered to be contrary to Saved Policy S10 of the Local Plan.

5.2 However, it is understood that the western part of the site was previously used for quarrying and the applicant argues this constitutes previously developed land. The western part of the site also has an extant planning permission to erect a new garage including showroom, workshop, petrol filling station and shop and flat (99/00050/MK) and the applicants argue this already establishes the principle of developing the site. However, it is not considered that this justifies any development on the site and in this earlier permission significant weight was given to relocating a local business to the site. In terms of the current application, the extant permission is therefore a material consideration; however, limited weight should be given to it.

5.3 Saved policy R6 deals with retail uses in the open countryside and states that retail uses on a farm or elsewhere in the open countryside will only be permitted if the scale and scope of retailing proposed would not harm the viability of any town centre or village shop, the proposed use can be accommodated within an existing building, and the retail floorspace does not exceed 75sqm. The proposed development clearly goes beyond what is permitted under policy R6.

5.4 Whilst the proposed is for development within the open countryside, there are a number of material considerations which weigh against this conflict.

5.5 Consideration should be given to the fact that the site is adjacent to the boundary of Olney, which is identified as a key settlement where development within rural areas will be concentrated (Core Strategy policies CS1 and CS9). Olney Town Centre is identified in Core Strategy policy CS4 as a long established town centre functioning primarily as a local shopping destination

(74) catering for daily or specialist shopping needs.

5.6 At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The applicant has submitted a Planning and Retail Statement, by Indigo Planning, which concludes that the proposed development is in accordance with the core principles of the NPPF and will deliver sustainable economic development. Indigo Planning undertook a sequential test and retail impact assessment for the development including a survey of 500 households within a defined study area (please see catchment area map in the plans section of this report) which was undertaken in November 2013. The results of the survey provides an up to date analysis of shopping patterns in the study area and identifies market shares for key centres and stores inside and outside the study area.

5.7 The Council commissioned Carter Jonas to carry out an independent review and appraisal of the retail planning matters pertaining to the application. The findings of Carter Jonas are that it is evident that Olney and its rural catchment lack a main food shopping facility. This is highlighted in the household survey results, which show that there is considerable convenience expenditure leakage from the catchment to foodstores in neighbouring centres. The provision of a foodstore and petrol filling station to serve Olney’s catchment will reduce travel distances for residents in the catchment; thereby supporting the NPPF’s principle aim for sustainable economic development.

5.8 It is considered that, subject to the proposed development meeting the sequential test and not having a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of existing town centres, the benefits of the proposed scheme may outweigh the concerns regarding the principle of development within the open countryside.

5.9 Retail Impact

As stated above, the Council commissioned Carter Jonas to undertaken an independent assessment of the applicant’s retail assessment (carried out by Indigo Planning). A detailed summary of the findings of Carter Jonas is provided at paragraphs A3.2.1 to A3.2.34 of the appendix to this report.

5.10 The NPPF is an important material consideration with regard the assessment and determination of the planning application. The NPPF states that in the assessment and determination of planning applications for retail and main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan, local planning authorities should require a sequential test and, if development is over a proportionate locally set floorspace threshold (i.e. 2,500m2 in this case) an impact assessment. The sequential test seeks to deliver the Government’s “town centre first policy” and requires applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres, then in edge-of-centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered; when considering edge and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre.

(75)

5.11 The NPPF (para 27) states that an application should be refused where it fails to satisfy the sequential test or it is likely to have significant adverse impact. The application site is located outside of Olney Town and is considered ‘out- of-centre’ in terms of retail considerations and therefore needs to demonstrate both that no sequentially preferable site is available and that the proposed development would not have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of existing town centres.

5.12 Sequential Test

The NPPG provides guidance on ‘ensuring the vitality of town centres’ and states that the test supports the viability and vitality of town centres by placing existing town centres foremost in plan-making and decision-taking and requires a thorough assessment of the suitability, viability and availability of locations for main town centre uses (NPPG, para 009).

5.13 There have been a number of recent high profile Supreme and High Court judgements and appeal/call-in decisions regarding the interpretation and application of the sequential test. When assessing sequentially preferable sites consideration should be given to their availability and suitability with flexibility on issues such as format and scale (NPPF, para 24). However, the recent cases (and in particular the decision in Tesco Stores Limited v Dundee City Council [2012]) have established that whether a town centre site is ‘suitable’ refers to the suitability of sites for the development specifically proposed.

5.14 Five sites in Olney were identified for inclusion in the sequential test including: Co-op Stanley Court, Land between 2/3 and 4 Rose Court, Rear of Fountain Court East Street, Land off Austen Avenue, land south of recreation ground East Street. In addition, the availability of vacant units in Olney Town Centre was considered (please see paragraphs A3.2.12 to A3.2.17 of the Appendix). The sequentially preferable sites were found to be too small to accommodate the proposed development, unlikely to support transport and access requirements, and/or unavailable.

5.15 Having reviewed the sequentially preferable sites it is considered that there are no suitable sequentially preferable locations currently available, taking into account the policy, guidance and advice set out in the NPPF and NPPG, along with relevant recent judgement and decisions.

5.16 Retail Impact Assessment

The applicant’s retail assessment has been assessed as having been carried out broadly in accordance with good practice. The catchment area map by Indigo Planning is provided within the plans section of this report as well as the 10-min and 15-min drive time catchments by Carter Jonas. The applicant’s catchment area is based on shopping patterns of other Sainsbury’s stores, local geographical characteristics and the household

(76) survey. Carter Jonas assessed the suitability of the catchment area by comparing it to likely drive-time catchments which reflect typical journey time shoppers undertake to access main food provision with the 15-min drive time reflecting more rural locations. It is likely that the catchment area for the proposed store would sit somewhere between the two drive times, which would broadly reflect the study area identified by Indigo Planning, with some level of catchment overlap to the north of the study area with foodstores in Wellingborough.

5.17 When assessing the potential impact consideration has been given to available convenience and comparison expenditure, current and future market shares, convenience capacity, claw back of convenience expenditure (expenditure leakage to centres outside the study area), and convenience and comparison trade diversion. In addition, consideration has been given to the health of Olney Town Centre. Having reviewed the submitted assessment Carter Jonas would advise that they consider a design year of 2018 (rather than 2019) would be more appropriate and assuming 2019 as the design year may understate the impact of the proposed foodstore. Also, that the impact assessment has over-estimated the potential to claw back of leaked convenience expenditure from the study area (specifically from zone 2), under-estimated trade diversion from the Co-op store in Olney Town Centre, and over-estimated trade diversion from stores outside the study area.

5.18 In terms of the trade diversion for convenience goods Indigo Planning predict a trade diversion of 88% of the proposed store’s turnover from stores outside the study area, in particular Wellingborough (30%) and Milton Keynes (27%), and 12% from stores in the study area. However, Carter Jonas has revised these figures to 81% for stores outside the study area and 19% for stores within the study area (which includes Olney Town Centre and the Co-op Wollaston).

5.19 This trade diversion results in a forecast impact on Olney Town Centre in 2019 of circa 27.5% (based on a total trade diversion from Olney Town Centre of £3.19m). The greatest impact for stores within the study area includes the Co-op Olney with an estimated diversion of £2.74m (which equates to 32.3% of the Co-op’s estimated turnover from the study area in 2019) and an estimated £0.36m diversion for Tesco Express Olney (which equates to 19.2% of Tesco’s estimated turnover from the study area in 2019). The impact on other shops in the town centre is estimated to be significantly lower at 7.2%. The impact on comparison retailers in the town centre will be low as the proposed foodstore will largely draw comparison goods turnover from competing stores.

5.20 The proposed foodstore will therefore divert a considerable level of turnover and will have an ‘adverse’ impact on the existing Co-op and Tesco Express stores in Olney. However, consideration must be given to whether this would be ‘significant adverse’ impact. There are no meaningful benchmarks of what constitutes an ‘acceptable’ level of trade diversion and the relevant factors will depend on the circumstances of each case. Will this level of impact result in

(77) the closure of stores? Consideration must be given to the overall health of Olney Town Centre and whether trade diversion from the town centre will impact on other services in the town centre that contribute to town centre vitality and viability.

5.21 Olney is a vital and viable town centre that benefits from an attractive shopping environment. The number of retail and service outlets is above the average for centres in the UK. Convenience provision in the town centre is largely represented by the Co-op and Tesco Express stores; however, the centre is also supported by smaller traditional convenience retailers and a weekly food market. The vacancy rate is below the UK average and the centre is performing relatively strongly and reflects the characteristics of a vital and viable centre. The household survey suggests that those who visit Olney for convenience shopping link their trip to other activities including non- food shopping and other facilities. It is likely that shoppers will continue to visit Olney Town Centre to access these services and a condition restricting the provision of such services within the proposed foodstore (e.g. post office, dry cleaning, optician, cafe/coffee shop, pharmacy, travel agents and the selling of clothes) could be imposed on a grant of consent.

5.22 Having assessed the proposal, the Council’s independent assessor, Carter Jonas, does not consider that the proposed foodstore would result in a ‘significant adverse’ impact on the long term viability of the Co-op store and that shoppers will continue to visit the town centre for non-food shopping and to access other town centre services. Furthermore, it is evident that Olney and its rural catchment lack a main food shopping facility (highlighted in the household survey results which show that there is considerable convenience leakage from the catchment to foodstores in neighbouring centres).

5.23 On the one hand the proposed store will have an ‘adverse’ impact on the turnover of the town centre’s two convenience stores, on the other hand it will increase the level of retained expenditure in Olney as a whole and has the potential to support linked shopping trips with existing stores in the centre. Furthermore, the development will reduce travel distances for residents in the catchment.

5.24 Retail Impact Conclusion

In conclusion, the proposed development, whilst resulting in an ‘adverse’ impact on the two convenience stores in Olney Town Centre is not considered to result in a ‘significant adverse’ impact that would warrant a refusal of permission. The proposed development is therefore considered acceptable in terms of paragraph 27 of the NPPF.

5.25 Highways and Parking

The application site is located just off Whirly Pit roundabout at the northern entrance to Olney, on the corner of Lavendon Road and Warrington Road. The proposed development includes a customer entrance to the retail store and the access to the petrol filling station from Lavendon Road via a new

(78) roundabout. In addition, the proposed works include the provision of two bus stops, a new footpath and a pedestrian crossing on Lavendon Road. Access to the service yard would be from Warrington Road. The revised layout is considered to be acceptable in terms of highway safety.

5.26 The revised layout includes a total of 198 parking spaces including 12 disabled bays and 8 parent and child bays. The application site is within zone 4 of the 2005 Parking Standards and therefore the parking standard for food retail is one space per 14sqm (this standard remains within the emerging draft Parking Standards 2015). The proposed development is for a 3,158sqm GEA foodstore including a net tradable area of 1,808sqm. The adopted parking standards would require 225 parking spaces based on the gross external floorspace (based on the net tradable area the requirement would be 129 spaces) and therefore the development has a shortfall of 27 parking spaces.

5.27 Evidence submitted within the Transport Assessment (parking accumulation data/ information provided within the transport assessment) indicates that the proposed level of car parking would be sufficient to accommodate demand in the busiest periods.

5.28 The development includes 7 trolley bays within the car park and also a taxi drop off / pick up bay at the front of the store. The layout also includes an electric vehicle charging point, parking for motorcycles and 32 cycle parking spaces; which are acceptable. The standards require that 6% of the parking provision for new shopping facilities is designated for disabled motorists; the provision of 12 spaces is in accordance with this requirement. A revised travel plan has been received and is considered acceptable.

5.29 Saved local plan policy T15 states that on-site parking should not be reduced below the maximum standard if it would be likely to result in off-site parking causing problems that cannot be resolved by on-street parking controls. Consideration should therefore be given to the location of the site and the potential for off-site parking causing problems. In addition, paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that “development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe”. Given the parking accumulation data, the location of the site and the potential for the highways authority to restrict parking on Lavendon Road and Warrington Road (north of Whirly Pit roundabout), the provision of two new bus stops, and the travel plan, it is considered that the shortfall in parking would not result in a severe impact. Therefore, in accordance with the NPPF (para 32) it is considered that the shortfall in parking would not warrant a refusal in planning permission.

5.30 Character and Appearance of the Area

The site lies within an Area of Attractive Landscape as defined by saved local plan policy S11. In such areas development should not damage the special character of the area, it should enhance important landscape features and protect and enhance features of nature conservation value.

(79) 5.31 Design

The building has been designed to be fairly low-lying within the surrounding landscape and would sit below the height of the surrounding trees. The use of a mix of timber cladding and glazed frontages is considered acceptable. The proposed petrol filling station would be timber clad with a translucent canopy over the pumps. The scale and massing of the proposed store and petrol filling station is considered acceptable in terms of the impact on the character and appearance of the subject to the landscaping comments below.

5.32 The entrance lobby to the store would be located on the east elevation which fronts onto the car park; ideally the entrance should be close to the SE corner. The applicant has considered the requested amendments regarding the SE corner; however, they have stated that the relocation of the store entrance would result in an unworkable and unpractical shop floor and warehouse arrangements. The canopy across the front of the building would assist with leading pedestrians to the store’s entrance lobby. The staff entrance would be located on the SW corner and there are concerns that this would conflict with the legibility of the store entrance. The applicant has stated that they will provide directional signage directing customers to the entrance/lobby as well as signage on the SW corner stating that this is a colleague entrance only. Whilst the layout of the store is not ideal, it is considered that it would not have a significant adverse impact to warrant a refusal on the grounds of the design.

5.33 Landscaping

The landscaping on the northern and western boundaries of the site have significant importance in terms of mitigating the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area and the setting of the adjacent scheduled ancient monument. In terms of the northern boundary, there were some concerns regarding the potential conflict with works required to the channel of the stream that runs along the northern boundary of the site. Following detailed discussions, including a site meeting, the works to the channel would not require wholesale tree and hedge removal. In terms of the western boundary, the layout of the development has been revised to reduce the impact on the existing trees.

5.34 The revised landscaping plan provides for tree planting within the car park and a hedgerow along Lavendon Road as well as additional planting to the northern and western boundaries. Amended plans are anticipated to address an amendment to part of the planting scheme but the required amendment could be controlled by condition. Subject to the implementation of the landscaping scheme and the protection of the existing trees to be retained, the proposed development is considered acceptable in terms of landscaping.

5.35 Conclusion

Subject to suitable landscaping on the boundaries of the site it is considered that the design of the proposed building and petrol filling station (including

(80) design, scale, massing and materials) are considered acceptable in terms of the NPPF, saved local plan policies D1, D2 and D2a and Core Strategy policy CS13.

5.36 Heritage Assets

A scheduled ancient monument (SAM) exists to the north of the site. The setting of this monument plays a role in its significance, in that the mainly rural setting allows an appreciation of how the Iron Age and Roman settlement would have been sited. Construction of the proposed development would have some impact on this with the new store at least partially visible from the monument; the level of impact has been assessed as being less than substantial harm. Whilst this is not considered to constitute a high enough level of harm to refuse the application, screening along the northern boundary is considered important.

5.37 In terms of onsite archaeology, the field evaluation has demonstrated the survival of significant probable late Iron Age and Romano-British buried archaeological remains. However, the remains within the proposed development site are considered to be of less than national significance and therefore the proposed development is considered acceptable subject to conditions regarding targeted excavation and preservation in situ (where demonstrably achievable) within the area of archaeological interest.

5.38 Therefore, the proposed development is not considered contrary to the NPPF, saved local plan policy HE1 and Core Strategy policy CS19.

5.39 Drainage, Flood Risk and Groundwater protection

Drainage and Flood Risk

A stream runs along the northern boundary of the site and concerns were raised by the Council’s Strategic Flood Management Officer regarding the maintenance of this watercourse. However, following detailed discussions and the submission of additional information, the surveyed sections of the channel are of sufficient size to convey the 1 in 100 year flow with a 20% allowance for climate change. Whilst a 6m easement would be required, this would not require the removal of all existing vegetation immediately on the bank of the watercourse or preclude any further suitable screening within the existing vegetation line (providing this does not prevent the implementation of the management and maintenance plan for the ditch). It is therefore considered that, subject to a condition to ensure an initial and ongoing clearance/maintenance scheme, the proposed development would not have a significant impact in terms of drainage and flood risk. The Environment Agency originally objected to the application on the grounds of flood risk; however, following the submission of additional information, the Environment Agency has now lifted their objection.

(81) 5.40 Groundwater Protection

The Environment Agency also raised an objection on the grounds of concerns regarding groundwater protection. The site is located above a principal/secondary aquifer, WFD groundwater body, WFD drinking water protection area and is bounded by a surface watercourse. Groundwater beneath the site is shallow. The site is considered to be of high sensitivity and the proposed fuel storage and distribution present potential pollutant linkages to controlled waters. Following the submission of additional information, including a ‘Fuel Storage Feasibility Assessment’ report, the Environment Agency has withdrawn their objection subject to the imposition of a number of conditions. Therefore, subject to the imposition of these conditions (please see conditions 22 to 26 in Section 6.0 of this report) the proposed development is considered acceptable in terms of groundwater protection.

5.41 Conclusion

The proposed development is therefore considered acceptable in terms of saved local plan policy D1, Core Strategy policy CS13 and the NPPF with respect to drainage, flood risk and groundwater protection.

5.42 Biodiversity

The application site is in close proximity to Yardley Chase SSSI; however, given the nature and scale of the proposed development, it is considered that there is unlikely to be an adverse impact on the SSSI.

5.43 The proposed development will replace a semi-improved grassland field with a retail site, fuel retail station, some trees and a relatively small habitat/wetland area. The western part of the site is located within the Wildlife Corridor which is related to the disused railway line. Therefore, the NPPF paragraphs 109 and 117, Core Strategy policy CS19 and saved local plan policy NE1 are relevant. Whilst non-statutory, Wildlife Corridors are given the same status as Milton Keynes Wildlife Sites within saved policy NE1 and are linear pathways containing habitats that encourage the movement of plants and animals between important wildlife sites. The loss of this area will reduce the heterogeneous character of the Wildlife Corridor and thus compromise its functionality.

5.44 The NPPF (para 118) encourages the incorporation of biodiversity and saved local plan policy NE3 requires biodiversity enhancement. The proposed development includes the construction of a relatively small habitat/wetland area at the eastern end of the site and also some tree planting. Even with these proposals, the proposed development would result in a net loss of biodiversity. However, the proposed planning obligations include biodiversity offsetting through the Environment Bank. Whilst on site mitigation is preferred, Core Strategy policy CS19 and the NPPF (para 118) do allow for compensation by provision of a replacement habitat of higher quality to achieve a net gain in biodiversity. Therefore, subject to the proposed onsite

(82) biodiversity actions along with a biodiversity offsetting scheme the proposed development is considered to be acceptable in terms of biodiversity.

5.45 Residential Amenity

Noise

The nearest properties to the development are Uncle Jacks to the north and Lavendon Road Farm to the east, both off Lavendon Road, and Springcroft to the west of the site beyond Warrington Road. There is also a residential area to the southwest of the site on the opposite side of Whirly Pit roundabout and to the south of the site a residential area is separated by a parcel of agricultural land which is currently subject to an outline application for residential development (15/02299/OUT). The current application is accompanied by a noise survey which assesses the effect of the new development and associated activity on the neighbouring properties. It also assesses the changes in traffic noise from noise sensitive development in the locality of the development. Noise monitoring was undertaken at the site to represent the nearest residential properties. Currently the dominant noise affecting the site and neighbouring properties is road traffic noise.

5.46 For construction noise, this would be for a limited period and it is considered that with appropriate mitigation, in the form of a site hoarding and a restriction on hours of working, the noise impact on the neighbouring properties could be mitigated to ensure significant impacts do not occur.

5.47 From an operational point of view, the main impacts of the proposed development will be from activity associated with the store and petrol filling station. In relation to road traffic noise there is not considered to be a significant impact on the wider area. Conditions should be imposed on any grant of consent restricting opening hours and delivery hours. In addition, conditions should be imposed regarding the noise from plant and for a noise screen on the west side of the service area. The applicant has requested one delivery out of hours; it is considered that this would not result in an unacceptable level of impact in terms of noise disturbance in this instance.

5.48 Air Quality and Odour

An assessment has been undertaken on the potential impact of the constructional and operational phases of the development. During the construction phases, the impact is considered to be negligible provided that best practice mitigation methods are in place. The assessment of the potential air quality impacts associated with the operational phase has also been assessed as acceptable. The assessment found that traffic associated with the development has been predicted to cause imperceptible changes in NO2 and PM10 concentrations and emissions to air from the proposed biomass boiler would not have a significant effect on local air quality. The assessment concluded that the residual effects of the proposed development are negligible for NO2 and negligible to neutral for PM10. The assessment has been reviewed and Environmental Health officers have raised no objection to

(83) the proposal on the grounds of air quality.

5.49 In terms of odour from the petrol filling station, an Environmental Permit issued by Environmental Health would be required controlling vapour release during the unloading of petrol from tankers and the refuelling of vehicles.

5.50 Therefore, the proposed development is not considered to have a significant detrimental impact on air quality and odour.

5.51 Visual Intrusion and Privacy

The design of the proposed development including the scale and location of the proposed buildings and the proposed landscaping scheme as well as the relationship with the neighbouring residential properties would not result in a significant detrimental impact in terms of visual intrusion or loss of privacy, sunlight and daylight. Concerns have been raised regarding the impact on an acoustic fence to the petrol filling station on the adjacent property to the north known as Uncle Jacks. The submitted Noise Assessment proposes a 2m high close boarded fence or wall of the same height along the northern and eastern boundaries to the petrol filling station forecourt, it is considered that a fence of this height would not have a significant impact in terms of overshadowing of the adjacent residential property.

5.52 Conclusion

Subject to suitable conditions regarding noise mitigation measures and the implementation of the landscaping proposals, the proposed development is considered acceptable with regards to the impact on the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring residential properties. The development is therefore acceptable in terms of saved local plan policy D1.

5.53 Planning Obligations

The proposed development will create demand for new infrastructure. In accordance with Core Strategy policy CS21 and the tests as outlined at paragraph 204 of the NPPF the following planning obligations have been agreed: - Training and Learning Programme - Public Art at 1% of gross development costs excluding land - Carbon Off-set payment - £200 per tonne of carbon dioxide anticipated to be produced by the Development in one year - Town Centre Improvement Contribution - £90,000 - Voluntary Sector Contribution - £12, 210 - Provision of real time bus information displays - £20,000 - Highway works including two bus stops - Biodiversity off-setting scheme

(84) 5.54 Conclusion

The proposed development would not result in a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Olney Town Centre. Also, it is considered acceptable, subject to conditions, with regards to the potential impact on heritage assets, the character and appearance of the area, highways, biodiversity, drainage and flood risk and the amenity of occupiers of the neighbouring residential properties. Having weighed up all the material consideration it is therefore recommended, on balance, that planning permission be granted subject to a s106 agreement for the planning obligations listed at paragraph 5.53 above, a condition listing the approved plans and the conditions listed below at paragraph 6.0 of this report.

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

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

Reason: To prevent the accumulation of planning permissions; to enable the Local Planning Authority to review the suitability of the development in the light of altered circumstances; and to comply with section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. (D11)

2. The floorspaces of the store shall not exceed 3,158 sq m gross, and the net sales area shall not exceed 1,808 sq m.

Reason: To protect the vitality and viability of Olney town centre.

3. The new floor area of the store used for the sale of comparison goods shall not exceed 279 sq m net. Comparison goods being those items not obtained on a frequent basis; these include household and recreational goods.

Reason: To protect the vitality and viability of Olney town centre.

4. Within the foodstore hereby permitted the following services shall not be provided: post office, dry cleaning, optician, cafe/coffee shop, pharmacy, travel agents and the selling of clothes.

Reason: To protect the vitality and viability of Olney Town Centre.

5. The foodstore hereby permitted shall operate as a single retail unit and shall not be subdivided.

Reason: To protect the vitality and viability of Olney Town Centre.

6. The foodstore and petrol filling station hereby permitted shall not be open to customers outside the following times:

(85) Monday to Friday 8am to 10pm; Saturday 8am to 9pm; and Sunday to operate in accordance with the Sunday trading hours, on the basis that the store is not opened to the public until 10am at the earliest.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not prejudice the enjoyment by neighbouring occupiers of their property.

7. No deliveries or refuse collections shall take place outside of the following times: 0500 to 2300 hrs, apart from one Sainsbury's vehicle to deliver between the specified hours.

Reason: To protect the amenities of neighbouring properties.

8. Prior to initial occupation of the development hereby permitted, a Trolley Retention System shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved System shall be installed prior to the opening of the store hereby permitted and shall be retained in working order thereafter.

Reason: To minimise disruption and disturbance to local residents from use of the trolleys outside of the site.

9. Within three months of occupation of the development, a site co- ordinator shall be nominated to manage the Travel Plan and conduct a site audit and staff travel surveys, leading to the submission of a site wide Travel Plan report. The Plan shall either be produced utilising the iTRACE Travel Plan management software or mirror its output in a format that is acceptable. Targets for modal shift must be agreed in line with Milton Keynes Council targets to achieve a reduction in single occupancy vehicle usage. The approved full Travel Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the timetable and targets contained within and shall continue to be implemented as long as any part of the development is occupied with a minimum of annual reporting for the first five years, biannually thereafter.

Reason: In order to reduce the generation of single occupancy vehicle trips to and from the development by actively promoting and encouraging the use of more sustainable alternatives, in accordance with policy CS11 of Milton Keynes Core Strategy (2013) and saved policy T11 of Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

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

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

11. Notwithstanding the approved plans, an amended landscaping scheme, which shall include provision for the planting of trees and shrubs,

(86) shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any part of the development is commenced. The scheme shall show the numbers, types and sizes of trees and shrubs to be planted and their location in relation to proposed buildings, roads, footpaths and drains. All planting in accordance with the scheme shall be carried out within twelve months of commencement of development. Any trees or shrubs removed, dying, severely damaged or diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with trees or shrubs of such size and species as may be agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

The amended landscaping scheme shall accord with the approved Soft Landscape Proposals with Tree and Planting Details (Dwg. Nr. 1089-11 dated 4th June 2015) with the following amendments: - An additional 1nr Betula pendula tree should be included in the line of trees between the two existing trees west of the service yard to help provide additional screening of the 4m high acoustic timber fence. - The 4nr C. betulus on the south side of the store shall be revised so that A. platanoides Emerald Queen is continued along the full south side of the application site.

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

12. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details of the ground surface areas around the building(s) including roads, parking areas, kerbs, footways and other amenity surfaces, including areas for earth moulding and contouring, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted, the ground surface areas shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

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

13. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved finished floor levels of all buildings and the finished ground levels of the site as shown on the approved drawings.

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.

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

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

(87) neighbour.

15. Details of all external plant including noise levels shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to initial occupation of the development.

Reason: To protect the amenities of nearby residential properties.

16. All doors, windows and glazing shall meet the Secured by Design standard. Prior to the store being brought into use details of certification for the doors and windows shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and that a visual inspection of the glazing is carried out prior to occupancy by the Crime Prevention Design Advisor. The Secured by Design standard for such a development is: doors and windows to LPS 1175 SR 3 standard. The ground floor and easily accessible glazing should have at least one pane laminated to at least 7.5mm in thickness.

Reason: In pursuance of the Council's duty under section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to consider crime and disorder implications in exerting its planning functions; to promote the wellbeing of the area in pursuance of the Council's powers under section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000; and in accordance with planning policy within the National Planning Policy Framework and CS18 'Healthier and Safer Communities' of Milton Keynes Core Strategy.

17. Prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted, a scheme to control vehicle access to the car park and service yard when the foodstore and petrol filling station are closed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted details shall include details of a barrier control system / gates to the car park and service yard entrances as well as a management plan for the operation of the scheme. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to initial occupation and shall thereafter be retained.

Reason: In pursuance of the Council's duty under section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to consider crime and disorder implications in exerting its planning functions; to promote the wellbeing of the area in pursuance of the Council's powers under section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000; and in accordance with planning policy within the National Planning Policy Framework and CS18 'Healthier and Safer Communities' of Milton Keynes Core Strategy.

18. Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted, details of external lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted details shall include details of all external lighting and shall include security lighting to the parking areas and other publicly accessible areas. The plans shall show lighting proposed in accordance with BS5489 standards and that the areas have a minimum uniformity rate of 0.25Uo (25%) and that the colour rendition of the lighting is to at least 60Ra (60%). The submitted lighting details shall take into account

(88) bats in the local area and their potential to use the site. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the area and ecology. Also, to ensure that there is adequate security measures to minimise the risks of crime.

19. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a detailed plan for the initial clearance and ongoing management and maintenance of the ordinary watercourse on the northern boundary of the site (to the boundary of riparian ownership in the middle of the watercourse) shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved initial clearance plan shall be carried out prior to initial occupation of the development hereby permitted and the ordinary watercourse shall thereafter be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved plan.

Reason: To ensure that the watercourse is capable of conveying the 1 in 100 year flow with a 20% allowance for climate change to prevent the increased risk of flooding on or off site.

20. The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment.

Reason: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site and to reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants.

21. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a detailed management and maintenance plan setting out a suitable scheme for the implementation, adoption and maintenance of the surface water drainage infrastructure shown in the approved drawing(s) shall be submitted to and be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The surface water drainage infrastructure shall thereafter be provided and retained in accordance with the approved management and maintenance plan

Reason: To ensure satisfactory and sustainable surface water drainage to prevent the increased risk of flooding on or off site.

22. Development shall not begin until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on the agreed Flood Risk Assessment Addendum (Ref: MRW/MRW/31921_001 dated 23 December 2014 by Gary Gabriel associates) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. The scheme shall include a restriction in run-off and surface water storage on site as outlined in the FRA. Infiltration systems shall only be used where it can be demonstrated that they will not pose a risk to groundwater quality.

Reason: (a) To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water

(89) quality, and improve habitat and amenity. (b) To protect and prevent the pollution of controlled waters from potential pollutants associated with current and previous land uses in line with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraphs 109, 120, 121 and Environment Agency Groundwater Protection: Principles and Practice (GP3).

23. No development approved by this planning permission shall take place until a remediation strategy that includes the following components to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority: 1. A Preliminary Risk Assessment (PRA) including a Conceptual Site Model (CSM) of the site indicating potential sources, pathways and receptors, including those off site. 2. The results of a site investigation based on (1) and a detailed risk assessment, including a revised CSM. 3. Based on the risk assessment in (2) an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. The strategy shall include a plan providing details of how the remediation works shall be judged to be complete and arrangements for contingency actions. The plan shall also detail a long term monitoring and maintenance plan as necessary. 4. No occupation of any part of the permitted development shall take place until a verification report demonstrating completion of works set out in the remediation strategy in (3). The long term monitoring and maintenance plan in (3) shall be updated and be implemented as approved.

Reason: To protect and prevent the pollution of controlled waters from potential pollutants associated with current and previous land uses in line with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraphs 109, 120, 121 and Environment Agency Groundwater Protection: Principles and Practice (GP3).

24. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To protect and prevent the pollution of controlled waters from potential pollutants associated with current and previous land uses in line with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraphs 109, 120, 121 and Environment Agency Groundwater Protection: Principles and Practice (GP3).

25. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a scheme to install the fuel storage tanks has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.

The scheme shall include the full structural details of the installation, including details of: any excavation, the tank(s), tank surround, tertiary containment,

(90) associated pipework and monitoring system. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the scheme, or any changes as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority.

Reason: To protect and prevent the pollution of controlled waters from potential pollutants associated with current and previous land uses in line with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraphs 109, 120, 121 and Environment Agency Groundwater Protection: Principles and Practice (GP3).

26. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a scheme to dispose of foul and surface water and install oil and petrol separators has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To protect and prevent the pollution of controlled waters from potential pollutants associated with current and previous land uses in line with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraphs 109, 120, 121 and Environment Agency Groundwater Protection: Principles and Practice (GP3).

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

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

No fire shall be lit such that it is closer than 20 metres to any tree or that flames would come within 5 metres of any part of any tree.

(91)

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

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

28. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a scale plan accurately marking the position of the trees, the extent of the root protection areas, the tree protection fencing along the root protection area margin and the areas to be covered in ground protection shall be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted details shall include construction details for the fencing and ground protection. It shall also include sufficient detail of hard and soft landscaping works, service and drainage runs and proposed and existing spot levels in sufficient numbers and at appropriate spacings to enable the impact of the development on the tree root zones to be assessed. Layout and levels of the external works shall be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the root protection areas without root damage. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved particulars.

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

29. Prior to the commencement of construction and where appropriate, construction details for areas of raised construction, nil-excavation hard surfacing, specifically tailored to this site context, shall be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved particulars.

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

30. The tree pruning shall be carried out according to the provisions of BS 3998: 2010 and current arboriculture industry best practice. All details to be submitted. The operatives carrying out the works shall be competent, qualified and experienced tree surgeons. The Local Authority arboriculture officer shall be given a weeks' notice before the works are carried out so they have the opportunity to attend on site and agree the exact extent of the works with those carrying them out.

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

31. Prior to the commencement of development hereby permitted, a management plan for the proposed onsite habitat/wetland area shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted management plan shall detail how the habitat shall be maintained as intended (rather than it becoming an area of scrub). The onsite habitat/wetland area shall be created prior to the initial occupation of the

(92) development hereby permitted and shall thereafter be maintained and managed in accordance with the approved management plan.

Reason: In the interests of biodiversity in accordance with saved policy NE3 of Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011, Core Strategy policy CS 19 and the NPPF.

32. Prior to any development taking place, the developer shall carry out further gas monitoring at the site to determine the likelihood of any gas contamination of the site. The results of this survey detailing the nature and extent of any contamination, together with a strategy for any remedial action deemed necessary to bring the site to a condition suitable for its intended use, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before construction works commence. Any remedial works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved strategy and validated by submission of an appropriate verification report prior to first occupation of the development. Should any unforeseen contamination be encountered the Local Planning Authority shall be informed immediately. Any additional site investigation and remedial work that is required as a result of unforeseen contamination 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.

33. Details of the acoustic screen to be erected during the construction phase shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not prejudice the enjoyment by neighbouring occupiers of their property.

34. Within six months of the commencement of development, details of the acoustic fencing for the operational phase of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented prior to initial occupation and subsequently retained.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not prejudice the enjoyment by neighbouring occupiers of their property.

35. Prior to the commencement of development, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted information shall include details of lighting required to carry out the construction works. The CEMP shall demonstrate that it has taken into account bats in the local area and their potential use of the site before, during and after construction.

Reason: To limit any adverse effects of development during the construction

(93) phase and to mitigate the impact on protected species.

36. The development hereby permitted shall include on-site renewable energy measures in the form of a biomass boiler and / or air source heat pumps (or other technology as agreed in writing by the local planning authority) that result in a minimum of 10% reduction in regulated and unregulated carbon dioxide emissions from the development in accordance with the submitted Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Assessment (dated 15th October 2014). The approved renewable energy measures shall be implemented prior to initial occupation of the development hereby permitted and shall subsequently be retained.

Reason: To ensure that the development complies with the Council's objective for Sustainable Development in accordance with Policy D4 of the Adopted Local Plan: 2001-2011.

37. Prior to the commencement of the development, details of the site waste management strategy to be implemented throughout the construction process shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved measures shall be implemented and used throughout the whole of the construction process until the development is completed. Regular reports are to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority to verify the implementation of the plan.

Reason: To minimise construction waste and encourage the reuse or recycling of waste materials in line with the requirements of Policy D4 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

38. Prior to the commencement of development, details of the Green Guide ratings of the materials and percentage of recycled or reused content to be used in the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Sustainable Construction Supplementary Planning Document (i.e. 6 should be A rated in the BRE Green Guide and at least 10% of total materials derived from recycled or reused content, by value). The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the sustainable use of materials in line with the requirements of Policy D4 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

39. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details within the submitted Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Assessment (dated 15th October 2014) with regards to the use of water saving devices including low-flush WC's, waterless urinals, percussion taps and rainwater harvesting systems.

Reason: To ensure that the development complies with the Council's objective for Sustainable Development in accordance with Policy D4 of the Adopted Local Plan: 2001-2011.

(94)

40. No development shall take place until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work for the eastern half of the development site in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This written scheme shall include: i. a programme and methodology of site investigation and recording; ii. a programme for the post-excavation assessment of the results of the on-site investigation; iii. provision for further analysis following the post-excavation assessment where the results justify this; iv. provision for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation where the results justify this; v. full provision for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation; and vi. nomination of a competent person or organisation to undertake the works set out in the written scheme of investigation.

Reason: To ensure that a proper record is produced of any archaeological remains affected by the development pursuant to paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

41. Prior to the commencement of any ground works, full details of how any identified areas of archaeological preservation in situ are to be protected (including location and type of fencing) during construction shall be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No trenching, digging, or other earthworks shall take place in these areas.

Reason: To protect potential archaeological remains on the site.

42. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details of the roads and footways shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The site shall not be occupied until the 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 road and footways so laid out shall be retained thereafter.

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

43. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, the visibility splays shown on the approved drawings shall be provided on both sides of the access and the area contained within the splays shall thereafter be kept free of any obstruction exceeding 0.6m in height above the nearside channel level of the carriageway.

Reason: To provide adequate intervisibility between the access and the existing public highway for the safety and convenience of users of the highway and of the access.

(95) 44. Prior to initial occupation of the development hereby permitted, details of on-site recycling storage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Prior to the first occupation of the development the storage facilities shown in the approved drawings shall be provided and be retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory facilities and to prevent harm to the amenities of the area.

45. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted, the car parking areas shown on the approved drawings shall be constructed, surfaced and permanently marked out. The car parking areas 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.

46. 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.

47. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, vehicle wheel cleansing facilities shall be provided on the site to ensure that mud is not transferred onto the highway. Such facilities shall be used by all vehicles leaving the site and shall be permanently maintained in working order throughout the construction period.

Reason: To ensure that construction works do not prejudice conditions of safety and cleanliness along the neighbouring

48. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority specifying the parts of the site to be used for site huts, storage of materials and plant and parking of employees cars during the construction period, and any proposal for fencing of a site compound. During the period of construction of the development hereby permitted the site shall be laid out in accordance with these approved details.

Reason: To minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway.

49. Construction activity to implement the proposed development shall comply with BS 5228:2009+A1:2014 Code of practice for noise and vibration

(96) control on construction and open sites - Part 1: Noise and Part 2: Vibration. Contractors shall minimise the impacts to any existing neighbouring residents and adhere to the following hours of working: i) Monday - Friday: 08:00 to 18:00 Hours; ii) Saturday - 08:00 to 13:00 Hours; and iii) Sunday and Bank Holiday - No working at all.

Reason: To protect the amenities of neighbouring properties.

(97)

(98)

(99)

(100) Applicant’s Catchment Area Map for Retail Impact Assessment

(101)

(102)

(103) Appendix to 14/02212/FUL

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

A1.1 MK/620/96 - ERECTION OF PETROL FILLING STATION,CAR SHOWROOM,REPAIR WORKSHOP AND ANCILLARY ACCOMMODATION (OUTLINE) - Refused

99/00050/MK - ERECTION OF NEW GARAGE INCLUDING SHOWROOM, WORKSHOP, PETROL FILLING STATION, SHOP AND RESIDENTIAL FLAT – Permitted and partially implemented

05/01918/OUT - ERECTION OF NEW GARAGE INCLUDING WORKSHOP, PETROL FILLING STATION, SHOP AND RESIDENTIAL FLAT (OUTLINE) – Appeal allowed

09/00884/FUL - ERECTION OF NEW GARAGE INCLUDING WORKSHOP, CAR SHOWROOM, PETROL FILLING STATION, SHOP AND RESIDENTIAL FLAT - Permission 29.06.2010

14/01985/EIASCR - Screening opinion request for the proposed erection of a retail foodstore, petrol filling station, car parking, associated landscaping, access and highway works – EIA not required

A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS

(Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)

A2.1 Sustainable Construction

The submitted report proposes the combined use of a Biomass Boiler to provide heating and hot water requirements of the Store and air source heat pumps to serve heating and cooling requirements for the staff areas and customer restaurant, to provide at least a minimum 10% reduction in annual CO2 emissions. In addition, the submitted report details sustainability innovations that Sainsbury’s have trialled and implemented in their Stores in recent years and follow the principles of ‘be lean’, ‘be clean’ and ‘be green’ (i.e. use less energy, supply energy efficiently, use renewable energy in descending relative importance). The proposed development is considered acceptable in terms of sustainable construction subject to conditions 36 to 39 within section 6.0 of this report.

A2.2 Crime Prevention Measures

The proposed development is considered acceptable in terms of crime prevention subject to conditions for windows, doors and glazing to meet the Secured by Design standard, for lighting of parking and other publicly accessible areas, and for barriers to restrict vehicular access to the car park

(104) and service yard when the store is closed.

A2.3 Signage

The submitted plans include details of rooftop signage to the proposed Sainsbury’s store. Signage is controlled under separate legislation and would require the submission of an application for advertisement consent. There are concerns regarding the location of the signage shown on the submitted plans and the potential impact on the amenity of the area (which is an area of attractive landscape). Therefore, whilst the determination of the signage would be considered under a separate advertisement application, it is considered appropriate for an informative to be imposed on a grant of consent notifying the applicant that the permission does not extend to the signage, that advertisement consent would be required for the signage, and that the signage shown raises concerns regarding the impact on amenity. It is considered that there is scope to incorporate appropriate signage within the scheme.

A2.4 Northampton-Olney-Bedford Railway

Objections have been received regarding the safeguarding of the route of a reopened Northampton-Olney-Bedford railway line. Network Rail were contacted regarding this issue but responded that the site is not near any of their land and therefore Network Rail has no comments. There is no planning policy basis for the protection of this land for a possible reopened railway route and therefore a refusal of the current application on this basis could not be justified.

(105)

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

Comments Officer Response

A3.1 Development Plans Please see paragraphs 5.1 to 5.24 of this report. A3.1.1 Although the site is an out of town site as it is outside the development boundary/limits of Olney in the open countryside. It is treated as out of centre when assessed against national policy and guidance for the impact and sequential tests.

A3.1.2 A material consideration is the site is also subject to an extant planning consent (09/00884/FUL).

A3.1.3 Sequential Test

Recent high profile Supreme and High Court judgements and appeal/called-in decisions that are material to the wider interpretation and application of the sequential test including: Tesco Stores Limited v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13 – Supreme Court ruling which established that the interpretation of policy is a matter for the court referred to as the ‘Dundee decision’). Zurich Assurance Limited (trading as Threadneedle Property Investments v North Lincolnshire Council [20th December 2012] – High Court of Justice [EWHC 3708 (Admin)] (referred to as the ‘Zurich decision’). Scottish Widows v Cherwell District Council [17th December 2013] – High Court of Justice [EWHC 3968 (Admin)] Application by LXB (Rushden) Limited, Northampton Road, Rushden (11 June 2014) - Section 77 (Call-in Inquiry) (ref: APP/G2815/V/12/2190175)

(106) A3.1.4 In summary the Dundee and Zurich decisions appear to have established two principles when interpreting and applying planning policy. First, decision makers cannot interpret planning policy in any way they choose, subject only to the limits of rationality. Interpretation of planning policy is a matter of law and policy statements should be interpreted objectively in accordance with the language used, read always in its proper context (Dundee decision, para 18). Second, in assessing whether a town centre site is ‘suitable’ this refers to the suitability of sites for the development specifically proposed (Dundee decision, para 25).

A3.1.5 A number of alternative sites have been examined and assessed to see if they could accommodate the proposed food store development. However, it has been concluded that the application proposal is in compliance with the sequential test, as there appear to be no sites currently available either in or on the edge of Olney Town Centre that could accommodate the application proposal, even after assuming some flexibility in terms of format and scale. Olney is a historic market town with a conservation area and many listed buildings. Given these acknowledged constraints fitting a food store occupying 1.73 hectares into the town is extremely difficult and could not be achieved without wholesale demolition/redevelopment of existing properties.

A3.1.6 Retail Impact

In November 2013, the applicant’s consultant (Indigo Planning) undertook a telephone survey of 500 households across the study area to identify convenience (food) and comparison (non-food) shopping patterns. This information was used to identify the market share of foodstores within and outside the study area and to inform trade draw and diversion.

A3.1.7 The Council’s Retail Consultant (Carter Jonas) reviewed the submitted Retail Impact Assessment and considered that Indigo Planning have: Over-estimated the potential to claw back leaked convenience expenditure from the study area; specifically from Zone 2; Under estimated trade diversion from the Co-op store in Olney Town Centre; and

(107) Overestimated trade diversion from stores outside the study area.

A3.1.8 In conclusion, although Carter Jonas consider on the one hand that the proposed store will have an ‘adverse’ impact on the turnover of the town centre’s two convenience stores, on the other hand it will increase the level of retained expenditure in Olney as a whole and has the potential to support linked shopping trips with existing stores in the centre. Furthermore, the provision of a foodstore and petrol filling station to serve Olney’s catchment will reduce travel distances for residents in the catchment; thereby supporting the NPPF’s principle aim for sustainable economic development.

A3.1.9 Benefits versus Harm and Conclusion

It is expected to generate approximately 160 full and part time job opportunities a third of which will be fulltime ranging from entry-level to management positions. It will reduce out-commuting from Olney to foodstores in neighbouring centres. Although on the edge of Olney the food store and the petrol filling station are important facilities serving Olney and the wider rural area. Olney is a key settlement one where the Council is concentrating development in the rural area.

A3.1.10 On the other hand, the site is in the open countryside and under policy R6 retail uses in the open countryside will only be permitted if the retail floorspace of the building does not exceed 75sqm. But if the sequential test is correct there is nowhere else a food store could be located and despite the high impact of the Sainsbury’s store on existing stores in the town centre, particularly the Co-op store, the analysis and judgement of the Council’s consultant is that the Co-op store is not expected to close.

A3.1.11 On balance, the evidence from the Council’s consultant raises no objection to this proposal on the sequential test and has concluded that the scale and type of out of town retail floorspace will not have a ‘significant adverse impact’ on the vitality and viability of Olney Town Centre. While the level of trade diversion for the existing Co-op store in Olney Town Centre is high, the Council’s consultant does not consider it will have ‘a significant adverse impact’ on the long term viability of the store.

(108)

A3.2 Council’s Retail Consultant Please see paragraphs 5.1 to 5.24 of this report. A3.2.1 MKC instructed Carter Jones to carry out an independent review and appraisal of the retail planning matters.

A3.2.2 The applicant’s Planning and Retail Statement (PRS) suggest that convenience goods turnover will be £19.61 million in 2019 based on an average sales density of £11,729 per m2 net. Comparison good turnover is suggested to be £1.85 million, based on an average sales density of £9,931 per m2 net. The sales density figures applied reflect company average sales densities sourced from Verdict. Given the limited growth in convenience sales density growth predicted by Experian over the next five years, we estimate that the base year turnover will remain largely the same as for the 2019.

A3.2.3 Olney is identified as Town Centre in the Core Strategy’s Retail Hierarchy (policy CS 4) and the 2005 Local Plan. The key issue associated with policy CS 4 is whether the scale of the proposed foodstore is appropriate to the role and function of Olney Town Centre. While there may be case to support a main food facility in Olney, the proposal is for an out of town retail development that must be subject to sequential and impact tests as required by policy CS 4 and the NPPF.

A3.2.4 The criteria under saved policy R1 of the Local Plan still apply to this proposal apart from the justification of need.

A3.2.5 The NPPF is an important material consideration with regard the assessment and determination of the planning application. The NPPF states that in the assessment and determination of planning applications for retail and main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan, local planning authorities should require a sequential test and, if development is over a proportionate locally set floorspace threshold (i.e. 2,500m2 in this case) an impact assessment. The sequential test seeks to deliver the Government’s “town centre first policy” and requires applications for main town centre uses to be located in town

(109) centres, then in edge-of-centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered; when considering edge and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre. Applicants and local planning authorities should also demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale. The impact assessment should include an assessment of the impact on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre(s) in the catchment area of the proposal and the impact on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five years from the time the application is made. At paragraph 27 the NPPF states that where an application “fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact on one or more of the above factors, it should be refused.”

A3.2.6 The Milton Keynes Retail Capacity Update (MKRCU) 2011 forecasts suggest an oversupply of convenience floorspace up to 2026. The forecast capacity identified in the MKRCU is likely to be inaccurate given the significant changes in retail shopping patterns and expenditure growth. Although the lack of need (capacity) for new retail applications is not a reason for refusal under the NPPF, it is still material to the assessment of the proposed new retail floorspace development. For example, if there is not sufficient expenditure capacity in the defined catchment area to support the scale of retail floorspace proposed and the forecast turnover, then it means it will necessarily draw more trade from existing stores and centres, and could have a more significant impact. The applicant has provided their own assessment of convenience capacity for the proposed foodstore’s catchment, which is based on a household survey to identify market shares for centres (and stores) within and outside the study; this provides a high level assessment of residual capacity in the study area and helps to inform trade diversion to the proposed foodstore.

A3.2.7 The primary objective of national and local plan policies is to maintain and enhance the overall vitality and viability of existing centres. Proposals for retail and main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan, as is the case with the current application, will need to satisfy both

(110) the sequential and impact tests set out in the NPPF.

A3.2.8 Sequential Test

The application site is an out of centre location in retail planning terms and therefore a “thorough assessment of the suitability, viability and availability of locations for main town centre uses” (NPPG, para 009) is required. If there are no suitable sequentially preferable locations, the sequential test is passed. Use of the sequential test should recognise that certain main town centre uses have particular market and locational requirements which mean that they may only be accommodated in specific locations. Local planning authorities need to be “realistic and flexible” in terms of their expectations.

A3.2.9 There have been a number of recent high profile Supreme and High Court judgements and appeal/called-in decisions that are material to the wider interpretation and application of the sequential test and specifically to the requirement for ‘flexibility on issues such as format and scale’ (NPPF, para 24). These decisions appear to have established two principle when interpreting and applying planning policy. First, interpretation of planning policy is a matter of law and policy statements should be interpreted objectively in accordance with the language used, read always in its proper context (Dundee decision, para 18). Second, in assessing whether a town centre site is ‘suitable’ this refers to the suitability of sites for the development specifically proposed (Dundee decision, para 25).

A3.2.10 We have assessed the applicant’s sequential assessment. While the recent judgements and decisions support the view that there must be some realism applied to the application of the sequential test, it is not just a matter for the local authority to take account of ‘realism’ and ‘commercial realities’, so must the applicant.

A3.2.11 Five sites were identified for inclusion in the sequential test (agreed between the applicant and MKC) and included the following site.

(111) A3.2.12 Site 1: Co-Op Stanley Court Located in the town centre and accommodates the existing 623m2 (net sales) Co- Op convenience store and 46 space car park. The site is dismissed by the applicant’s PRS on the grounds that it is not available given the store is currently trading and there is no evidence to suggest that Co-Op wish to sell. Also, that the site is not suitable due to the size of the site, which cannot accommodate the proposed foodstore and petrol filling station even when considering the development of adjoining units. Also highlight potential access constraints for servicing. It is unlikely that the existing site could be suitable to physically accommodate a foodstore that meets a main food shopping function without the development of adjacent buildings and unlikely to accommodate access arrangements for services and customers. The site is not suitable or available to support the proposed scheme.

A3.2.13 Site 2: Land between 2/3 and 4 Rose Court Located within the town centre and comprises what the applicant’s PRS describes as “under-utilised space”. The site is discounted on the basis that is cannot accommodate the scale of development proposed and is constrained in terms of access and the surrounding conservation area policy. Whilst the applicant has not demonstrated flexibility by altering the scale and format of the proposal, this particular site is unlikely to accommodate a main-food shopping facility even at a reduced scale. Also, it is unlikely to support transport and access requirements. The site is not suitable for the proposed scheme.

A3.2.14 Site 3: Rear of Fountain Court, East Street Town Centre site comprises a car park area. Dismissed by the applicant on the basis that the site cannot accommodate the scale of the proposed scheme and presents access, servicing and parking constraints. Also, the loss of town centre car parking and the potential impact on residential amenity of dwellings on East Street.

(112) The reasons for dismissing the site are considered acceptable. The site, whilst preferable in terms of town centre location, is unlikely to accommodate a main food shopping facility with the loss of existing parking and the potential conflict with achieving access for servicing and deliveries from East Street, which is unlikely to accommodate regular HGV vehicles. The site is not suitable for the proposed scheme.

A3.2.15 Site 4: Land off Austen Avenue (OY4) The site is out of centre and is identified for housing and open space. The site cannot accommodate the proposed scheme; however, the site is dismissed for a number of other reasons including a lack of street frontage, which the applicant’s PRS states will reduce the site’s attractiveness to foodstore retailers. While direct retail frontage is desirable, many retailers operate from sites where this is not available and use prominent signage to advertise and direct customers. Access is also raised as a constraint due to a restricted carriageway serving Austen Avenue. Our review of the sits access confirms this and it is unlikely that the development of the site can support appropriate access to the site for service and delivery. The applicant’s PRS highlight that as an out of centre site it is no more sequentially preferable; however, the NPPF clearly states preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre. It is argued that this particular site is better connected than the application site in terms of distance from the town centre’s shopping area and its potential to support greater pedestrian linked trips. However, we recognise that the potential access constraints associated with this site are likely to negate any benefits associated with the site’s pedestrian connectivity to the town centre. The site is not suitable for the proposed scheme.

A3.2.16 Site 5: Land south of recreation ground, East Street Identified by MKC as edge of centre, but disputed by the applicant who considers it to be out of centre on the basis that pedestrian routes used to quality the 300m distance are not direct, visible and are not dedicated routes that are easily visible.

(113) The site can be accessed by foot within a 300m radius of the town centre and therefore, in accordance with the NPPF’s definition, the site represents an edge of centre site. Identified in the Local Plan for housing development with the capacity for 42 units. The site has the potential capacity to accommodate the proposed scale of development; however, as access to the site is from East Street, this is unlikely to support access requirements for service/delivery and customer vehicles for a main food shopping facility. The site is not suitable for the proposed scheme.

A3.2.17 Vacant units in Olney The applicant considered the availability of vacant floorspace in the town centre to support the proposed scheme. The health check assessment carried out by the applicant in June 2014 identified five vacant units, one of which was due to be occupied (our assessment confirms that this unit is now occupied). The remaining four vacant units are small individual units that area not suitable to accommodate the foodstore proposals even if allowing for flexibility in format and scale. The vacant units are not suitable, viable and/or available to accommodate the proposal, even assuming some flexibility.

A3.2.18 There are no suitable sequentially preferable alternative locations currently available based on the evidence reviewed and taking into account the policy, guidance and advice set out in the NPPF and NPPG, along with recent Supreme and High Court judgements and relevant appeal/called-in decisions.

A3.2.19 Impact Assessment

The applicant’s impact assessment has broadly been carried out in accordance with good practice. It draws on the results of a household survey commissioned by the applicant and completed in November 2013. The results of the survey provides an up to date analysis of shopping patterns in the study area and identifies market shares for

(114) key centres and stores inside and outside the study area.

A3.2.20 Catchment area (see map in plans Section of this report): Wide geographical area which comprises a largely rural population and based on shopping patterns of other Sainsbury’s stores, local geographical characteristics and household survey results. It has been split into five study zones. In testing the appropriateness of the catchment area we have compared the likely drive-time catchments of the nearest foodstores against the proposed store. Drive-time catchments of 10 mins and 15 mins were applied, which typically reflect the journey time shoppers undertake to access main food provision with the latter reflecting more rural locations. The majority of the study area identified by the applicant sits outside the 10 min drive catchment for nearest existing foodstores (e.g. foodstores in Milton Keynes, Bedford, Wellingborough and Northampton). When applying a 15 min drive time catchment a greater proportion of the study area is absorbed by the existing and planned foodstore catchments. This demonstrates the potential overlap of catchments between the existing stores and the proposed Sainsbury’s. We can assume that the catchment will sit somewhere between these two drive times; however, it is expected that there will be some level of catchment overlap to the north of the study area with foodstores in Wellingborough. This should be taken into account when assessing trade diversion.

A3.2.21 Base, Impact and Forecast Years: The NPPG (para 017) and NPPF (para 26) state that an appropriate time frame for assessing impact should focus on the first five years as this is when most of the impact will occur. In this case, the applicant assumes 2014 as the base year and 2019 as the forecast period. However, the NPPG states that the ‘design year’ for testing impact should represent the year when the proposal has achieved a ‘mature’ trading pattern, which is conventionally taken as the second full calendar year of trading after opening each phase of a new retail development. Assuming that the scheme could open by 2016 we consider a design year of 2018 would be more appropriate in this case. Assuming 2019 as the design year may understate the impact of the proposed

(115) foodstore.

A3.2.22 Available Expenditure: Population projections are derived from Pitney Bowes (PB). The annual growth rate over the period (0.9%) is below localised projections for Olney (1.1%) and Milton Keynes local authority area (1.3%). Expenditure per capita estimates and projections are derived from PB’s Retail Expenditure Guide 2013/2014. The applicant has forecast that the convenience goods expenditure (including main food and top-up expenditure) in the study area in 2014 will increase by +8.6% by 2019 (from £47.69m to £51.77m). The applicant forecasts that the comparison goods expenditure will increase by +23.3% (from £69.03m to £85.14m).

A3.2.23 Current and Future Market Shares: The survey results point to likely overlap of the proposed foodstore’s catchment with other foodstores outside the area. While a new main foodstore in Olney may attract some main food shopping expenditure from zone 3 it is unlikely to be significant and we expect that the majority of residents from zone 3 will continue to use foodstores in Wellingborough on the basis of better choice and closer. For zones 1, 4 and 5 there is likely to be a degree of overlap with the catchments of main foodstores in nearby centres. Our analysis of the survey results confirm that Olney Town Centre has a low market share of comparison goods shopping, which is expected for a centre of Olney’s size, role and function in the retail hierarchy, with the majority of respondents (57%) in zone 2 (Olney Town Centre) carrying out non-food shopping in Milton Keynes.

A3.2.24 Convenience Capacity: Retail capacity is based on a residual expenditure that is derived from the difference between the survey-derived turnover of existing stores in the study area and their

(116) ‘benchmark’ turnover. Based on this approach there is a residual convenience capacity of £5.16m in 2014, increasing to £6.42m in 2019 based on constant market shares. However, caution should be applied to the reliance on over-trading to support forecast retail floorspace to 2019. In this case, for example, Olney has a relatively affluent catchment and it is therefore likely that stores in Olney will trade above average company levels and may achieve higher trading levels without necessarily exhibiting the ‘signs’ of overtrading (e.g. congestion in stores and queues at customer tills). The applicant compares survey-derived and company ‘benchmark’ turnover of existing stores in Olney Town Centre. Average sales densities applied to Co-op and Tesco Express stores in Olney and the Co-op in Wollaston are derived from Verdict. An average sales density of £2,750 is applied to other ‘local shops’ in Olney Town Centre. The applicant’s PRS suggests that stores in Olney are over-trading by a significant margin: Olney Co-op +195% above benchmark levels, Wollaston Co-op +163%, Tesco Express +117% and other local stores +112%.

A3.2.25 Clawback of Convenience Expenditure: The applicant’s PRS sets out the proportion of the proposed foodstore’s turnover that is drawn from each study zone. The greatest proposed proportion (31%) drawn from zone 2 (Olney Town Centre) and the smallest (6%) from zone 3 (Wollaston). This reflects the proximity and availability of foodstores and is reasonable. Based on the study area as a whole, the applicant’s PRS estimates the potential to improve current convenience expenditure retention from 31% to 61%. Based on convenience expenditure and market share, this would increase the level of retained expenditure in the study are by £15.55m (or +95%). The potential to claw back leaked expenditure to stores outside of the study area is focused on zone 2 (Olney Town Centre). The applicant’s estimate is that the proposed Sainsbury’s will improve expenditure retention in this zone by 78% (or £4.6m) to a retention after clawback of 89%; however, we consider the potential to claw back leaked expenditure from zone 2 is over-estimated.

(117) While it is not unusual for local catchments to command a high level of convenience expenditure retention, the proposed Sainsbury’s is a small format foodstore. It is likely that some shoppers from zone 2 (and other zones) will continue to visit larger foodstore facilities in neighbouring centres where there are larger foodstores/ superstores and where shoppers are loyal to a specific grocer/ brand. In our view an improved retention level of circa 80% for zone 2 is more likely. Nonetheless, this represents a significant improvement to expenditure retention for zone 2. Following Tesco’s recent announcement to axe its planned store in Newport Pagnell, we consider the applicant’s assumption that the proposed Sainsbury’s will increase expenditure drawn from zone 1 is realistic.

A3.2.26 Convenience Trade Diversion: Trade diversion is based on the proportion of the proposed foodstore’s turnover that is drawn from the study area (i.e. 90% of total turnover or £17.65m in 2019). The vast majority (88%) of the proposed store’s turnover will be diverted from stores outside the study area (in particular Wellingborough 30% and Milton Keynes 27%). This represents a claw back of leaked expenditure from the study area of £15.55m). Trade diversion from stores in the study area is suggested as 12% (£2.93m). Trade diversion for existing stores in Olney reflects their top up function. We consider the trade diversion applied to the Co-op at Stanley Court to be under estimated. The household survey states that the Co-op maintains 22.62% (£3.25m in 2014) of main food shopping expenditure in zone 2, but also attracts a market share of 23.6% (£2.53m) from zone 4. This is a relatively strong market share for a convenience store and highlights the store’s importance as a local top-up and main food facility. It suggests that as 38% of respondents walk or cycle to the Co-op to undertake their main food facility, it assumes that respondents will continue to shop at the Co-op in order to maintain this current mode of travel. While it may be more convenient at present rather than to drive to a larger facility, there is no guarantee they will continue these travel preferences. If anything, opening a new foodstore outside the town centre is likely to be more convenient for zone 2. It is plausible that residents change their mode of travel in order to access a new foodstore that

(118) offers an enhanced convenience/ main food offer. Therefore, we consider that the trade draw will be higher for the existing Co-op store and other stores in Olney; revised convenience trade diversion (2019) would be: Co-op, Stanley Court – 15.5% (£2.74m) of the proposed store’s turnover Tesco Express, Olney Town Centre – 2% (£0.36m) Local shops, Olney – 0.5% (£0.09m) Co-op, Wollaston – 0.5% (£0.09m)

A3.2.27 Comparison Goods Trade Diversion: The applicant’s estimate is that the proposed foodstore will draw 95% of its comparison goods turnover from other foodstores and larger centres outside the study area with the remaining 5% drawn from stores in Olney Town Centre. Estimates are informed by the results of the household survey. We consider that the trade diversion assumptions are appropriate.

A3.2.28 Impact on Vitality and Viability

The NPPF (para 27) states that an application should be refused where it is likely to have ‘significant adverse impact’. The NPPG (para 017) states that ‘a judgement as to whether the likely adverse impacts are significant can only be reached in light of local circumstances’. There are no meaningful benchmarks of what constitutes an ‘acceptable’ level of trade diversion. Therefore, to help inform our appraisal we have reviewed the health check assessment of Olney Town Centre as well as our own overview of the town centre. We have not assessed impact on planned investment as no investment projects or retail commitments have been identified in Olney Town Centre or other centres where it may be relevant.

A3.2.29 Based on the applicant’s estimates for trade diversion, the impact on Olney’s town centre is 17.5% for convenience turnover and 0.5% for comparison turnover. Based on our revised trade diversion estimates for convenience, the impact is more likely to be circa 27.5% for Olney Town Centre as a whole. The potential impact on Olney Town

(119) Centre is largely focused on the Co-op and Tesco Express stores. This raises the question as to whether this level of impact will have a ‘significant adverse’ effect on the vitality and viability of Olney Town Centre and whether the impact on the individual stores will result in their closure.

A3.2.30 Consideration must be given to the overall health of Olney Town Centre and whether trade diversion from the town centre will impact on other services in the town centre that contribute to town centre vitality and viability. Olney is a vital and viable town centre that benefits from an attractive shopping environment thanks to its historic setting. The number of retail and service outlets is above average for centres in the UK. Convenience provision is largely represented by the Co-op and Tesco Express; however, the centre is also supported by smaller traditional convenience retailers including a bakery, delicatessen, green grocer, butcher, off-licence, newsagent, and niche food retailers. Also, a weekly food market operates within the town centre. The centre has five vacant units which equates to a vacancy rate of 5.2% compared to the UK average of 12.5% (derived from Experian GOAD). In our view, the centre is performing relatively strongly and reflects the characteristics of a vital and viable centre.

A3.2.31 The household telephone survey suggests that those who visit Olney for convenience shopping link their trip to other activities (e.g. post office, leisure, personal services, etc) and it is likely that shoppers will continue to visit Olney Town Centre to access these services.

A3.2.32 Against this background, we consider that the proposed Sainsbury’s foodstore will not have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Olney Town Centre. While the proposed foodstore will divert a considerable level of turnover from the existing Co-op and Tesco Express stores, we do not consider that it will lead to their closure. We consider that the other existing stores in the town centre will continue to trade successfully, albeit with an element of trade lost to the proposed foodstore. The impact on other stores in the wider study area will be minimal, with estimated impact of 3.2% for the Co-op at Wollaston; these stores will not compete directly with the

(120) proposed foodstore as these stores primarily serve a local top-up function.

A3.2.33 Although need is not a determining factor in assessing retail proposals, it is evident that Olney and its rural catchment lacks a main food shopping facility. This is highlighted in the household survey results, which show that there is considerable convenience expenditure leakage from the catchment to foodstores in neighbouring centres.

A3.2.34 In conclusion, although we consider that the proposed store will have an ‘adverse’ impact on the turnover of the town centre’s two convenience stores, it will increase the level of retained expenditure in Olney as a whole and has the potential to support linked shopping trips with existing stores in the centre. Furthermore, the provision of a foodstore and petrol filling station to serve Olney’s catchment will reduce travel distances for residents in the catchment; thereby supporting the NPPF’s principle aim for sustainable economic development. On this basis, we conclude that the proposed store will not result in a ‘significant adverse impact’ on the town centre and is in compliance with the main aims and objectives of the NPPF.

A3.3 Economic Development Noted.

No need for an Economic Development Report.

A3.4 Highways Development Management Please see paragraphs 5.25 to 5.29 of this report. A3.4.1 The applicant has now addressed the points I raised and therefore I have no highway Highway works to be included objections to the proposed development subject to the conditions requested (including within the s106 agreement. details of access road, vision splays, details of recycling storage, parking to be An informative regarding the provided, parking and loading to be provided, wheel cleansing facilities, and details of Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) construction site compound) are included in order that the proposal can be fully process should be attached to supported. The applicant will be required to enter into a s.278 agreement for works a grant of consent; a within the public highway. The applicant will be required to enter into a s278 condition/obligation would not agreement to provide the required highway works and the two bus stops on Lavendon be appropriate in this instance Road prior to implementation; this could be secured via a suitably worded condition. given the TRO process.

(121) The relocation / change of the speed limit, moving of signs is proposed on Lavendon Road, applicant to progress this through MKC’s TRO process and is to be funded by the applicant; this could be funded by a suitably worded condition.

A3.4.2 Parking standards are set out in ‘Milton Keynes Council Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Guidance’ dated January 2005. The proposed development is located in Olney and within zone 4.

A3.4.3 MK Parking Standards A1 Shops Food Maximum Parking Requirement = 1 car space per 14sqm GFA Cycle 1 space per 100sqm GFA Powered Two Wheeler (PTW) 1 space per 200sqm GFA

The standards also require that 6% of the parking provision for new shopping facilities is designated for disabled motorists.

A3.4.4 The originally submitted plans provided a total of 203 car parking bays. In accordance with MK parking standards the proposal would require as a provision 225 car parking spaces for the proposed development. An under provision of 22 car parking spaces has been provided. However, the evidence submitted within the Transport Assessment (parking accumulation data/ information provided within the transport assessment) indicates 203 car parking spaces would be sufficient for this proposed development – 203 car parking spaces are acceptable on the evidence submitted within the parking accumulation surveys. With the revised layout the number of car parking spaces has been reduced to 198 with the following breakdown: 178 Standard Bays (2.5m x 4.8m) 8 Parent and Child (2.5m x 4.8m plus 1.25m wide hatching either side) 12 Disabled (2.5m x 4.8m plus 1.25m wide hatching either side and to the rear) This is considered acceptable.

A3.4.5 The % of disabled and parent/child parking spaces provided (12 parking spaces) - acceptable.

(122)

A3.4.6 1 Electrical Vehicle Charging Point has also been included – acceptable.

A3.4.7 The 32 cycle parking spaces provided are in accordance with MK Parking Standards – acceptable.

A3.4.8 In accordance with MK Parking Standards the requirement for motor cycle parking is 1 space per 200sqm GFA = 15 motor cycle spaces. The planning application form submitted indicates 1 mc spaces per 8 car parking bays = 25 motor cycle spaces; this number of motor cycle parking bays would be acceptable.

A3.5 Travel Planning Please see condition 9 at Section 6.0 of this report. The Travel Plan is mainly aimed at employees because of the nature of the business. The Travel Plan aims to encourage employees to switch single occupancy vehicle journeys for sustainable travel choices. The Travel Plan has set a target to achieve a 5% reduction in single occupancy employee car driver mode split. This target will be monitored and the company, as part of their planning conditions, will be required to conduct travel surveys every year for the next five years and then biannually thereafter. As a result of this the journey to work and the difficulties employees face will be a continuous focus. Good to see a more accurate representation of the accessibility to the site by public transport within the amended Travel Plan. Updated travel plan is acceptable subject to proposed condition regarding the submission of a site wide Travel Plan report within 3 months of occupation and implementation.

A3.6 Urban Design Please see paragraphs 5.31 to 5.32 of this report. Following the submission of the amended plans, there are the following unresolved concerns: - The SE corner of the building should be marked as this is the entrance to the site for pedestrians. It is accepted that the entrance to the store will be provided on the elevation fronting the car park; however, to aid legibility for pedestrians the building

(123) should provide a visual cue, with glazing wrapping around the corner and providing views into the store, to lead pedestrians to the entrance. The entrance should be located closer to this corner. - The SW corner should be marked to ensure legibility primarily for those accessing the store by car. There is a danger that the treatment proposed will confuse pedestrians, as it looks like the entrance to the store. Treatment of this corner should not compete with that of the SE corner. The active frontage, provided by full height glazing, isn’t essential as there are no passing pedestrians at this location.

A3.7 Development Plans – Sustainable Construction Please see conditions 36 to 39 at Section 6.0 of this report. The information submitted is fine to satisfy policy D4; there are a couple of minor points but these relate to misinterpretation of the policy in areas we would normally condition.

A3.8 Senior Landscape Architect Please see paragraphs 5.33 to 5.34 of this report. A3.8.1 Within the amended scheme the store has moved 2 metres to the east to allow retention of further planting on the western boundary which is positive and acceptable.

A3.8.2 The submitted photomontages demonstrate the visual prominence of the store and hence the importance of requiring protection of existing planting to the west and north boundaries, complimented by additional robust landscaping across the site.

A3.8.3 The proposed planting scheme should be amended as follows: Please see condition 11 at 1nr Betula pendula tree should be included in the line of trees between the 2 Section 6.0 of this report. existing trees west of the service yard to help provide additional screening of the 4m high acoustic timber fence. All C. betulus ‘Fastigiata’ have been substituted with C. betulus across the parking areas which is acceptable, however I request the 4nr C. betulus on the south side of the store are revised so that A. platanoides Emerald Queen is continued along the full south side of the application site.

(124) A3.8.4 Subject to the above amendments to the planting scheme and a condition for the implementation of the landscaping scheme, there is no objection.

A3.9 Landscape Services Please see paragraphs 5.33 to 5.34 of this report. A3.9.1 Issues raised have largely been resolved. Regarding the northern boundary, there was a site meeting at which the drainage people felt that the channel was in an acceptable condition and apart from a few specific points at which work would be required to ease the flow, they could see no current or future need to carry out major works to the channel which would require wholesale tree and hedge removal. The root protection areas have been shown. Further to discussion over the proximity of the shop building to the west boundary trees, the proposed building footprint has been moved back from the trees to a much more sensible stand-off distance, while the service yard access slip has decreased the incursion into the root zones of tree 1 and 2 though some impact will still occur, suggested condition on how to deal with roots encountered outside the root protection areas will then apply to excavations in that area. A new hedgerow and trees for the southern frontage are now included on the amended plan. The tree protection plan now shows the BS 5837:2012 default specification of page 20, figure 2.

A3.9.2 Suggest conditions regarding tree protection, plan showing root protection areas, areas of raised construction, treatment of roots encountered outside of root protection areas, tree pruning and full details of replacement tree and hedge planting scheme.

A3.10 English Heritage Please see paragraphs 5.36 to 5.38 of this report. A3.10.1 The proposed development is bordered to the north by the Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) known as the Roman Site at Olney, HA 1006918, and also known as Ashfurlong. It is known mainly from aerial photographic evidence which show ditches, enclosures and ring ditches, but walls and a hypocaust have also been found showing the presence of sophisticated Roman buildings. The main value of the site is evidential in that the buried archaeological remains have the potential to yield significant information about the character, economy and development of the settlement from the

(125) Iron Age and on through the Roman period.

A3.10.2 The desk-based assessment concludes that there is high potential for archaeological The field evaluation has now remains of the Roman settlement, and of the Iron Age and early Medieval periods, to been carried out (please see extend into the development area. Paragraph 139 of the NPPF may therefore be paragraph A3.11 below) relevant. The desk-based assessment recommends trial trenching. As the site is outside of the SAM, English Heritage defers to the opinion of the Archaeological Officer at MKC regarding the lack of a field evaluation.

A3.10.3 Paragraph 128 of the NPPF is also relevant. Paragraphs 132 and 133 of the NPPF cover the impact of development on designated heritage assets, including impact from development within the setting of such an asset. The desk-based assessment considers setting and concludes: The setting of the scheduled monument of Ashfurlong does not play a significant role in its importance and therefore the development will have a not significant impact. ‘Not significant’ is defined there as ‘impacts that have no long-term effect on any heritage asset’. English Heritage considers that the setting of the monument does play a role in the significance of the monument, in that the mainly rural setting allows an appreciation of how the Iron Age and Roman settlement would have been sited. Construction of the proposed development would have some impact on this with the new store at least partly visible from the monument. While this does not constitute a high enough level of harm to the monument to be a reason for recommending refusal of planning permission, some consideration should be given in the future to how developments may incrementally harm the monument by gradually surrounding it. With regard to the screening of the site along its northern boundary (i.e. with the Scheduled Monument) English Heritage concur with the consultation comments made by MKC Landscape Architect. Therefore, with regard to the potential impact on the setting of the SAM, this is acceptable but screening along the northern boundary of the development area requires further consideration.

A3.11 Council’s Archaeologist Please see conditions 40 and 41 in Section 6.0 of this report. The field evaluation has demonstrated the survival of significant probable late Iron Age

(126) and Romano-British buried archaeological remains in the eastern 0.5 hectares of the site. Although probably related to the scheduled settlement site to the north as Ashfurlong, on the basis of the recovered evidence the activity within the proposed development site appears to be peripheral to the settlement itself. As a consequence the archaeological remains within the proposed development site are in my view of less than national significance and I am happy to accept the recommendation in the evaluation report that appropriate mitigation would be a programme of targeted excavation and preservation in situ (where demonstrably achievable) within the area of archaeological interest. This could be secured by conditions.

A3.12 Council’s Countryside Officer Please see paragraphs 5.42 to 5.44 of this report. A3.12.1 The proposed development will replace a semi-improved grassland field with a retail site, fuel retail station, some trees and a relatively small habitat/wetland area.

A3.12.2 Impact on Wildlife Corridor

The proposed development will cut partway across a Wildlife Corridor that links Bedfordshire and Northamptonshire. The NPPF paragraphs 109 and 117 and local plan policy NE1 are relevant. The proposed development will develop a designated site of importance for nature conservation and contribute to the dismantling of a coherent ecological network, the opposite to establishing coherent ecological networks stated in the NPPF and local plan policy NE1. The development proposal will negatively affect a Wildlife Corridor.

A3.12.3 Wildlife Corridors are given the same status as Milton Keynes Wildlife Sites in the Milton Keynes Local Plan. They are linear pathways containing habitats that encourage the movement of plants and animals between important wildlife sites. I agree that this Wildlife Corridor status is non-statutory and that the offsite disused railway could reasonably be considered ‘The key feature of this wildlife corridor’ as it is a Railway Wildlife corridor that links Bedfordshire with Northamptonshire. I agree that the development site could be seen as occupying land considered being a buffer to the

(127) disused railway; however, this does not confer a second class status on the site’s predominantly rough grassland habitat, which is a different habitat to that of the disused railway scrub habitat and provides for a different community of plants and animals. Loss of this area will reduce the heterogeneous character of the Wildlife Corridor and thus compromise its functionality. The component parts of the Milton Keynes Wildlife Corridor network should not be picked apart.

A3.12.4 Habitat Loss and Biodiversity Offsetting

NPPF paragraph 118 encourages the incorporation of biodiversity and local plan policy NE3 requires biodiversity enhancement. The development includes the construction of a relatively small habitat/wetland area at the eastern end of the site and also some tree planting. The proposals are likely to result in biodiversity losses; therefore, the applicant will need to show how the proposed development will not result in biodiversity losses by using DEFRA Impact Assessment Biodiversity Calculator methodology to inform avoidance, mitigation and compensation actions. Need to demonstrate a net gain for biodiversity.

A3.12.5 The Habitat Biodiversity Impact Score of -3.51and a percentage of biodiversity impact of 76.5% demonstrates that the development will result in a net loss of biodiversity that is contrary to local Plan Policy NE3 and the NPPF and so some offsite compensation will be required. Offsite compensation works can be secured by a s106 agreement.

A3.12.6 Conclusion

The submitted proposals for onsite biodiversity actions along with a proposed biodiversity offsetting scheme are likely to be acceptable regarding meeting the requirements of the NPPF and local plan policy. A s106 agreement will need to be completed satisfactorily regarding an offsite biodiversity offsetting scheme and a condition To achieve a ‘good habitat condition a management plan will need to be submitted to the planning authority for approval, regarding maintaining the habitat as intended rather that it becoming an area of scrub.

(128)

A3.13 Natural England Please see paragraphs 5.42 to 5.44 of this report. A3.13.1 Yardley Chase SSSI

The application site is in close proximity to Yardley Chase Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). However, given the nature and scale of this proposal, Natural England is satisfied that there is not likely to be an adverse effect on this site as a result of the proposal being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application as submitted. We therefore advise that this SSSI does not represent a constraint in determining this application.

A3.13.2 No objection subject to conditions for a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) that must take into account bats, the planting plan as proposed must be adhered to and carried out in full (this is to facilitate the use of the site by bats), and the lighting plan for the site should be amended to take into account bats. These conditions are required to ensure that the development will not impact upon the features of special interest for which Yardley Chase SSSI is notified.

A3.13.3 Protected Species and Biodiversity Enhancements

Natural England would expect the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to assess and consider the other possible impacts resulting from this proposal on the following when determining this application: local sites (biodiversity and geodiversity); local landscape character; and local or national biodiversity priority habitats and species. The LPA should apply Natural England’s Standing Advice on protected species.

A3.13.4 This application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. The LPA should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site.

(129) A3.14 RSPB Please see paragraphs 5.42 to 5.44 of this report. The proposed Norway maples are of dubious value for wildlife but the number proposed is very small. A full-size green roof on a building of this scale would necessitate significant redesign of the structural support owing to the weight, but even a few small, enclosed areas of light soil and gravel would greatly increase feeding opportunities. Parts of the site with the greatest potential for wildlife are clearly the tree/shrub belt on the northern edge of the site and the wetland area at the eastern end. The choice of tree and shrub planting in these locations should basically avoid non- native species and aim for variety. The RIBA/Bat Conservation Trust publication ‘Designing for Biodiversity – a technical guide for new and existing buildings’ gives options in terms of internal nest/roost sites. I would recommend provision of a mix of open fronted and hole- fronted bird boxes. In addition, with open countryside to the north and east, one or two large boxes for kestrels or owls positioned in larger trees on the boundary would be good (with entrances facing outward from the site). The wetland offers the greatest potential and there are a few things which could maximise the value of this pond and it surrounding including: - Native plants for the aquatic habitat; - Screening planting between the wetland area and petrol station; - Any soakaways should be design so that they don’t trap amphibians; - A permanent surface-level amphibian barrier should be built into the eastern edge of the development footprint; a c30cm vertical concrete kerb would do the job. - Incorporating an island in the pond would increase its value for breeding birds; - The banks should be allowed to grow wild and essentially unmanaged, to avoid attracting feral geese.

A3.15 Environmental Health – Noise Please see conditions 7, 15, 18, 33 and 34 in Section 6.0 of No objection subject to conditions: this report apart from with

(130) Details of all external plant including noise levels. regards to the details to be No deliveries or refuse collections permitted outside of 0500 and 2300 hrs apart approved by the Petroleum from one Sainsbury’s vehicle to deliver between the specified hours. Officer; as the applicant would Details of petrol station construction to be submitted and approved by Petroleum need to apply for a Petroleum Officer. licence a planning condition is Final lighting plan. not necessary. Acoustic screen during construction phase. Details of acoustic fencing proposed in application.

A3.16 Environmental Health – Ground Contamination Please see condition 32 in Section 6.0 of this report. No chemical contamination has been discovered that would require remediation. No elevated gas levels were discovered either; however, only two rounds of gas monitoring were undertaken whereas the geo-environmental report and the relevant industry guidance recommends four rounds of monitoring. In accordance with NPPF, as made ground, possibly due to previous mineral workings has been identified at the site I recommend a following condition be applied to any grant of planning permission for this site for further gas monitoring to determine the likelihood of any gas contamination of the site.

A3.17 Environmental Health – Air Quality Please see paragraphs 5.48 to 5.50 of this report. No objections to the development on air quality grounds.

A3.17.1 An assessment has been undertaken on the potential impact of the constructional and operational phases of the proposed development. The dispersion model ADMS Roads was verified using data from MKC’s air quality station and diffusion tubes for both particles (PM10) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) the main traffic derived pollutants. Constructional phases impact is considered to be negligible provide best practice mitigation methods as details in the report are in place. Dust monitoring may be required close to sensitive receptors (e.g. Uncle Jack’s and Lavendon Road Farm).

(131) A3.17.2 There is an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) along Bridge Street and High Street South designated because of exceedances of the annual mean NO2 objective. It is important that air quality is not worsened in this area as a result of extra traffic movements brought about by the operational phase of the development. Data from the Transport Assessment was used in the ADMS model and results predict imperceptible changes (decreases) in NO2 and PM10 concentrations. The reason given for this predication is that “trips to new supermarkets are diverted from other existing supermarkets and as such are already on the local road network”. However, it is difficult to predict changes in shopping behaviour, routes taken and mode of transport used. Actual changes will be detected by on-going air quality monitoring (MKC) and by automatic traffic counting (Department for Transport) which is located on the A509 just south of Olney.

A3.17.3 Petrol Filling Station (PFS)

Odour related to petrol emissions will be minimal because the PFS will have to operate according to an Environmental Permit issued by Environmental Health controlling vapour release during the unloading of petrol from tankers and refuelling of vehicles. All vapours displaced during tanker deliveries are directed back into the delivery vehicle rather than to atmosphere, using a system known as vapour recovery stage 1. Additionally, new stations have to fit vapour recovery stage 2 controls requiring the recovery of petrol vapours displaced from vehicle fuel tanks during dispensing. This is achieved by using a specially designed dispenser with a vapour nozzle built into the delivery gun that collects vapour and condenses it back into the storage tank. Therefore, petrol vapour emissions are minimised during Best Available Techniques.

A3.18 Environment Agency The five conditions required by the Environment Agency have Having reviewed the Fuel Storage Feasibility Assessment and Flood Risk Assessment been included as conditions 22 Addendum letter, the Environment Agency is able to remove their flood risk and to 26 within the list of proposed groundwater protection objections. Therefore, the Environment Agency considers that conditions at Section 6.0 of this planning permission could be granted subject to the imposition of conditions regarding: report.

(132) a detailed surface water drainage scheme; a remediation strategy; contamination; scheme to install the fuel storage tanks; and scheme to dispose of foul and surface water.

A3.19 Development Plans - Strategic Flood Management Please see paragraphs 5.39 to 5.41 of this report. A3.19.1 Just to confirm I have discussed with the IDB the issues regarding the maintenance of the adjacent ditch at the proposed Sainsbury’s site and we are happy that future maintenance of the ditch can be agreed via a suitable condition or S106 agreement, which will put in writing the responsibilities of the riparian landowners.

A3.19.2 I am now satisfied that the additional information submitted regarding the ordinary watercourse adjacent to the northern boundary has dealt with the issues previously raised. As detailed in the initial Flood Risk Assessment, for the watercourse to convey the 1 in 100 year flow with a 20% allowance for climate change, which was calculated at 1.13m3/s, a channel cross sectional area of 0.98m2 would be required. The newly submitted survey work detailing a number of cross sections of the ordinary watercourse show that all surveyed sections of the channel are of sufficient size capable of conveying the above flow. The 6m easement, as outlined on the current proposals, will still be required, however this will not require the removal of all existing vegetation immediately on the bank of the watercourse or preclude any further suitable screening within the existing vegetation line, providing this does not prevent the agreed management and maintenance plan for the ditch from being implementable. I would also request that initial clearance/maintenance works to the ditch are carried out as part of the development, to ensure the ditch is in a good condition to begin with (this should also include removal of any trees that are likely to cause conveyance issues or restrict the capacity of the channel).

A3.19.3 Subject to a condition to ensure an initial clearance/maintenance of the ordinary watercourse and an agreed ongoing maintenance/management scheme to be put in place with the landowners to ensure the channel continues to be in optimum condition to contain this flow, I am satisfied that my initial concerns have been addressed and I

(133) no longer have any objections.

A3.20 Internal Drainage Board Noted.

No comment.

A3.21 Anglian Water Please see paragraphs 5.39 to 5.41 of this report. The two A3.21.1 There are assets owned by Anglian Water or those subject to an adoption agreement proposed informatives should within or close to the development boundary that may affect the layout of the site. be included on a Decision Anglian Water requests that an informative is included on the Decision Notice that the Notice. 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.

A3.21.2 The foul drainage from this development is in the catchment of Olney Water Recycling Centre that will have available capacity for these flows.

A3.21.3 The sewerage system at present has available capacity for these flows in accordance with the agreed connection point of MH9202 and maximum pumped rate of 3.8l/s. If the developer wishes to connect to our sewerage network they should serve notice under Section 106 of the Water Industry Act 1991. We request that the agreed strategy if reflected in the planning approval.

A3.21.4 We request that the agreed surface water strategy/flood risk assessment is reflected in the planning approval.

A3.21.5 The planning application includes employment/commercial use. To discharge trade effluent from trade premises to a publics sewer vested in Anglian Water requires our consent. It is an offence under Section 118 of the Water Industry Act 1991 to discharge trade effluent to sewer without consent. Anglian Water requests that an informative is included on the decision notice regarding the discharge of trade effluent.

(134)

A3.22 Cllr P Geary - Olney Ward Noted.

No comments received.

A3.23 Cllr Hosking - Olney Ward Noted.

No comments received.

A3.24 Cllr McLean - Olney Ward Noted.

No comments received.

A3.25 Olney Town Council Please see Section 5.0 of this report as well as paragraph The Town Council in principle supports this application subject to the following: A2.3 and Condition 4 at 1) Signage not to be too large and obtrusive, and to be facia mounted and not Section 6.0. protrude above the line of the building. 2) During peak flows periods of the stream through the site, the water overtops the banks and the stream through the site. We would ask that this issue be addressed through the development. 3) Suitable landscape screening be included around the site. 4) Mitigation for impact on wildlife on site. 5) Contribution from the applicant to improve the landscaping on the A509 roundabout, including public art, to make the roundabout more of a galaxy feature for the town. 6) Conditions be imposed to prevent a pharmacy, coffee shop or the selling of clothes on the site, to protect the vitality of the shops within the town centre.

A3.26 & Parish Council Noted.

No comments received.

(135) A3.27 Lavendon Parish Council Please see paragraphs 5.25 to 5.29 of this report. The No objection but the Parish Council does have serious concerns about the potential development includes a increased traffic flow on the Olney Road and the B565. It is of particular concern that number of improvement works traffic flow on the Olney Road, Lavendon will doubtless increase as vehicles from to the highway including two Carlton and Harrold will use this route. This road is already virtually a single bus stops and a footpath link to carriageway due to parked cars and it being part of the bus routes to Northampton, Olney Town Centre on Bedford and Milton Keynes. Out traffic flow concerns also apply to the B565 where Lavendon Road. The lack of vehicles from Lavendon meet with traffic coming from , Turvey and provision for a cycle path on Carlton. Additionally, should the mineral rights excavation proceed, the further 300 the bend of Lavendon Road truck movements per week adding to the traffic flow on the B565 is potentially would not justify a refusal of hazardous. Would you consider placing a sign at the junction of Harrold Road and the the current scheme. A428 directing traffic left and then right to the B565, thereby minimising increased traffic using the Olney Road in Lavendon. We also request considered for our residents who cycle between Lavendon and Olney, perhaps a cycle path be constructed from the Whirly Pit roundabout to the main entrance to the supermarket where the traffic will be more concentrated. We wondered if the bend at the ‘Potential Water Detention Basin’ could be minimised and incorporate a cycle path.

A3.28 Bedford Borough Council Comments noted.

A3.28.1 As the site is out of centre the applicant has undertaken a sequential assessment and concluded that there are no suitable or available sites within Olney. An impact assessment has also been carried out which notes that existing convenience provision in Olney is qualitatively inadequate and primarily caters for immediate local, every day and top-up convenience needs. For main food shopping most residents travel to other surrounding centres: Milton Keynes (15 mins), Bedford (20 mins), Wellingborough (20 mins) or Northampton (25 mins).

A3.28.2 The applicant has identified a catchment area for the proposed store centre on Olney and including its rural hinterland. The area contains no other main food stores meeting convenience needs. Within this area the applicant’s assessment indicates that the

(136) majority of residents undertake their bulk grocery shopping at stores located outside of the study area. More than two-thirds (69%) of total convenience shopping and some 84% of main food shopping is undertaken outside of the study area. Top-up shopping habits are more localised, with around 76% of top-up shopping undertaken within the study area.

A3.28.3 The applicant calculates that the proposed store should enable a significant clawback of convenience expenditure currently leaking outside of the study area, improving local convenience expenditure retention and encouraging far more sustainable travel patterns. It is estimated that the proposed store could facilitate an increase in market share within the study area from 31% to 61%. The greatest impact of the proposed store would be on main food shopping destinations rather than top-up shopping. The main diversion would be from food stores in surrounding towns, the largest being from Wellingborough and Milton Keynes, than Bedford. It is estimated that at 2019, 12% (£2.12m) of the proposed store’s turnover would be diverted from Bedford’s two Sainsbury’s stores. The diversion from local shops at Harrold, Turvey and Carlton would be negligible.

A3.28.4 The proposed store would primarily serve the needs of Olney and its immediate surrounding area. Although it would inevitably result in some diversion from stores in Bedford and other areas, this would result in more sustainable shopping patterns. The proposal is considered to be in accordance with the NPPF. Bedford Borough Council does not object.

A3.29 Borough Council of Wellingborough Noted.

No comment.

A3.30 Public Representations

The occupiers of the following properties in Olney were notified of the application: . 15, 17, 19, 20, and 22 Colsons Way

(137) . 32 to 40 (even) Cowper Street . Uncle Jacks, Lavendon Road Farm, and Annexe At Lavendon Road Farm, Lavendon Road . 1 to 31, 36 to 43, and 49 to 57 Lilly Hill . 1 to 5, 7, 7 (Ground Floor Offices and First Floor Offices), 9, 23, and 25 Osier Way . 51, 53, 55-57, and 59 Stilebrook Road . Springcroft, Warrington Road . 11 to 59 (odd) Wellingborough Road

A3.31 Public Representations - Support Please see paragraphs 5.1 to 5.24 and 5.53 of this report. Six representations have been received in support of the application. The comments raised can be summarised as follows:

1. The intended store is most welcome for the residents of Olney and would offer more choice and selection and be more convenient without having to travel to Tesco at Kingston or Wellingborough. Enhance the shopping facilities.

2. Olney needs a petrol filling station.

3. Would create employment opportunities.

4. Many people in Olney currently travel out of town to do their grocery shopping but they will now be able to shop locally and reduce their carbon footprint.

5. I trust MKC will insist on a sizeable financial contribution being secured through a s106 agreement.

6. Fully support the application but disappointed that their cost effective clothing line and café is not included which would have helped the less affluent in the community.

(138)

A3.32 Public Representations - Objections

28 representations have been received in objection. These representations include local residents Lavendon Road Farm and Uncle Jacks, The Co-op, and the Bedfordshire Railway & Transport Association (BRTA) and English Regional Transport Association (ERTA). The comments received can be summarised as follows:

1. Retail and Olney Town Centre Please see paragraphs 5.1 to 5.24 of this report. Impact on existing local shops in Olney. High Streets have been destroyed in recent years due to the adverse effect of edge of town developments. It will duplicate the existing retail offer in Olney and extended opening hours will increase the impact on the existing shops. There is already a Co-op and Tesco in Olney, it doesn’t need another supermarket.

The proposal needs to be considered in relation to the size of Olney and the potential for trade diversion from the Town Centre. The Council’s own retail study confirms that existing commitments which are anticipated to come forward between 2011 and 2016 will take up all existing capacity and will generate an oversupply of floorspace over the remainder of the plan period.

Local planning policies follow the ‘town centre first’ approach and state that where an application fails the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact, it should be refused. The retail impact assessment undertaken by Indigo exaggerates the proportion of trade that will be diverted from stores outside the study area and significantly underestimates trade diversion from shops in the town centre, and particularly from the Co-operative store.

The proposed supermarket is out of scale with Olney and its estimated turnover of £19.61m (for convenience goods) is greatly in excess of the total expenditure on convenience goods of Olney residents (£10.46m at 2014 or £11.30m in 2019) and

(139) the store is evidently designed to serve a wider catchment area. However, it will still have an immediate local impact on the town centre because of its size and the range of goods. A realistic view of the resulting balance of turnovers between the large, new Sainsbury’s store and the existing much smaller Town Centre Co- operative store suggests a very substantial trade diversion at approx. 40% with secondary impact on other shops in the town centre resulting from the loss of footfall as well as the diversion of small-scale comparison goods shopping to the Sainsbury’s supermarket. Sainsbury’s have in part justified this by quoting a very high unrealistic turnover for the Co-operative store and exaggerating the degree of ‘clawback’ from outside the Study Area.

The resulting trade diversions are likely to threaten the vitality and viability of the town centre and to deter investment in vacant units.

The change in shopping habitats and consumers’ desire to undertake convenience shopping on a more regular basis, allowing smaller shops and the more regular purchase of fresh produce. This emphasises the need to protect town centres to ensure these facilities are available in locations where people work and shop on a regular basis.

Supermarket shopping is now changing and major stores are not now proceeding, this flies in the face of this trend. Based on a failing business model. Major supermarkets are being replaced by smaller town stores and home delivery services. Concerned that we will be left with an empty store.

Sainsbury’s have not provided the time, date and statistical population of their survey.

No need for the filling station, one is available a mile or so north of Olney. Brocks closed their petrol facility some time ago which would suggest there was not a pressing need for petrol in the town itself.

(140) 2. Principle of the Development and Open Countryside Please see paragraphs 5.1 to 5.8 of this report. Piecemeal and infill development in open countryside. It blurs the fine line between town and countryside leading to other developments.

Not part of the long term published plan for Milton Keynes.

There are other things Olney needs like new schools, more housing, and wheelchair accessible buildings.

3. Character and Appearance of the Area Please see paragraphs 5.30 to 5.35 of this report. Impact on character of Olney which is a market town characterised by independent retailers.

Impact on the unique view of Olney when approaching along the Lavendon Road; instead of seeing a country settlement visitors will see a supermarket just like many other small towns.

Appearance of the store for people driving into Olney from the north would be solid fencing, hidden in a few places by deciduous hedging, and with a large orange Sainsbury’s sign above. Not in keeping with rural nature of the site and town.

Light spillage at night time will be unwelcome. Concerned about light pollution on dark evenings. Will make it look like an industrial area rather than a small market town.

The scheme relies on trees within the garden of Uncle Jacks.

4. Highways Please see paragraphs 5.25 to 5.29 of this report. Olney has significant traffic problems at present. The development will result in

(141) increased traffic on the congested High Street and surrounding rural road network. Petrol Filling Station will attract more cars and congestion on rural roads. It would bring additional traffic to the town from the surrounding villages which would probably have visited supermarkets elsewhere. Increased HGVs during construction and after the development becomes operational.

The current figure of only 5% of customers approaching on Lavendon Road from the North appears to assume these cars will use the A509, this is a much longer route and not one usually chosen by road users.

Increased traffic on Lavendon Road will make it more dangerous to exit the drive to Lavendon Road Farm as it is impossible to see oncoming traffic. The bend on Lavendon Road is a blind bend and accidents frequently happen; increased traffic (which is grossly underestimated in the application) will increase their likelihood.

The alterations to the car park have resulted in a further 7 spaces being lost. The under-provision of car parking may lead to problems and queuing on the Lavendon Road during peak periods, potentially tailing back beyond Whirly Pit roundabout. Also it may lead to cars parking along the roadside near to the store, which would further impeded traffic flow.

Increased traffic flow from proposed pedestrian crossing and bus stop.

The Travel Plan contains incorrect and misleading information regarding buses.

5. Residential Amenity Please see paragraphs 5.45 to 5.52 of this report. Noise, disturbance and odour from fumes for occupiers of residential properties on Lavendon Road, particularly from the petrol filling station. Petrol filling station should be located on Wellingborough Road away from Uncle Jacks due to smell from fumes.

(142) The layout of the car park seems to require all traffic to exist via a lane that passes closest to the garden at Uncle Jacks. In peak periods this would appear to mean that over 200 vehicles per hour would be passing less than 10 metres from our garden, thus creating a noise and nuisance problem drastically reducing amenity.

The petrol filling station is very close to Uncle Jacks and will generate significant vehicular movements creating noise and disturbance as well as the smell of fuel. Also contamination from airborne particles that are hazardous to health can affect properties more than 100m away. The proximity of the petrol filling station to Uncle Jacks increases the risk of fire and presumably this would affect our right to burn garden waste on our property.

The jet wash area is very close to the house at Uncle Jacks and the noise will affect the house and the amenity of our garden. An acoustic fence is proposed along the edge of the petrol filling station, but this will be inadequate and could overshadow parts of our property.

The deciduous hedge will be ineffective in winter.

It is too close to the houses in Lilly Hill and on the top end of the High Street. Concerned that early opening and late closing times for the foodstore and petrol filling station will cause noise and disturbance for neighbouring residents. The site will be definition have to be operational on a 24 hour basis with night time deliveries.

6. Anti-social Behaviour Please see paragraph A2.2 of this report. Concerned about anti-social behaviour as there appears to be no provision to secure the car park outside of opening hours.

7. Drainage, Flood Risk and Groundwater Protection Please see paragraphs 5.39 to 5.41 of this report.

(143) Sewage works already near capacity.

No surface water drainage appears to be proposed for the site; consequently the watercourse will be the main conduit for runoff water and is unlikely to have the required capacity.

In winter the water table is very high in this field, so at times rainfall saturation is inevitable.

Issue of flooding on the bend on Lavendon Road and onto adjacent properties. Covering almost four fifths of the field with impermeable material will increase risk of flooding and endanger road traffic.

The stream along the northern boundary does flood and therefore the calculations that seem to show that the stream has the capacity to carry volumes up to those expected once in 100 years, with a 20% addition due to climate change, must contain an error. The stream has flooded parts of the garden at Uncle Jacks.

Not addressed concerns of the Environment Agency.

8. Ecology Please see paragraphs 5.42 to 5.44 of this report. Ecological assessment records no barn owl sightings during the bat survey and few bats. Barn owls do use the site for foraging and Lavendon Road Farm has active owl nesting boxes. A number of Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Species are found in and around the site, including yellowhammers and bullfinches. This site clearly has wildlife value upon which the proposed development will have significant detrimental effect.

9. Heritage Please see paragraphs 5.36 to 5.38 of this report. Impact on archaeology (no trial trenching carried out).

(144)

Concerned about the impact of the flood relief drainage works on the north boundary on a tree screen for the Scheduled Ancient Monument.

10. Signage Please see paragraph A2.3 of this report. Signage should be on the wall of the store and not on the roof.

11. Bedford-Olney-Northampton railway Please see paragraph A2.4 of this report. The site sites on land which would be part of the reopened Bedford-Olney- Northampton Rail Link and sits on the Handley Alignment which allows adequate space for a car park and station for Olney with walking and cycling to/from the new station and town centre to be readily amenable in such an event of a reopened rail link and station.

The railway would bring footfall and spend to Olney and help alleviate commuter congestion to existing stations in Milton Keynes and Bedford as well as the daily congestion where the A509 meets the M1. Growth of housing and other piecemeal development will only exacerbate this problem unless the rail link, which would be integral with East-West Rail and Thameslink as well as freeing up much-needed capacity at principle West Coast Main Line stations as well as more parking spaces for other users. The railway would also create more local employment commuting. A station and rail link is a much needed piece of transport infrastructure and would make a major difference to the town.

The development would put back the prospects for recovery of a reasonable realignment for the railway in future and put it further away from Olney High Street and attendant cycle, pedestrian and wider access between a new railway station and Olney Town Centre. Whilst there are no plans to re-open the line at the moment, public opinion is slowly growing for the line to be reopened. The possibility of re-opening this line in the future should remain an option and suitable

(145) areas of land for alternative nearby alignments for a track bed where the original alignment has been removed or built on should be retained.

12. Other The applicant has provided copies of the Land Registry The assumption that the middle of the stream is the boundary between the documents for the application application site and Uncle Jacks is incorrect and thus the original application is site and the adjacent incorrect as the certificate of ownership is wrong. The occupiers of Uncle Jacks residential property to support have occupied and maintained the entire watercourse within our curtilage and an their position that the boundary area on the southern bank, and are entitled to adverse possession if ownership was follows the central line of the disputed. water in the stream that separates the two properties. A3.33 Other Public Representations

Two further representations have been receive commenting on the application:

1. Whilst generally in favour, light pollution during the hours of darkness should be Condition for a lighting scheme fully considered. is proposed.

2. I suggest, in the interest of a reduced carbon footprint and of benefit to the visitors An electric vehicle charging and local residents, the installation of electric vehicle charging bay to the car park bay is provided. No planning and an LPG filling pump to the proposed petrol station. policy justification for filling pump as part of petrol station.

(146)

APP 02

Application Number: 15/00670/FUL

Demolition of existing residential care home and erection of Assisted Living (Extra Care) accommodation for the elderly and conversion and extension of The Stables into a pre-school nursery facility with associated car parking

AT St Giles Residential Home, St Giles Mews, Stony Stratford

FOR Yourlife Management Services

Target: 29th June 2015

Ward: Stony Stratford Parish: Stony Stratford Town Council

Report Author/Case Officer: Adam Smith Contact Details: 01908 252499 [email protected]

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

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

1.1 This application site is owned by the Council but the applicant is not the Council. This application is therefore a Regulation 4 application under The Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992. The general principle underlying the 1992 Regulations is that local planning authorities must follow the same procedures as would apply to applications made by anyone else.

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

1.3 The Site

The application site is located to the north eastern side of Stony Stratford and is accessed from Vicarage Walk. More specifically, the site lies on the corner of Vicarage Road and Vicarage Walk and wraps around the side and rear of residential properties fronting Vicarage Walk and an amenity area to the rear of properties on Magdalen Close to the north west. In addition the site extends into and would neighbour the remainder of the playing field of St Mary and St Giles School to the north east.

(147)

1.4 The application site contains a two storey care home set in treed grounds which falls within the Stony Stratford Conservation Area. It also includes a Grade II listed boundary wall fronting Vicarage Road and Vicarage Walk and a converted former stable building, The Stables, which is listed by virtue of its attachment to the boundary wall. In addition, and as noted above, the site also includes part of the playing field of St Mary and St Giles School and this section of the site falls outside the Conservation Area.

1.5 Details of the location of the site and its relationship to surrounding properties can be seen in the plans attached to this report.

1.6 The Proposal

The application proposes the demolition of the existing residential care home and the erection of assisted living (Extra Care) accommodation for the elderly (Use Class C2), the conversion and extension of The Stables into a pre- school nursery facility (Use Class D1) and associated car parking.

1.7 The proposed assisted living (extra care) accommodation would be located to the rear of the site, covering the footprint of the existing care home and extending into the playing field. It would have a courtyard arrangement with a two storey hipped roof building (including gabled elements and limited sections of second floor accommodation in the roof space) enclosed by a single storey glazed link corridor to the south eastern side. It would overall measure some 80 metres in width by 60 metres in depth with a maximum height of 11.7 metres and provide 52 units of resident accommodation with two guest rooms and a staff room with overnight accommodation.

1.8 The additions to The Stables, which is Grade II listed, to facilitate its conversion to a nursey would include extensions to the north west and north east side and a bay window to the north west side. The extension to the north west side would have a gabled roof incorporating a flat roof link to the main building. It would measure some 19.8 metres, in width, 6 metres in depth and 5.6 metres in height. The extension to the north east side would continue the form of the existing building with a depth of 3 metres. The resultant pre-school nursery building would have a floor space (GIA) of some 174 square metres. The applicant details that the pre-school would accommodate some 40 children and 10 employees.

1.9 The proposal also includes some 26 parking spaces to serve the assisted living (extra care) building and 13 spaces to serve the pre-school nursery.

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

(148) 2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application)

2.1 National Policy

National Planning Policy Framework 2012 paragraphs:

6, 7, 8 and 14 - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development; 17 – Core Planning Principles 32 - Transport Statements; 39 - Parking; 50 - Mix of Housing; 56, 57, 60, 61,63,64 - Design; 69 - Crime; 70 – Community facilities; 74 – Playing fields 98 - Sustainability; 103 - Flood Risk; 109 and 118 - Biodiversity Enhancements; 111 - Reuse of Brownfield Land; 121 - Ground Conditions; 123 – Noise. 126-138 – Historic Environment

2.2 Local Planning Policy

Core Strategy 2013

CSA - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development CS1 – Milton Keynes Development Strategy CS11 - A Well Connected Milton Keynes; CS12 - Delivering Successful Neighbourhoods; CS13 - Ensuring High Quality Well Designed Places; CS19 - Healthier and Safer Communities; CS20 - The Historic and Natural Environment; CS21 - Delivering Infrastructure.

2.3 Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011

D1 - Impact of Development Proposals on Locality; D2 - Design of Buildings; D2A - Urban Design Aspects of New Developments; D4 - Sustainable Construction; HE2-HE5 - Listed Buildings; HE6 - Conservation Areas; NE2 - Protected Species; NE3 - Biodiversity and Geological Enhancement; T1 – The Transport User Hierarchy T2 - Access For Those With Impaired Mobility; T3,T4 - Pedestrians and Cyclists;

(149) T5 - Public Transport; T10 - Traffic; T15 - Parking Provision; H2 – Priority Housing Requirements L2 - Protection of Public Open Space and Existing Facilities; C1 – Location of Community Facilities C2 - Loss of Community Facilities; P04 – Percent for Art

2.4 Supplementary Planning Guidance

Milton Keynes Parking Standards 2005 and 2009 Addendum; Planning Obligations for Leisure, Recreation and Sport Facilities (2005);

2.5 Supplementary Planning Document

Social Infrastructure (2005); Sustainable Construction (2007).

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

3.1 Principle – Provision of community facilities and loss of the playing field

The proposal would involve the loss of part of the playing field of St Mary and St Giles School contrary to saved Policy L2 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011 and paragraph 74 of the National Planning Policy Framework with Sport England also objecting to this loss. However, it is considered that, on balance, the provision of two community facilities in the form of extra care accommodation and a pre-school nursery, outweigh the harm resulting from the loss of part of part of the playing field.

3.2 Impact on character and appearance of the area

The proposed assisted living building would be large in size, however the bulk of the building is broken up by its design and it is set back within the plot. The addition to The Stables to form the pre-school nursery would include modern elements and a deep projection but that these would integrate acceptably. The high quality trees on the site would be retained as part of the development. As such it is considered that the proposal would not detrimentally impact on the character and appearance of the area.

3.3 Impact on Heritage Assets

The proposal would result in the loss of the physical demarcation of part of the eastern boundary of the Conservation Area which would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset. However, and giving special attention to the duty to preserve or enhance the Conservation Area, it is considered that this harm would be outweighed by the benefits for providing an extra care facility. The proposal would also extend and change the use of The

(150) Stables which is listed by virtue of its attachment to the Grade II listed boundary walls. Special regard and considerable importance and weight have been given to the impact of the development on the listed buildings. Taking into account that The Stables has previously been altered and is only listed by attachment, it is considered that there is not sufficient harm to the interest of listed fabric or structures or their setting to warrant an objection.

3.4 Residential amenities

The assisted living building would be set in from the boundaries of the site and the pre-school nursery would be a single storey structure such that the proposal would not appear intrusive or result in an unacceptable loss of privacy to neighbouring properties. In addition, the courtyard arrangement of the assisted living building would provide an acceptable level of outlook and privacy for future occupiers. The development would include commercial kitchens but the odour and noise from these can be controlled by condition. As such it is considered that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on residential amenities.

3.5 Parking and Highway Safety

The level of parking provision and highway safety are one of the main issues raised in the public representations. The parking provided for the assisted living (extra care) facility meets the Parking Standards and the scheme has been amended to increase the parking provision for the pre-school nursery to 13 spaces which is 7 short of the Parking Standards. The site is close to the town centre and opposite a public car park and no objections are raised on parking grounds. The applicant has indicated that visibility splays for 25mph can be achieved but has not provided speed surveys to demonstrate that these are appropriate. However, speed surveys are due to be provided before the Committee and this highway safety matter will be addressed in an update paper to the Committee

3.6 Planning Obligations

Contributions that are reasonably related to the impact of the proposed assisted living development have been calculated at £57,719.09. In addition contributions towards public art and carbon offset are required. Discussions are ongoing with the applicant and also relevant departments/organisations regarding contributions. The applicant has indicated that they are willing to pay contributions that are compliant with the CIL Regulations and further comments on this matter will be provided in an update paper to the Committee.

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

4.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to referral to the National Planning Casework Unit, a legal agreement to secure financial contributions as detailed in Section 5 of this report, and the conditions outlined at Section 6 of this report.

(151)

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

5.1 Principle – (a) Provision of community facilities

The application site includes an existing Use Class C2 care home, an ancillary outbuilding known as The Stables, and part of St Mary and St Giles School’s playing field. The application proposes an assisted living (extra care) facility falling within Use Class C2 (Residential Institutions) and a pre- school nursery which falls within Use Class D1 (Non-residential institutions). The development plan defines Use Class C2 and D1 uses as community facilities.

5.2 Saved policy C2 Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011 seeks the protection of community facilities, only allowing for their loss if there is no longer a need for the facility or an alternative facility is provided, and Local Plan Policy C1 detailing that planning permission will be granted for: (i) Non-residential community facilities within, or adjacent to Central Milton Keynes, town, district and local centres (ii) Residential community facilities within housing areas preferably in locations well related to local centres. Policy C1 also details that proposals for community facilities will need to show that buildings are designed to be adaptable for multi-use.

5.3 The existing care home would be replaced by two community facilities and as such its loss is acceptable under saved Policy C2 Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011. Further, the application site is in a residential area close to Stony Stratford town centre and as such the proposed assisted living (extra care) accommodation and pre-school nursery meet with the location requirements of criteria (i) and (ii) of saved policy C1 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011. In addition, the assisted living (extra care) accommodation is designed to be accessible by all and the nursery is laid out with two main open plan rooms between staff, kitchen and toilet/changing facilities such that it is considered that the designs are adaptable. The proposal is therefore in accordance with saved policy C1 and the loss of the existing care home is acceptable under saved policy C2 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011.

5.4 The proposal however also involves the loss of part of St Mary and St Giles School’s playing field and therefore Local Plan Saved policies C2 and L2 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011 are relevant to the principle of the development.

5.5 Saved policy C2 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011 states that where surplus education land is identified, planning permission will be granted for other uses provided it can be demonstrated that: (a) The income from the sale of the land will be reinvested to secure improvements to Milton Keynes schools; and (b) The proposed development will include the provision of facilities for the

(152) local community where there is a proven need for such provision locally.

5.6 The Council’s Capital Projects team have confirmed that the playing field land is surplus Education land and that the capital receipt from the sale of the surplus land will all be spent on the school.

5.7 The applicant has not however demonstrated that there is a proven need for a pre-school nursery. Although the third party representations to this application indicate that there is some local support for such a nursery in the town and such a facility clearly has the potential to benefit the community.

5.8 In terms of a need for the assisted living (extra care) facility, saved policy H2 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011identifies Housing For Older People as priority housing. Further the government, in Planning Policy Guidance, states that the need to provide housing for older people is critical given the projected increase in the number of households aged 65 and over accounts for over half of the new households (Paragraph: 021 Reference ID: 2a-021-20150326). In addition, the Milton Keynes Council Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2013 – Report Findings (May 2014) indicates a housing requirement for 1,100 extra care units by 2026. The SHMA is clear in stating that this is a modelled requirement based on assumptions, but details that it offers a useful starting point to begin the modelling of housing requirements for older people and shows a significant need for extra care accommodation.

5.9 The applicant has also submitted a Housing and Care Needs Report. This report sets out that the older population in Milton Keynes is projected to increase through all age cohorts with, for example, those 65 years of age and over set to increase by 77% by 2030 and details that modelling indicates a near doubling of persons in this age range having difficulties with either one or more domestic tasks or one task of personal care by 2030. The report also finds that provision of extra care in Milton Keynes has been directed to the social rented sector and there is a shortfall in leasehold provision.

5.10 The consultation response from the Head of Adult Social Care and Health Commissioning also details that the population aged over 65 in Milton Keynes is set to increase and advises that there will need to be accommodation for this cohort of local residents. Although, the Head of Adult Social Care and Health Commissioning raises concerns that the proposal will place pressure on existing health and social care services and potentially increase costs to the Council. The applicant however has agreed the principle of paying the requisite financial contributions for infrastructure identified as arising from the scheme and the concerns raised are not material planning considerations.

5.11 There is therefore a clearly proven need for the proposed extra care accommodation. As such, the proposal would comply with Policy C2 regarding the loss of surplus education land and it is considered that the provision of extra care accommodation is a significant benefit arising from the scheme.

(153) 5.12 Principle – (b) Loss of playing field

Local Plan Policy L2 is also relevant to the loss of a school playing field which is defined in the development plan as recreational open space. Policy L2 details that planning permission will be refused for proposals that involve the loss of open space for leisure and recreation unless alternative provision of at least equivalent size, quality, suitability and convenience is made. Policy L2 also states that if there is no longer a continuing need for recreation use, and there is an unmet need for community facilities in the surrounding area, development should make provision for such facilities.

5.13 The approach in saved policy L2 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011to resist the unjustified loss of a playing field is in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework which advises in Paragraph 74 that existing open space including playing fields should not be built on unless: . an assessment has been undertaken which clearly shows the open space is surplus to requirements, or . the loss resulting from the development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision, or . the development is for alternative sports and recreation provision, the need for which clearly outweighs the loss.

5.14 Sport England is a Statutory Consultees for applications involving the loss of playing fields and has objected to this application on the basis that the proposal does not meet any of the exceptions for the loss of a playing field in the National Planning Policy Framework. More specifically, Sport England advise that the site is capable of accommodating mini-soccer pitches and that the wider sporting and community need for playing fields have not been addressed; highlighting the Milton Keynes Playing Pitch Strategy Consultation Draft August 2014 which notes in paragraph 68 that the local football club has a need for more pitches as its existing site floods. The applicant has responded to the Sport England objection including highlighting that St Mary and St Giles School support the application and that it is the Council’s and St Mary and St Giles School intentions to provide an all-weather pitch on part of the remaining playing field. However, whilst it is understood that the provision of the all-weather pitch is a current requirement of the consent to dispose the education land under Section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, there is no planning permission in place for an all-weather pitch and as such little weight can attributed to this. In any event Sport England does not consider an artificial grass pitch to be the equivalent of two natural grass pitches and their concern relates to the failure of the applicant to address the wider sporting and community needs for playing fields.

5.15 The proposal would therefore conflict with saved Policy L2 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011 and paragraph 74 of the National Planning Policy Framework. However, the loss of part of the school playing field must be balanced against the key benefits for the scheme which it is considered comprises the provision of two community facilities. In respect of the balance, it is noted that the purpose of the planning system, as detailed in paragraph 6 of the National Planning Policy Framework, is to contribute to the

(154) achievement of sustainable development and that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. The harm arising from the loss of the playing field principally relates to the social dimension of sustainable development. More specifically, and as set out above, the harm does not relate to the loss of education land but rather relates to the loss of part of a playing field that could be used to meet wider sporting and community needs for playing fields. This harm is supported by a Sport England objection. Turning to the benefits, the new pre-school nursery and assisted living (extra care) development would perform a social role in providing community facilities with the provision of elderly persons accommodation helping to meet a significant need for extra care accommodation in the Borough. Further it is noted that the scheme is supported by the Town Council. In addition, the development would provide an economic role through employment both during construction and as part of the operation of the facilities. In this instance, it is considered that it is fine balance between harm and benefits which needs to be carefully weighed by Members. However, in the officer’s view, it is considered that the benefits on balance outweigh the harm.

5.16 In considering the benefits of the scheme, Members are respectfully reminded that the financial benefits of the scheme to the Council including raising money from the sale of the site, cost price construction of the pre-school nursery and the New Homes Bonus are not material considerations to this planning application and are not relevant to the decision before the Committee.

5.17 Given the outstanding objection from Sport England, if members are minded to approve the application it will need to be referred to the National Planning Casework Unit to allow the Secretary of State an opportunity to consider using the power to call in the application.

5.18 Impact on character and appearance of the area

Saved policies D2 and D2A of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011and Core Strategy Policy CS13 seek to ensure that all new buildings are high quality, well designed and relate well to the surrounding area and that proposals should reinforce townscape character.

5.19 The application site is in a predominantly residential area and is bound by high listed walls to Vicarage Road and Vicarage Walk which limits views into the site. The existing care home is set back in the site and is set in treed grounds. It is two storey including sections with large first floor dormers and has the appearance of an institutional building which has been enlarged on an ad hoc basis. The Stables has a simple pitched roof design and is located in the southern corner of the site, adjoining the boundary walls.

5.20 The proposed assisted living (extra care) building would be arranged around a courtyard garden with two storey accommodation to three sides and a single storey glazed link to the south western side. It is large in size, however the bulk of the building is broken up by varied roof lines, forms and

(155) projections and the building is set back within the site. The design detailing is relatively simple to reflect surrounding buildings and, subject to the use of materials that are sympathetic to the locality and a finished floor level condition, it is considered that the building would integrate acceptably with the character and appearance of the area.

5.21 The additions to The Stables to form the pre-school nursery would comprise three elements: an extension to the north east elevation, a bay window to the north west elevation and an extension to the north west elevation. The extension to the north east side would be small in size and continue the existing form of the building such that it would integrate with the existing building. The extension to the north west side would be large in depth and both of the additions to the northwest side would have a more contemporary appearance with the bay window having a glazed design and the extension utilising timber cladding with large windows. The existing building has however been extensively altered with modern windows and elevation treatments to the north west elevation. Further, the extension to the north west side would have a similar roof form to the existing building and would attach to the existing building by a flat roof link which would help break up the depth of the extension and facilitate the integration of the more contemporary treatments and design to the building. It is considered that, subject to careful consideration of the materials, the altered building would have a high quality appearance that would not adversely affect the character of the area.

5.22 The application site has a large number of trees which offer a significant visual contribution to the character of the area with a central Hornbeam tree providing a major asset to the site. The high quality mature trees on the site are proposed to be retained as part of the application and this can be secured by conditions as sought by the Arboricultural Officer and Senior Landscape Architect. In addition, a landscaping condition should be imposed on any planning permission to secure additional planting to compensate for the trees that would be lost and soften the visual impact of development.

5.23 Overall it is considered that the proposal would not detrimentally impact on the character and appearance of the area and no objections are raised with regards to saved policies D2, D2A of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011 and policy CS13 of the Core Strategy.

5.24 Impact on Heritage Assets

The application site partly falls with the Stony Stratford Conservation Area with the existing care home building lying entirely within the Conservation Area and the playing field falling outside. Section 66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a statutory duty on local planning authorities to pay special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic importance which it possesses.

5.26 The boundary walls to Vicarage Road and Vicarage Walk are Grade II listed and The Stables is listed by virtue of its attachment to the wall. Section 72 of

(156) the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a duty on local planning authorities to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of Conservation Areas

5.27 Policy CS19 of the Core Strategy requires development proposals to protect and enhance the significance of the Borough’s heritage assets with saved policies HE2, HE4 and HE5 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011relating specifically to listed buildings and saved policy HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011relating to Conservation Areas. Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework also seeks the conservation and enhancement the historic environment and advises that where development proposals will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including securing its optimal viable use.

5.28 In terms of the Conservation Area, special attention has been paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area in accordance with Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Whilst the existing care home is of poor design quality and does not respect or reinforce its distinctive character, the existing trees are an important feature in the Conservation Area and provide reference to the historic garden use of the site. The high quality existing trees are proposed to be retained and this together with additional planting to compensate for the trees to be lost as a result of the development can be secured though the imposition of a condition on any planning permission. The proposed assisted living (extra care) building would be larger and bulkier than the existing care home, but a varied roof form and the use of materials and detailing that is characteristic of the Conservation Area would combine to soften the impact of the building. The proposal would however result in the loss of the physical demarcation of a section of the eastern boundary of the Conservation Area which would result in a blurring of the historic eastern side of the town. However, it is acknowledged that unlike the boundaries with Vicarage Road and Vicarage Walk which are defined by a Grade II listed stone wall, there is no remaining historic feature defining the eastern boundary of the lost rectory’s gardens. The Senior Conservation Officer has judged the harm to the Conservation Area to be less than substantial to the significance of the heritage asset but still of some moderate detrimental impact. It is necessary to weigh this harm against the public benefits with special attention paid to the duty in 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. In this instance, it is held that the benefit of providing an assisted living (extra care) facility weighs favourably for the scheme.

5.29 Turning to the listed buildings, special regard and considerable weight and importance have been given to the impact of the development on the listed building and its setting in accordance with the duty in Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The listed buildings comprise the Grade II listed garden walls which define the boundary of the lost rectory and The Stables which is listed by virtue of attachment. The Senior Conservation Officer has advised that the proposed assisted living

(157) (extra care) facility would not compete with the dominance of the listed garden walls and, subject to the retention of important trees, no objections are raised in terms of the setting of the listed structures. The proposed extensions and additions to The Stables would include a large modern addition and glazed bay window to the north west side. However it is noted that the Senior Conservation Officer advises that this building is only of limited significance having been previously altered and is only listing by virtue of attachment to the walls. Further, he advises that the principle and detail of development should not cause sufficient harm to the interest of listed fabric or structures or their setting to warrant an objection on the basis that proposed alterations are inconsistent with local or national planning policy and guidance intended to protect historic buildings and spaces. The proposal would therefore preserve features of the listed buildings of special architectural or historic interest and their setting.

5.30 Taking into account the above, no objections are raised to the impact of the proposal on heritage assets.

5.31 Residential Amenity

Saved policy D1(iii) of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011states that development will be refused where they are harmful by way of an unacceptable visual intrusion or loss of privacy. 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.

5.32 The pre-school nursery building would be single storey and as such would not appear intrusive or give rise to loss of privacy to neighbouring properties.

5.33 The assisted living (extra care) facility would be predominantly two storey with only a limited second floor element on the main entrance projection. It would be sited partly on the footprint of the existing two storey care home, set in from the boundaries of the site, and the minimum distance of 22 metres between first floor windows (back to back) sought in the Residential Development Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document is exceeded. As such it is considered that the proposed assisted living (extra care) facility would not appear intrusive or give rise to unacceptable overlooking of neighbouring properties.

5.34 In terms of the amenities of future occupiers of the assisted living (extra care) facility, the building is arranged around a garden courtyard with space to the boundaries such that an acceptable level of outlook and privacy would be provided.

5.35 The assisted living (extra care) facility and pre-school nursery would however both include commercial kitchens. Therefore it is considered reasonable to impose conditions to require extract details to prevent detriment to the amenities of neighbouring properties and future occupiers of the site from odour and noise emissions.

(158)

5.36 As such, subject to extract conditions for the commercial kitchens to serve the developments, no objections are raised with regards to residential amenities and saved policy D1 (iii) of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011.

5.37 Parking and Highway Safety

Saved policy T15 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011 relates to parking provision and states that car parking provision should not be reduced below the maximum parking standard if it would be likely to result in off-site parking causing problems that cannot be resolved by on-street parking controls. The Council has adopted maximum Parking Standards which have been through public consultation and can therefore be afforded significant weight in determining planning applications. Paragraph 39 of the National Planning Policy Framework supports the setting of local parking standards based on local circumstances and therefore their application of these standards is considered to be in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

5.38 Saved Policy T10 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011 relates to highway safety and details that proposals will refused for development if it would be likely to generate motor traffic that would exceed the highway capacity of the local road network or cause significant risk of accident.

5.39 The level of parking provision and highway safety matters are key issues raised in the public representations and in the consultation response from the Town Council.

5.40 In terms of parking provision, the application site is in Zone 3 under the Parking Standards and the requirement for the proposed 52 unit assisted living (extra care) use is 26 car parking spaces which is met as part of the proposal.

5.41 The applicant has detailed that the pre-school nursery will accommodate up- to 40 children with 10 staff employed at any time. The Parking Standard is one pick up/set down car parking space per four children and one car parking space per member of staff which equates to a total of 20 parking spaces. The proposal as originally submitted only had three parking spaces serving the nursery, however this has subsequently been amended to provide 13 spaces. The proposal therefore has a shortfall of 7 parking spaces in terms of the Parking Standards. However, the site is located close to the town centre and opposite a public car park. As such, and given that the comments of the Senior Highway Engineer, no objections are raised in terms of parking provision for the nursery.

5.42 Turning to highway safety, the Senior Highway Engineer advises that the submitted visibility splays relate to a 25 mph speed limit and that the applicant has not tested the 85th percentile speed of traffic travelling along this section of Vicarage Road. As such, in the absence of speed monitoring, the Senior Highway Engineer indicates that the proposal would give rise to highway

(159) safety objections. The applicant has however indicated that speed monitoring will be undertaken and submitted prior to the Development Control Committee and comments on this will be provided in an update paper to the Development Control Committee.

5.43 Planning Obligations

Core Strategy Policy CS21 states that new development that generates a demand for infrastructure will only be permitted if the necessary on and off- site infrastructure required to support and mitigate the impact of that development is either: 1. Already in place, or; 2. There is a reliable mechanism in place to ensure that it will be delivered.

5.44 Extra-care type facilities encourage more independent living and the Planning Practice Guidance recognises that C2 uses result in housing growth. It is therefore considered the provision of a 52 unit extra care facility has the potential to impact on infrastructure as it will lead to population growth in the area.

5.45 Policy CS21 of the Core Strategy supports contributions which mitigate the impacts of development on infrastructure. In order to calculate contributions that are reasonably related to the impact of this type of residential scheme, the figures contained with the Social Infrastructure Supplementary Planning Document and the Leisure Recreation and Sports Supplementary Planning Guidance have been used and relevant departments/organisations have been consulted. This ensures the contributions are fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development and meet the requirements of paragraph 204 of the National Planning Policy Framework and CIL Regulations. The following requirements have therefore been identified by the Senior Planning Obligations Officer as being required due to the impact of this particular development: . Library: £7,884.00 . Crematorium/Burial Grounds: £2,160.00 . Health Facilities: £36,990.00 . Emergency Services: £1,188.00 . Voluntary Sector: £4,482.00 . Community Hall: £5,015.09 In total this amounts to £57,719.09

5.46 In addition, saved policy PO4 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011 encourages public art provision of at least 1% of the capital cost of development and carbon offset payments are required under saved policy D4 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011.

5.47 Discussions are ongoing with the applicant and also relevant departments/organisations regarding contributions. The applicant has indicated that they are willing to pay contributions that are compliant with the CIL Regulations and further comments on this matter will be provided in an update paper to the Committee.

(160)

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

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

Reason: To prevent the accumulation of planning permissions; to enable the Local Planning Authority to review the suitability of the development in the light of altered circumstances; and to comply with section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The assisted living building hereby approved shall only be used for purposes falling within Use Class C2 as defined in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 or any Statutory Instrument revoking or re-enacting that Order. Each unit of accommodation in the assisted living building, with the exception of the staff accommodation and visitors suite, shall only be occupied by at least one person who has attained the age of 55, except in the case of two persons sharing a unit where one occupier shall not be less than 55 years of age.

Reason: To ensure that the units of accommodation hereby approved are solely occupied in accordance with the use of the site as a residential institution for the provision of accommodation and care for elderly persons as detailed in the application.

3. The number of children on the premises of the pre-school nursery hereby approved at any one time for the purposes of the proposed use shall not exceed 40.

Reason: To ensure control over the scale of the use in relation to highway safety.

4. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details of the proposed finished floor levels of all new buildings and the finished ground levels of the site, in relation to the existing site levels of surrounding property, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall 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 D1, D2A, and D3 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan.

5. Prior to the commencement of the construction of the assisted living building hereby approved, sample panels of all brickwork types to be used in the construction of the assisted living building shall be erected on site and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The sample panels shall

(161) use the proposed walling material, mortar type, bond, coursing and pointing. The panel shall remain on site until the works are completed. The works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approve details.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality and to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting of the Listed Buildings and its setting and, in accordance with Policies D2A, D3, HE4, HE5 and HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan.

6. Prior to the commencement of the construction of the assisted living building hereby approved, full details of the proposed window types shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details shall include window elevation drawings, horizontal and vertical cross sections at a scale of at least 1:5. Details shall confirm the finish of the windows, depth of reveal (to facing materials) and include opening method and sill detail. Trickle vents shall be absent unless where specifically agreed by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved particulars.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality and to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting of the Listed Buildings and its setting and, in accordance with Policies D2A, D3, HE5 and HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan.

7. Prior to the commencement of the construction of the additions/extensions to the assisted living building hereby approved, full details of the proposed external doors shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details shall include elevation drawings, horizontal and vertical cross sections at a scale of at least 1:5 and confirm the proposed finish. The works shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality and to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting of the Listed Buildings and its setting and, in accordance with Policies D2A, D3, HE4, HE5 and HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan.

8. Prior to the installation of any tile hanging to the assisted living building hereby approved, at least three samples of the tile hanging, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Samples shall be accompanied with details of the source/supplier. The works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approve details.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality and to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting of the Listed Buildings and its setting and, in accordance with Policies D2A, D3, HE4, HE5 and HE6 of the Milton

(162) Keynes Local Plan.

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

Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality and to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting of the Listed Buildings and its setting and, in accordance with Policies D2A, D3, HE4, HE5 and HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan.

10. Prior to the installation of rainwater goods to serve the assisted living building hereby approved, full details of the proposed rainwater goods shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality and to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting of the Listed Buildings and its setting and, in accordance with Policies D2A, D3,HE4, HE5 and HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan.

11 Prior to the commencement of the construction of the additions/extensions to The Stables hereby approved, sample panels of all stonework types to be used in the construction of the additions/extensions to The Stables shall be erected on site and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The sample panels shall use the proposed walling material, mortar type, bond, coursing and pointing. The panel shall remain on site until the works are completed. The works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approve details.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality and to preserve the character and special interest of the Listed Building and its setting and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, in accordance with Policies D2A, D3, HE4, HE5 and HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

12 Prior to the commencement of the construction of the additions/extensions to The Stables hereby approved, samples of the timber cladding and associated plinth to be used in the construction of the additions/extensions to The Stables shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approve details.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality and to preserve the character and special interest

(163) of the Listed Building and its setting and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, in accordance with Policies D2A, D3, HE4, HE5 and HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

13. Prior to the commencement of the construction of the additions/extensions to The Stables hereby approved, full details of the proposed window types shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details shall include window elevation drawings, horizontal and vertical cross sections at a scale of at least 1:5. Details shall confirm the finish of the windows, depth of reveal (to facing materials) and include opening method and sill detail. Trickle vents shall be absent unless where specifically agreed by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved particulars.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality and to preserve the character and special interest of the Listed Building and its setting and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, in accordance with Policies D2A, D3, HE4, HE5 and HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

14. Prior to the commencement of the construction of the additions/extensions to The Stables hereby approved, full details of the proposed external doors shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details shall include elevation drawings, horizontal and vertical cross sections at a scale of at least 1:5 and confirm the proposed finish. The works shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality and to preserve the character and special interest of the Listed Building and its setting and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, in accordance with Policies D2A, D3, HE4, HE5 and HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

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

Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality and to preserve the character and special interest of the Listed Building and its setting and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, in accordance with Policies D2A, D3,, HE4, HE5 and HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

16. Prior to the installation of rainwater goods to the additions/extensions to The Stables hereby approved, full details of the proposed rainwater goods shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

(164) The works shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality and to preserve the character and special interest of the Listed Building and its setting and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, in accordance with Policies D2A, D3, HE4, HE5 and HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

17. Notwithstanding the submitted details, prior to the commencement of the extension/alterations to The Stables hereby approved, full details of the boiler flue, kitchen extract and soil pipes to serve The Stables shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include plans drawn at a recognised scale and full details of the extract equipment including its specifications, an assessment of the noise impact from the extractor fan installation on noise sensitive receptors using BS4142 methodology and noise and odour mitigation measures as appropriate. The boiler flue, kitchen extract and soil pipes shall be installed in accordance with the approved details with the kitchen extract installed prior to the occupation of the extended building and thereafter be operated and maintained in accordance with the approved details and be maintained and retained in use for so long as the use continues.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality, to preserve the character and special interest of the Listed Building and its setting and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and protect the amenities of neighbouring properties in accordance with policies D1, HE4, HE5 and HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

18. Prior to the installation of the kitchen extraction equipment to serve the kitchen for the communal dining room of the assisted living building hereby approved, full details of the extract equipment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority including the specification of the extraction system, an assessment of the noise impact on noise sensitive receptors using BS4142 methodology and noise and odour mitigation measures as appropriate. The approved equipment shall be installed prior to the occupation of the assisted living building and be maintained and retained in use for so long as the use continues.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality, to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting of the Listed Buildings and its setting and to protect the amenities of neighbouring properties, in accordance with Policies D1, D2A, D3,HE4, HE5 and HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan.

19. Notwithstanding the submitted details, prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, details of the proposed boundary treatment of the site and enclosures with the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The boundary treatments and enclosures within

(165) the site shall be provided in accordance with the approved details before the development is first occupied. The approved enclosures shall subsequently be retained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality, to preserve the character and special interest of the Listed Building and its setting and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and protect the amenities of neighbouring properties in accordance with policies D1, HE4, HE5 and HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

20. Notwithstanding the submitted details, no alteration or replacement of the existing pedestrian and vehicular gates to The Stables until or unless details have previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality and to preserve the character and special interest of the Listed Building and its setting and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, in accordance with Policies D2A, D3, HE4, HE5 and HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

21. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until the access road and parking areas have been laid out and surfaced in accordance with the approved details. Thereafter these areas shall only be used for access and the parking of vehicles in connection with the development the subject of this permission.

Reason: To ensure safe access to the site in accordance with the provisions of Policy T15 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan Adopted 2005

Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of covered and secure cycle parking facilities including a timetable for the provision of the facilities shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The cycle parking facilities shall be provided in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the provision of cycle parking provision in accordance with the Council's adopted parking standard.

22. Prior to the initial occupation of any part of the assisted living building hereby approved, a Travel Plan shall be submitted to and be approved by the Local Planning Authority. Within three months of occupation of any part of the development, a site co-ordinator shall be nominated to manage the Travel Plan and conduct a Site Audit and Staff Travel Surveys, leading to the submission of a site-wide Travel Plan report. The approved full Travel Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the timetable and targets contained within and shall continue to be implemented as long as any part of the development is occupied with a minimum of annual reporting for the first five

(166) years and biannually thereafter.

Reason: In order to reduce the demand for car parking and vehicle trips generated by the development by actively promoting and encouraging the use of more sustainable alternatives.

23. Prior to the first occupation of the assisted living building hereby approved, the bin stores/recycling facilities shall be laid out in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained to serve the development.

Reason: To ensure that there are adequate bin stores/recycling facilities to serve the site.

24. Prior to the commencement of the extension/alterations to The Stables hereby approved, full details of the bin stores/recycling facilities to serve this facility shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The bin stores/recycling facilities shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the extended building and shall thereafter be retained to serve the development.

Reason: To ensure that there are adequate bin stores/recycling facilities to serve the site.

25. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a landscaping scheme, which shall include details of both soft and hard landscaping shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall show the numbers, types and sizes of trees, shrubs and plants to be planted and their location in relation to proposed buildings, roads, footpaths, hard surfacing and services (including those underground). All planting in accordance with the scheme shall be carried out within twelve months of commencement of development or in accordance with a timetable that has previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs removed, dying, severely damaged or diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with trees or shrubs of such size and species as may be agreed by the Local Planning Authority. All other landscaping, including hard landscaping, shown in the approved scheme shall be laid out prior to the occupation of the development and be retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality, to preserve the character and special interest of the Listed Building and its setting and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and to provides biodiversity enhancements in accordance with Policies D2A, D3, HE4, HE5, HE6, and NE3 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

26. All existing trees, woodlands and hedges to be retained shall be protected according to the provisions of BS 5837: 2012 'Trees in relation to

(167) design, demolition and construction - Recommendations'. All protective measures especially the fencing and ground protection must be put in place and, once in place, approved writing by the local planning authority prior to any other work commencing on site (this includes vegetation clearance, ground-works, vehicle movements, machinery / materials delivery etc.). The fencing shall be of the same specification as that depicted in figure 2, page 20 and ground protection as specified in 6.2.3.1 - 6.2.3.5 pages 21/22 in BS 5837: 2012 and shall include warning signs. . The Root Protection Area (RPA) within the protective fencing must be kept free of all construction or storage for the duration of the construction phase. No earthworks, level changes, service runs, foundations and all other works involving excavation should not be located within the root protection areas.

Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction process

27. Prior to commencement of development, construction details for all areas of raised-construction, nil-excavation foundations and hard surfacing (roads, paths, car-parking, patios, etc.) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction process.

28. Where roots are encountered outside the root protection areas during the construction of the development hereby approved, the excavation works shall avoid de-barking, breaking, splitting, splintering or shattering the roots. Once uncovered the roots which will have to be removed to accommodate the construction should be cut back to a point 100mm beyond the nearest edge of the construction, they must be pruned back cleanly with sharp, clean pruning saws or bypass loppers making level, smooth right angle cuts with no ragged edges. Shuttering should be used to keep concrete pours 100mm away from the cut root ends. The void should be backfilled with an approved tree planting compost mix finished to the surface.

Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction process.

29. If construction-facilitation pruning of the trees is unavoidable, this should be carried out by a competent, qualified and experienced tree surgeon according to the provisions of BS 3998: 2010 and current arboriculture industry best practice. The Local Authority Arboriculture Officer shall be given a week’s notice before the works are carried out so they have the opportunity to attend on site and agree the exact extent of the works with the tree surgery contractor.

Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction process.

30. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the recommendations in the Arboricultural report (8592) 24.09.15 received by the Local Planning Authority on 9 October 2015.

(168) Reason: To protect existing trees during the construction process.

31. The assisted living building hereby approved shall provide bird box bricks and bat tubes integrated into the building. Full details, including the positions of the proposed installations shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approve details.

Reason: In the interests of biodiversity in accordance with Policy NE3 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan.

32. Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, details of external lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted details shall include details of all external lighting and shall include security lighting to the parking areas and other publicly accessible areas. The plans shall show lighting proposed in accordance with BS5489 standards and that the areas have a minimum uniformity rate of 0.25Uo (25%) and that the colour rendition of the lighting is to at least 60Ra (60%). The submitted lighting details shall take into account bats in the local area and their potential to use the site. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality, to preserve the character and special interest of the Listed Building and its setting and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and in the interests of ecology in accordance with Policies D2A, D3, HE4, HE5, HE6, and NE3 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001- 2011.

33. Prior to the commencement of development, a Construction Method Statement shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall include provision for: i.the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors ii.loading and unloading of plant and materials iii.storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development iv.the erection and maintenance of security hoarding v.wheel washing facilities vi.measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction

Reason: To provide construction parking and storage on site and to protect the amenity of neighbouring properties, trees and the listed building during the construction process.

34. Prior to the commencement of the assisted living building hereby approved, a full sustainability statement including the specifications, location, size and appearance of the air source heat pump to serve the assisted living building must be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme must be implemented in full prior to

(169) the first occupation of any part of the assisted living building.

Reason: To ensure that the development meets the requirement of Local Plan Policy D4.

(170)

(171)

(172)

(173)

(174)

(175)

(176)

(177)

(178)

(179)

(180) Appendix to 15/00670/FUL

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

A1.1 15/00671/LBC Listed building consent for the extension and alteration of The Stables to facilitate conversion to pre-school nursery facility To be determined at the Development Control Committee meeting on 5th November 2015

A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS (Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)

A2.1 Five Year Housing Land Supply

The recent appeal decision relating to Wain Close (application / appeal reference 14/00703/OUT / APP/Y0435/A/14/2224004) indicated that the Council should not count Use Class C2 development towards its five-year housing land supply. This is because the Secretary of State detailed that is unclear whether the Council’s ‘basic requirement’ (i.e. the annual housing target prescribed by the Core Strategy) takes into account the need for institutional accommodation, which is generally excluded for national household projection purposes. Therefore, it is considered that the Council’s five-year housing land supply is not material to this application, as the proposal cannot contribute towards it.

A2.2 Nevertheless, despite not contributing to the technical calculation of housing land supply, the provision of additional Use Class C2 units would increase the diversity and flexibility of the Borough’s housing stock and meet the need for additional extra care units as detailed above, and could indirectly benefit housing supply by freeing up conventional stock.

A2.3 Ecology

Saved policies NE2 and NE3 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011 and Core Strategy Policy CS19 seek to protect wildlife and protected species and encourage biodiversity enhancements.

A2.4 The application has been accompanied by an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and a bat survey. The Council’s Countryside has advised that these documents are acceptable and seeks conditions to secure biodiversity enhancement in the form of bird and bat boxes and landscaping. As such, subject to the aforementioned conditions, no objections are raised with regards to protected species, biodiversity and saved policies NE2, NE3 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011 and policy CS19 of the Core Strategy.

A2.5 Sustainable drainage systems As of the 6th April 2015 it is a national requirement for developments of ten

(181) dwellings or more to ensure that sustainable drainage systems for the management of run-off are put in place, unless demonstrated to be inappropriate.

A2.6 The applicant submitted an amended surface drainage report during the course of the application. Discussions have been ongoing between the applicant and the Senior Planning Officer Strategic Flood Management regarding this document and comments on this matter will be provided in an update paper to the Committee.

A2.7 Sustainable Construction

Saved policy requires D4 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011 and the Sustainable Construction Supplementary Planning Document requires all new development exceeding 1000 square metres to incorporate sustainable construction.

A2.8 The applicant has submitted an Energy Statement during the course of the application which proposes the use of Air Source Heat Pumps. This document is considered to sufficiently address energy efficiency requirements of saved Policy D4 (i) and (iv) of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011 and the Sustainable Construction Supplementary Planning Document. Discussions have however been ongoing with the applicant regarding carbon offset contribution and comments on this will be provided in an update paper to Committee.

(182)

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

Comments Officer Response

A3.1 Cllr Brunning The nursery would be a very welcomed addition to the See 5.7 and 5.14. assisted living scheme. It will offer local nursery places in a purpose built building for local parents to take the children for them to socialise and learn in a safe environment.

The design of the scheme is very much in keeping with the See 5.18 - 5.23. area and will fit in very well.

The nursery will offer local jobs for local people, of any age, See 5.14 which in turn will bring additional working people to the high street for some much needed additional trade

An excellent scheme put together after a very long delay, it will be a true asset to the town and give it a much need nursery.

A3.2 Stony Stratford Parish Council The Town Council confirms that it supports the application See 5.14 which will provide facilities for both the young and the old.

In supporting the application, the Town Council is however See 5.31-5.36 very aware of the traffic and parking issues that have been highlighted in many responses by local residents.

(183) The Town Council realises that the application has to be judged on its individual merits. There is, however, no doubt that the already difficult situation in the Russell Street / Vicarage Road area will be made worse not only by this application but also by the current work underway at Russell Street School to increase its capacity by 50% and similar works that it is presumed will be undertaken in the future to St Mary and St Giles School.

The Town Council believes that MKC, as the highway authority, should undertake a traffic survey of the area to assess the situation once the school extension at Russell Street has opened to enable the impact of this application to be judged against an updated baseline. With the ages to be served by this application, it is likely that there will be issues regarding the interface of pedestrians with Vicarage Road particularly as residents of the development to access the High Street and users of the nursery cross the road to or from the Telegraph Walk car park. The Town Council asks that MKC negotiate a planning obligation to address at least the need for some form of pedestrian crossing to provide a safe crossing of the road

A3.3 Sport England Sport England Letter of 28th April 2015 See 5.4 – 5.23. Sport England is a statutory consultee and will oppose the granting of planning permission for any development which would lead to the loss of, or would prejudice the use of, all or part of a playing field, unless one of five exceptions applies.

Sport England’s comments on this application are as

(184) follows: . Aerial photographs show that the playing field the subject of this application has previously accommodated part of a running track and a Mini-Soccer pitch. . The playing field land accounts for 43% of the application site. . The applicant states that “The proposal is considered an enabling development as the monies received from the disposal of the surplus area of playing field will be re- invested into the St Mary’s and St Giles Church of England Junior School” (Planning Statement, p.6). The NPPF recognises enabling development only in the context of securing the future conservation of a heritage asset. . Paragraph 74 is a significant material consideration in the determination of this application. . The consent by the Secretary of State for Education for the disposal of the playing field is not relevant to the determination of the planning application. The Department for Education’s ‘Advice on the protection of school playing fields and public land’ is unequivocal. “Education ministers do not have any statutory powers to influence any future development of land; this is strictly a matter for the local planning authority.” . No all weather pitch has been provided at the school and any event one cannot be treated as a “replacement”, because it would appear to occupy land that was already part of the playing field and there would still be an overall net loss of playing field land. . The applicant’s documents do not meet the requirements of the first bullet point of paragraph 74 of the NPPF or E1 of Sport England’s policy. Indeed, they

(185) do not address the wider sporting and community need for playing fields; the Milton Keynes Playing Pitch Strategy Consultation Draft August 2014 (paragraph 68) notes that the local football club has a need for more pitches as its existing site floods. 10. The Planning Statement (p.44) also remarks that “the playing fields are privately owned by the school and are not intended to be used by the general public”. . Paragraph 74 of the NPPF makes no distinction between land that is in public, private or educational ownership or use.

In light of the above, Sport England objects to the proposal because it is not considered to accord with any of the exceptions in Sport England’s playing fields policy or with paragraph 74 of the NPPF.

A3.4 Sport England Letter of 25th June 2015 Sport England’s comments (on the applicant’s letter of 3 See 5.4 – 5.23 June 2015) include: . There is no extant planning permission for the construction of an artificial grass pitch at the school, no detailed design to determine whether it would be fit for purpose and sustainable in the long term and no certainty whether it could be fully funded. Additionally, for the avoidance of doubt Sport England does not consider an artificial grass pitch to be the equivalent of two natural grass pitches. . Sport England notes the following from the Milton Keynes Playing Pitch Strategy (March 2015): a) “The provision of playing fields on school sites available to the community in Milton Keynes is currently fairly

(186) limited, and is for football only, however there is some further potential.” (para. 22) b) St Mary & St Giles C of E Junior School is not among the list of schools where grass pitches are currently available for community use (para. 22). c) “As almost none of the school sites have formal community use agreements for the use of their grass pitches, this use cannot be considered secure. This is a significant issue as mini and junior teams often favour school sites (predominantly primary schools) due to child protection issues, the fact that these sites do not suffer from unofficial use, informal use, damage to the playing surface, or dog fouling, and they are usually cheaper to hire. The lack of changing provision is not an issue for mini and junior teams.” (para. 23) d) “Although not all schools are suitable nor want to open to the community it is important to understand what provision is there. A list of the size of all the primary school playing field areas is therefore provided as Appendix 1.” (para. 27) St Mary & St Giles C of E Junior School is listed in Appendix 1 and the size of its playing field is recorded. It is large enough to accommodate Mini-Soccer pitches. e) Stony Stratford Football Club has a need for more pitches as its existing site floods (para. 69). f) Included in the criteria for investment in football is: g) “Support and encourage those schools with community use to retain it, particularly in relation to minis and juniors” (responding to the points raised in para. 23) (para. 71). . It is fully recognised that the playing field at St Mary & St Giles C of E Junior School would be too small to

(187) accommodate all of Stony Stratford Football Club’s needs. However, the size of pitches it can accommodate, its proximity to the Ancell Trust Sports Ground and the travel time for the age group that play on Mini-Soccer pitches, does raise the question whether the site could meet some of the club’s needs, particularly at times when its existing site has flooded. Sport England has sought the views of the Football Association (FA) but, at the time of writing, no response has been received.

In light of the above, Sport England maintains its objection to the proposal.

A3.5 Leisure Facilities Officer No response received.

A3.6 Education Planning No response received.

A3.7 Childcare Provision No response received.

A3.8 Adult Social Care and Health Group Operational Manager (domiciliary and day care services) St Giles Resource Centre was de-registered as a care See 5.1 – 5.23 home in November 2012. It had previously been home to 34 older people with dementia and also on the site was a small day service that provided day services for older people in the North of Milton Keynes with a diagnosis of dementia.

The decision to close St Giles was made as the property

(188) was no longer fit for purpose. Under the CQC Essential Standards of Care the property could fall short of the required standards and although the care was always rated as good the toilet and bath facilities were felt not to be conducive to providing excellent person centred care we were working hard to meet.

On the closure of the resource centre the day service clients moved to the Redwood day centre at Cripps Lodge, which was expanded to accommodate 40 people per day, and the residents from the care home were all assessed and most moved to Flowers House (sheltered housing with care in Bletchley) and others went to care and nursing homes of their choice

A3.9 Head of Adult Social Care and Health Commissioning I would like to make the following points: See 5.4 – 5.23 . The population aged over 65 in Milton Keynes is likely to grow by 38% between 2015 and 2021, so there will need to be accommodation for this cohort of local residents. . The incidence of dementia amongst the population aged over 80 is 1 in 3, so there will be increasing numbers of older people with mental health needs. This will place additional demands on health and social care services . The development of this scheme in Stony Stratford would increase the local population in that area by potentially 100 older adults. This will place pressure on existing health and social care services as people age and develop physical health conditions. . For the Council, this may mean increased numbers of people requiring an assessment of need for adult social care services and associated service provision, which

(189) will potentially increase costs to the Council . For the CCG, there will be increased demand on NHS Primary Care services which could increase access times at the local surgery. . We have 2 large extra care Schemes in Milton Keynes at Lovat Fields and Shenley Wood already.

A3.10 Development Plans – Housing Land Supply To clarify the position in respect of land supply and C2 See A2.1-A2.2 development:

The recent appeal decision relating to Wain Close indicated that the Council should not count C2 development towards its 5-year housing land supply. This is because it is unclear whether our ‘basic requirement’ (i.e. the annual housing target prescribed by the Core Strategy) takes into account the need for institutional accommodation, which is generally excluded for national household projection purposes. Therefore the absence of a 5-year land supply should not be material to your application as the proposals cannot contribute towards addressing our shortfall.

Nevertheless, I would support the assertion that granting permission would increase the diversity and flexibility of the Borough’s housing stock. Despite not contributing to the technical calculation of land supply, the provision of additional C2 units could indirectly benefit housing supply by freeing up conventional stock; colleagues in Housing may be better placed to advise on this if they have not been consulted already. Please note that I have not provided policy comments outside of these supply matters and there could be other material considerations that you feel support

(190) or outweigh this benefit in the planning balance.

A3.11 Development Plans – Policy D4 I have checked the submitted documentation and can confirm that it sufficiently addresses energy efficiency requirements of policy D4 (i) and (iv) and the 2007 SPD. The agent said that energy performance requirements in the form of the D4 (carbon offset) contribution should not now exceed an equivalent to the cancelled CFSH level 4. The agent makes this assumption following a Written Ministerial Statement (MWS) by Eric Pickles from March 2015. I disagree with the agent on the carbon offsetting issue.

It should be noted that energy performance requirement in policy D4 deals with minimum energy efficiency standards achieved by developments through on-site measures and does not exceed CFSH level 4 while carbon neutrality (D4(viii)) aims to achieve development in Milton Keynes with zero carbon growth. In my view this part of policy D4 does not directly relate to or applies the CFSH, rather Policy D4(viii) seems to be in addition to the other elements of the policy which themselves ensure compliance with the then applicable EcoHomes standard (as per the Supporting Text in the Local Plan).

The MWS confirms that Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) will continue to be able to set and apply policies of their Local Plans which require compliance with energy performance standards that exceed the energy requirements of Building Regulations until commencement of amendments to the Planning and Energy Act 2008 in the Deregulation Act 2015. The WMS also says that until the

(191) amendment is commenced, along with the introduction of the zero carbon homes policy in late 2016, LPAs are expected to take this statement of the government’s intention into account in applying existing policies and not set conditions with requirements above a Code level 4 equivalent. The WMS makes a distinction between energy performance standards and the zero carbon homes policy. Until recently the expectation has been that the zero carbon homes policy would be introduced in late 2016 and that it would require newly built homes to achieve energy performance equivalent of at least CFSH level 4 with the remaining carbon emissions mitigated through allowable off- site solutions. However, in July the Government confirmed in its Productivity Plan that the zero carbon homes policy will not be implemented. Currently, there is no clarity on what constitutes the Government’s zero carbon buildings policy and it appears that this state of hiatus will continue for foreseeable future.

I consider we should continue to request the D4 obligation in the normal way for the above reasons.

A3.12 MKC Urban Design I have no objections to the revised scheme. Although I do See 5.18 - 5.23. consider the materials are important and would like to be consulted on any details submitted pursuant to a materials conditions

A3.13 Crime Prevention Design Advisor No response received.

(192) A3.14 Conservation And Archaeology Key Issue: See 5.24-5.30 The duty to give special regard to preserving or enhancing the architectural or historic character or appearance of the Conservation Area. The duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

Comments There have been a series of detailed discussions between MKC planning staff and the applicants about the scale and appearance of the proposed developments. However, broadly speaking, from a conservation perspective the poor quality of the existing building, the discreet nature of the site and, all being well, a concerted attempt to use materials and some detailing that has a resemblance to those found in the town’s conservation area will combine to soften the impact of a building that is undeniably of considerable mass and extensive layout plan. Given that the site was once occupied by a rectory it is important that as many trees as possible (where they are known to be of historic merit) are retained so that there remains some authentic reference back to the historic garden use of the site.

I have some concern about the proposal’s disregard for the conservation area boundary which is drawn around the extent of the grounds of the lost rectory; the development represents a blurring of the historic town layout in this respect.

(193) I have noted the proposed extensions / alterations to the stable building which is grade II listed by virtue of attachment to the listed wall, however this structure is only of modest interest having been previously altered. I also take the view that the proposed scheme of alteration for the stable is a reasonable attempt at extending an unassuming structure and putting it to a positive use in the context of the proposed development.

I make further brief comments on the specifics of the listed stable conversion under 15/00671/LBC but for now advise that I am satisfied that the principle and detail of development should not cause sufficient harm to the interest of listed fabric or structures or their setting to warrant an objection on the basis that proposed alterations are inconsistent with local or national planning policy and guidance in intended to protect historic buildings and spaces.

Overall I judge the harm to the conservation area to be less than significant but still of some moderate detrimental impact. However. I am persuaded that the wider public benefit of the proposed use weighs favourably for the scheme and that the principle of development is established.

In terms of detail I take the view that matters can be dealt with by conditions.

A3.15 Councils Archaeologists No comment.

(194) A3.16 Highways Development Control See 5.31 – 5.36

Response of 23rd June 2015 In summary, I am not satisfied regarding some areas of the highway consideration of this application by the applicant but my main cause for concern is the highway safety implication of not providing pick up/set down car parking for the nursery facility.

Response of 21st September 2015 I have now seen revised plans and the ‘Supplemental Note: Parking’ submitted by the applicant. The ‘Supplemental Note: Parking’ provides information that the applicant has had a change of mind on the parking provision for the nursery and has now increased the parking for that facility by 10 spaces to 13 in total. I have read the document and agree with it. The change of view by the applicant is appreciated and I can concur with this provision. The layout for the spaces is acceptable and I am pleased to confirm that the additional provision removes my previous objection. I have previously stated that I am happy with the parking provision for the main building.

The plan now shows a footpath route that avoids pedestrians using the same route that traffic will take within the site. This is an improvement but ideally should be accompanied by some indication of road crossing markings.

I have not been able to find a plan that shows visibility splays at the existing access with Vicarage Road. This was requested as part of my comments made on 23rd June. It is clear that the access will need to accommodate an

(195) increased level of movements and as a result the visibility requires checking.

I am not aware that the applicant has considered the collection of refuse from the development.

Response of 21st October 2015 Since my last comments dated 23rd June 2015 the applicant has submitted plans showing visibility splays at the site access with Vicarage Road.

Whilst these show visibility can be achieved for a 25mph speed limit the applicant has not tested the 85th percentile speed of traffic travelling along this section of Vicarage Road. I cannot accept what is in effect an untested situation and this is unacceptable. However, if the applicant can arrange the speed monitoring I will not raise an objection.

The applicant has also submitted plans for tracking a refuse wagon within the application site. I am satisfied that a refuse wagon of the type currently used to service Stony Stratford can be accommodated within the application site but there may be areas where the vehicle could potentially cause damage through overrunning on surfaces other than access road. I would therefore recommend that the applicant arranges for a ‘test run’ of the vehicle as has been offered by MKC waste services at an appropriate juncture.

A3.17 Travel Plan Coordinator The application states that there will be a net increase of 121 additional rooms under residential institution use. Therefore, a Travel Plan will be required for the Assisted

(196) Living element of the application.

Although the pre-school nursery itself does not meet threshold for a Travel Plan, I would suggest that they consider how they can encourage sustainable travel for staff and those using the site.

A3.18 Landscape Architect

Trees – Existing and Proposed: See 5.18 - 5.30 and A2.9 – A2.10. There are several quality mature trees on the application site which offer a significant visual contribution to the local character of the site and conservation area.

The proposal would have an impact on amenity and the landscape character of the area if the existing trees to be retained were not appropriately considered in the design planning process and subsequently protected during construction.

Landscape Treatments: Tree planting is required as a buffer between houses 2-24 on Vicarage Road to the south-west and north-west of the site. This is in addition to tree planting as a buffer between the school to the north-east of the site, with tree root barriers and sufficient space as necessary. This would mitigate as far as is possible the visual impact of this large building upon its surroundings; and help to screen unwanted observation from the proposed building overlooking the school grounds and neighbouring properties. The views between the school grounds and building should be screened but there would appear to be insufficient space on

(197) site to accommodate adequate landscaped buffer and tree lines where it is required.

A detailed scale landscape plan including key and planting schedule should be submitted.

Biodiversity Enhancement: The applicant will also need to show how net gains for biodiversity (compensation and enhancement measures) will be incorporated into the development and reflected as appropriate within the design of a detailed landscape scheme.

A3.19 Landscape Services Manager - Trees Email of 6th July 2015 I am very concerned about the central Hornbeam tree which See 5.18 - 5.30 is a major asset to the site and the immediate area, no details of plant and materials delivery tracking have been submitted as previously requested, nor have details for nil- excavation raised construction of roads, paths and parking spaces, tree protection fencing and ground protection. These must be submitted and agreed.

Construction of the nursery within the root protection area of tree 51 a category ‘A’ Beech will require specialist nil- excavation construction methods, details must be supplied for approval.

There is a possibility that there will be future planning applications for additional car parking, this will put pressure on retained trees and may result in their loss. Account should be taken of this in any planning conditions.

(198)

An arboricultural method statement in relation to the construction processes adjacent to retained trees particularly those where the construction is within the BS 5837 2012 root protection areas.

It appears that a number of C category trees may not pose a constraint on the development and therefore may be retained, for instance trees 29, 47, 48, 49 etc. Such trees should be identified and retained, details to be submitted.

Foundation design across the site should allow for the shrinkage potential of the soil and proximity of the trees so that future subsidence damage due to the trees does not occur.

Arboricultural Officer email of 8th October 2015 I have viewed the amended documents and most of the points I had concerns about have been addressed:

- The temporary access road layout appears to cover the tracking details requested; - The levels appear to be raised over the existing for the construction of the roads and car parking and the use of a cellular confinement system for this is clearly proposed for the main road way, is mentioned for the car parking but is not mentioned for the path through the root zone of the Hornbeam T93. This appears to cover concerns about the root zones of the trees affected but the path must be of raised, no-dig construction; - The route of the rising storm-water main and its run out to the highway takes the path of least apparent impact on root

(199) zones of retained trees which is good, any new connections for electric, gas, telecoms etc. should take the same route; - The piled foundations for the nursery extension avoid the need for trenching and strip foundations, in order to effectively minimise damage to the root protection area of the retained trees the design should include for ground protection for all but the immediate area of each pile, the connecting beams between the piles should be entirely above ground level – the Abbey-Pynford system is a good example of how this is achieved; - The tree protection fence construction-drawing shown on plan is not the BS5837:2012 default fencing as shown in figure 2, page 20. The default fencing is however specified in tree report. The tree protection fencing must be of the default type unless the driving of poles into the ground is not possible; - Section 5 of the arboricultural method statement is good, although I prefer the wording of standard tree protection condition 1;

On the whole, notwithstanding the few issues I mention above, I am happy with the proposals in relation to the arboricultural matters.

A3.20 Countryside Officer The submitted Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey reports the See A2.9 – A2.10. site to be of medium ecological value. The report states the existing on site buildings as being of moderate bat roost potential and that dedicated bat surveys would be required.

Bats The subsequent Bat Presence / Absence Survey is

(200) acceptable and maked two recommendations regarding the development of the site these being:

1. Bat and bird boxes are required within the new development design. A suitable planting scheme is also required, including species beneficial to wildlife with native trees and shrubs used to landscape areas surrounding all buildings.

2. A suitable lighting scheme will be incorporated to prevent light pollution into the garden areas after dark with suitable PIR timers only activated by large moving objects (NOT BATS).

Nesting Birds The submitted Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey identified many existing vegetation and built features that provided habitat for nesting birds. All British birds, their nests and eggs (with certain limited exceptions) are protected by law under Section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The report recommendations regarding avoiding harm to nesting birds will need to be adhered to.

Mitigation and Compensation I would suggest conditions that relate to biodiversity for the whole site including details of the bat tubes, bird bricks, bat suitable lighting and detailed landscaping elements that are beneficial to wildlife.

A3.21 Beds, Bucks And Oxon Wildlife Trust No response received.

(201)

A3.22 Environmental Health Manager A site investigation has been carried out and I am satisfied See A2.3-A2.8 that the site is fit for its proposed purpose in respect of ground conditions.

A3.23 Senior Planning Officer - Flood Management Insufficient information provided to demonstrate meeting the See A2.11-A2.12 requirements of the NPPF, the Non-Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (2015), the drainage requirements of the Milton Keynes Core Strategy (2013) and the MKC Local Guidance.

A3.24 Environment Agency We have no objection to this application.

A3.25 Anglian Water No response received.

A3.26 Natural England No comments.

A3.27 Waste Disposal No response received.

A3.29 Planning Obligations Email of 23 September 2015 See A2.15-A2.19 The s106 requirement for this scheme has been calculated based on 30 x 1 bed and 20 x 2 bed units taken from the proposed plans.

Based on Extra-care type facilities, independent living is

(202) encouraged and additionally the Planning Practice Guidance recognises that C2 uses result in housing growth, and therefore should be counted towards the 5 year housing land supply.

To that end, the following requirements have been identified as being required as a result of the impact of the development. Contributions are required under Policy CS21 and Saved Local Plan Policy PO4 and in order to calculate contributions that are reasonably related to the impact of this type of residential institution scheme, I have used the figures contained with the Social Infrastructure SPD and the Leisure Recreation and Sports SPG. This ensures the contributions are fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

Social Infrastructure Contribution Library £7,884.00 Crematorium/Burial Grounds £2,160.00 Health Facilities £36,990.00 Waste Management £0.00 Emergency Services £1,188.00 Voluntary Sector £4,482.00 Public Art - 1% 1% capital costs

Leisure & Recreation Contribution Community Hall £5,015.09 Local Parks £5,292.00 Allotments £2,025.00

Compliance with the Sustainable Construction SPD is also required which may result in a contribution towards the

(203) Carbon Offset Fund at a rate of £200 per tonne of carbon anticipated to be emitted by the development in 1 year. This includes regulated and unregulated emissions.

These calculations do not include any contributions which may be identified as part of consultation with the Town Council and service departments/providers, such as Passenger Transport and Highways.

Note: • I have assumed that the waste management will be dealt with under a private contract with a waste operator, however if this is not the case, then we will seek contributions towards Waste Management and Receptacles. • Public Art is to be calculated in accordance with saved Local Plan Policy PO4 and the value of the obligation is a minimum of 1% of the capital costs of the development (excluding land). Due to the nature of the development, we would encourage a scheme to be carried out post- development onsite

This gives a total requirement of £65,036.09 plus Public Art, Carbon Neutrality and any offsite highways/passenger transport requirements.

Email 12 October 2015 I would like to confirm that the contributions laid out are compliant with the NPPF and CIL regulations (both regulation 122 and 123). Contributions are sought to ensure the impact of the development it mitigated and services and infrastructure that the users of the development may wish to access can support the additional in area growth as a result.

(204)

I have responded to the applicant’s queries as raised below. Please note I am still liaising with service providers and the Town Council so may expand on any of these responses in due course.

. Libraries. I note your comments in regard to this contribution and that you agree the users of the development may use this local facility. . Health Facilities. I have asked our colleagues at NHS England to respond to this point and will revert back to you shortly. . Public Art. Public Art is sought to enhance the development is in accordance with saved local plan policy PO4 and the Social Infrastructure SPD. Public Art is not considered as Infrastructure and as such the CIL Pooling Restriction Regulation 123 does not apply. . Local Parks. Thank you for the additional information about the likely residents. On this basis, I agree this contribution is . Allotments. As above, I agree this contribution is not required from this scheme.

A3.30 Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application: 11 Gatcombe Great Holm Milton Keynes 1 Vyne Crescent Great Holm Milton Keynes 16 York Road Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 110 High Street Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 22 Vicarage Road Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 1 Frankston Avenue Stony Stratford Milton Keynes

(205) 99 High Street Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 99 High Street Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 6 Vicarage Walk Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 32 Vicarage Road Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 7 Magdalen Close Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 27 Russell Street Stony Stratford Milton Keynes Corner Cottage 23 Russell Street Stony Stratford 3 Vicarage Walk Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 20 Vicarage Walk Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 2 Vicarage Road Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 14 Vicarage Road Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 21 Vicarage Road Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 26 Magdalen House Magdalen Close Stony Stratford 23 Magdalen House Magdalen Close Stony Stratford 20 Magdalen House Magdalen Close Stony Stratford 6 Magdalen House Magdalen Close Stony Stratford 3 Magdalen House Magdalen Close Stony Stratford 20 Magdalen Close Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 18 Magdalen Close Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 22 New Street Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 18 Vicarage Walk Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 15 Vicarage Walk Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 12 Vicarage Walk Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 17 Magdalen House Magdalen Close Stony Stratford 14 Magdalen House Magdalen Close Stony Stratford 9 Magdalen Close Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 6 Magdalen Close Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 15 Magdalen Close Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 12 Magdalen Close Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 1 Magdalen Close Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 31 Russell Street Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 29 Russell Street Stony Stratford Milton Keynes

(206) 8 Vicarage Walk Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 5 Vicarage Walk Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 1 Vicarage Walk Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 4 Vicarage Road Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 28 Vicarage Road Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 17 - 19 Vicarage Road Stony Stratford Milton Keynes Scout Hall Vicarage Road Stony Stratford 1 Magdalen House Magdalen Close Stony Stratford 31 Magdalen House Magdalen Close Stony Stratford 1 - 30 Magdalen House Magdalen Close Stony Stratford Store Masonic Hall New Street Masonic Hall New Street Stony Stratford Stores And Garage Russell Street Stony Stratford St Mary And St Giles C of E Junior School King George Crescent Stony Stratford 2 Clare Stables Vicarage Road Stony Stratford 28 Magdalen House Magdalen Close Stony Stratford 25 Magdalen House Magdalen Close Stony Stratford 11 Magdalen House Magdalen Close Stony Stratford 8 Magdalen House Magdalen Close Stony Stratford 5 Magdalen House Magdalen Close Stony Stratford 28A Vicarage Road Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 20 Russell Street Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 22 Vicarage Walk Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 2 Vicarage Walk Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 18 Vicarage Road Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 12 Vicarage Road Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 22 Magdalen House Magdalen Close Stony Stratford 19 Magdalen House Magdalen Close Stony Stratford 2 Magdalen House Magdalen Close Stony Stratford 2 Magdalen Close Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 17 Magdalen Close Stony Stratford Milton Keynes

(207) 14 Magdalen Close Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 17 New Street Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 33 Russell Street Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 30 Russell Street Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 14 Vicarage Walk Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 11 Vicarage Walk Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 8 Vicarage Road Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 10 Magdalen House Magdalen Close Stony Stratford 13 Magdalen House Magdalen Close Stony Stratford 16 Magdalen House Magdalen Close Stony Stratford 30 Magdalen House Magdalen Close Stony Stratford 1 Clare Stables Vicarage Road Stony Stratford 8 Magdalen Close Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 5 Magdalen Close Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 3 Magdalen Close Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 11 Magdalen Close Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 28 Russell Street Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 24 Russell Street Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 7 Vicarage Walk Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 4 Vicarage Walk Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 21 Vicarage Walk Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 22 Vicarage Road Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 26 Vicarage Road Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 27 Magdalen House Magdalen Close Stony Stratford 24 Magdalen House Magdalen Close Stony Stratford 7 Magdalen House Magdalen Close Stony Stratford 4 Magdalen House Magdalen Close Stony Stratford 24 Vicarage Road Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 24 London Road Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 5 Creslow Court Galley Hill MK11 1NN 5 Crosshills Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 5A Hawkwell Estate Old Stratford Milton Keynes

(208) 4 Magdalen Close Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 19 Magdalen Close Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 19 Vicarage Walk Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 16 Vicarage Walk Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 16 Vicarage Road Stony Stratford Milton Keynes 21 Magdalen House Magdalen Close Stony Stratford

Site notices were also posted at the site and an advert placed in the newspaper to publicise the application.

A3.31 16 letters of comment have been received of which 9 clearly indicate their support for the proposal (with one of the supporters writing in twice). The letters include the following comments in support of and concerns regarding the proposal : - The proposal would provide valuable facilities for the community. - There is a great need for specialist accommodation for the elderly in Stony Stratford. - The elderly person’s accommodation needs to be affordable. - The proposal would enable elderly relatives to live near to their families. - The day nursery is much needed. - The number of young children in the town has and will increase further. - The location of the nursery between two schools is ideal to make the transition between school and nursery easier. - There is potential for the nursery facilities to be used by occupiers of the Western Expansion Area. - The plan to utilise an existing building that would otherwise fall into disrepair is to be supported.

(209) - The proposal would provide local employment opportunities and attract shoppers to the high street. - The mature trees in the grounds greatly enhance the area; Concerned about the large oak tree in the school field; preserving trees is essential to keeping the character of Stony. - The open fenced boundary to Vicarage Walk should not be lost as it contributes to the character of the area. - The stone wall to Vicarage Walk originally ran to the turning circle in Vicarage Walk and this should be replaced as part of the proposal with the collapsed section repaired. - Photovoltaic panels should be installed on the building. - The appearance of the development is pleasing and it would fit in with existing buildings in the area. - The proposal would overlook and result in more light being taken from No. 16 Vicarage Walk. - Traffic and parking problems in the area would be worsened by the proposal and as such parking needs to be looked at very seriously and enforced. - Concerned that insufficient parking is proposed for the care facility and nursery. - Traffic calming measures should be introduced. - There are no traffic issues along Russell Street, there is ample parking in the Telegraph Walk car park, nursery drop off times tend to be earlier and later than school ones and it is highly likely that local parents would walk.

St Mary and Giles C of E Junior School also submitted a letter in support of the application directly to the Council which includes the following points: - Accept the need for the local authority to sell part of the playing field

(210) - Content that they would still have ample field to meet the PE and Games curriculum needs of the school now and in the future. - The Trustees received assurances from the local authority that money raised from the sale of this land would be reinvested in the School to enable it to expand and meet the demand for additional places for children.

A further thirteen letters of objection from occupiers of six properties have been received. These letters include the following points : - The Council is really the client for the nursery and the application should clarify this. - The local school would lose a considerable amount of its playing field. This is a major concern as the facility is used by Russell Street School as well as St Mary and St Giles School. In addition, the schools are set to expand over the next few years and more land and playing field space is required not less. Also, the part of the field that would remain is subject to flooding. - The proposal does not accord with Policy L2 and should be refused. Whilst the accommodation for the elderly would be valuable, it is not exceptional enough facility to set aside policy L2 and there is no proven need or public benefit for the provision of a nursery. - There is significant existing nursery provision in the area including: • Rowans Children’s Centre, Moorfoot • Stony Stratford Pre-School & Day Nursery, Walker Avenue • Montessori, Wolverton Road • Adorable, London Road (from September 2015) • Queen Eleanor pre-school, Galley Hill

(211) • Russell Street pre-school , Russell Street (from September 2015) • Old Stratford pre-school, Deanshanger Road - The plans for the nursery show very basic, almost minimal, provision with for example no waste storage or laundry. - The works to The Stables needed to be completed to make a seamless transition into the existing structure. - The design of the development could be improved by reference to the character of the former vicarage. - The care facility is almost three times the size of the existing care home and, although it appears to be a more attractive building then the rather unremarkable one that it replaces, it is not clear how it otherwise benefits the Conservation Area. This is a substantial building that deserves to be unique and better contribute to the local character. - The Yew trees are not compatible with the nursery; yew trees produce toxic berries. - The care facility would overlook the private garden of No. 22 Vicarage Walk. - Concerned with the proposed electricity sub-station for the development being located directly outside the front of 14 Vicarage Walk. - The transport assessment is based on a rural nursery which is not comparable. - The level of parking for the nursery and care home is insufficient. - Car parks in the area are already at capacity. - Local roads are already congested and hazardous and this will deteriorate further with the expansion of both primary schools in the town - The Council has previously commissioned traffic and

(212) parking surveys which have indicated the problems. - The location of the nursery is unsuitable. - The access to the site is a concern. Russell Street is important for the functioning of Stony Stratford and at times during the day is chaotic with too much traffic and too narrow pavements. New Street has a blind junction opposite the site. - Neither St Mary and Giles School or Russell Street School have sufficient parking. - The fundamental issue facing this application is increased vehicular and pedestrian access.

(213)

APP 03

Application Number: 15/00671/LBC

Listed building consent for the extension and alteration of The Stables to facilitate conversion to pre-school nursery facility

AT St Giles Residential Home, St Giles Mews, Stony Stratford

FOR Yourlife Management Services

Target: 29th June 2015

Ward: Stony Stratford Parish: Stony Stratford Town Council

Report Author/Case Officer: Adam Smith Contact Details: 01908 252499 [email protected]

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

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

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

1.1 The Site

The application site is located to the north eastern side of Stony Stratford and lies on the corner of Vicarage Road and Vicarage Walk.

1.2 The boundary walls which front Vicarage Road and Vicarage Walk are Grade II listed and are stone garden walls of the former rectory/vicarage which has been lost. The Stables is a modest pitched roof building, located in the southern corner of the site and is listed by virtue of its attachment to the boundary wall.

1.3 In addition, the site contains a two storey care home set in treed grounds which is not listed but falls within the Stony Stratford Conservation Area. The site extends into part of the playing field of St Mary and St Giles School which falls outside the Stony Stratford Conservation Area. Details of the location of the site and its relationship to surrounding properties can be seen in the plans

(214) attached to this report.

1.4 The Proposal

This application seeks listed building consent for the extension and alteration of The Stables to facilitate its conversion to a pre-school nursery facility.

1.5 The proposed works include extensions to the north west and north east side of The Stables and a bay window to the north west side. The extension to the north west side would have a gabled roof incorporating a flat roof link to the main building. It would measure some 19.8 metres, in width, 6 metres in depth and 5.6 metres in height. The extension to the north east side would continue the form of the existing building with a depth of 3 metres. The resultant pre- school nursery building would have a floor space (GIA) of some 174 square metres. Details of the proposals can be seen in the plans attached to this report.

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

2.1 National Policy

National Planning Policy Framework

Paragraphs 128-141 Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment

2.2 Local Policy

Core Strategy (2013)

CS20 Historic and Natural Environment

2.3 Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011 (Saved Policies)

HE2-HE5 Listed Buildings

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

3.1 The main issue is the impact of the development on the significance of the heritage assets. The listed buildings on the site comprise the Grade II listed garden walls which define the boundary of the lost rectory and The Stables which is listed by virtue of attachment. Special regard and considerable importance and weight have been given to the impact of the development on the listed building. The proposal would extend and change the use of The Stables, however, the building has previously been altered and is only listed by virtue of its attachment to the Grade II boundary wall. It is considered that the proposed works would not give rise to sufficient harm to the interest of listed fabric or structures to warrant an objection.

(215) 4.0 RECOMMENDATION (The decision that officers recommend to the Committee)

4.1 It is recommended that listed building consent be granted subject to conditions set out in section 6 of this report.

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

5.1 Sections 16 and 66 and of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 place a duty on local planning authorities to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

5.2 In addition, Policy CS19 requires development proposals to protect and enhance the significance of the Borough’s heritage assets with Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011 saved policies HE2, HE4 and HE5 relating specifically to listed buildings. Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework seeks the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment.

5.3 The listed buildings on the site comprise the Grade II listed garden walls which define the boundary of the lost rectory and The Stables which is listed by virtue of attachment. Special regard and considerable importance and weight have been given to the impact of the development on the listed building.

5.4 The proposed extensions and additions to The Stables would include a deep projection with a contemporary appearance including timber cladding and large areas of glazing and also glazed bay window to the north west side. However, the Senior Conservation Officer advises that this building is only of limited significance having been previously altered and is listed only by virtue of attachment to the walls, noting that there are benefits to be gained from adapting it to a pre-school nursery use. Furthermore, he advises that the principle and detail of the development would not cause sufficient harm to the interest of listed fabric or structures or their setting to warrant an objection on the basis that proposed alterations are inconsistent with local or national planning policy and guidance intended to protect historic buildings and spaces. The proposal would preserve the features of the listed buildings of special architectural or historic interest. The proposed development would comply with policy CS19 of the Core Strategy and saved policies HE2, HE4 and HE5 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011.

5.5 It is recommended that listed building consent be granted subject to conditions set out in section 6 of this report.

(216) 6.0 CONDITIONS (The conditions that need to be imposed on any planning permission for this development to ensure that the development is satisfactory. To meet legal requirements all conditions must be Necessary, Relevant, Enforceable, Precise and Reasonable )

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

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

2. Prior to the commencement of the construction of the additions/extensions to The Stables hereby approved, sample panels of all stonework types to be used in the construction of the additions/extensions to The Stables shall be erected on site and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The sample panels shall use the proposed walling material, mortar type, bond, coursing and pointing. The panel shall remain on site until the works are completed. The works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approve details.

Reason: To preserve the character and special interest of the Listed Building and its setting in accordance with policies HE5 and HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

3. Prior to the commencement of the construction of the additions/extensions to The Stables hereby approved, samples of the timber cladding and associated plinth to be used in the construction of the additions/extensions to The Stables shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approve details.

Reason: To preserve the character and special interest of the Listed Building and its setting in accordance with policies HE5 and HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

4. Prior to the commencement of the construction of the additions/extensions to The Stables hereby approved, full details of the proposed window types shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details shall include window elevation drawings, horizontal and vertical cross sections at a scale of at least 1:5. Details shall confirm the finish of the windows, depth of reveal (to facing materials) and include opening method and sill detail. Trickle vents shall be absent unless where specifically agreed by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved particulars.

Reason: To preserve the character and special interest of the Listed Building and its setting in accordance with policies HE5 and HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

(217)

5. Prior to the commencement of the construction of the additions/extensions to The Stables hereby approved, full details of the proposed external doors shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details shall include elevation drawings, horizontal and vertical cross sections at a scale of at least 1:5 and confirm the proposed finish. The works shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To preserve the character and special interest of the Listed Building and its setting in accordance with policies HE5 and HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

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

Reason: To preserve the character and special interest of the Listed Building and its setting in accordance with policies HE5 and HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

7. Prior to the installation of rainwater goods to the additions/extensions to The Stables hereby approved, full details of the proposed rainwater goods shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To preserve the character and special interest of the Listed Building and its setting in accordance with policies HE5 and HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

8. Notwithstanding the submitted details, prior to the commencement of the extension/alterations to The Stables hereby approved, full details of the boiler flue, kitchen extract and soil pipes to serve The Stables shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The boiler flue, kitchen extract and soil pipes shall be installed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To preserve the character and special interest of the Listed Building and its setting in accordance with policies HE5 and HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

9. Notwithstanding the submitted details, no alteration or replacement of the existing pedestrian and vehicular gates to The Stables until or unless details have previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved details.

(218)

Reason: To preserve the character and special interest of the Listed Building and its setting in accordance with policies HE5 and HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

(219)

(220)

(221)

(222) Appendix to 15/00671/LBC

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

A1.1 15/00670/FUL Demolition of existing residential care home and erection of Assisted Living (Extra Care) accommodation for the frail elderly including communal facilities and car parking and conversion and extension of The Stables into a pre- school nursery facility To be determined at the Development Control Committee Meeting on 5th November 2015.

A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS (Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)

A2.1 None.

(223)

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

Comments Officer Response

A3.1 Stony Stratford Parish Council Noted.

The Town Council confirms that it supports the application which will provide facilities for both the young and the old.

In supporting the application, the Town Council is however very aware of the traffic and parking issues that have been highlighted in many responses by local residents.

The Town Council realises that the application has to be judged on its individual merits. There is, however, no doubt that the already difficult situation in the Russell Street / Vicarage Road area will be made worse not only by this application but also by the current work underway at Russell Street School to increase its capacity by 50% and similar works that it is presumed will be undertaken in the future to St Mary and St Giles School.

The Town Council believes that MKC, as the highway authority, should undertake a traffic survey of the area to assess the situation once the school extension at Russell Street has opened to enable the impact of this application to be judged against an updated baseline. With the ages to be served by this application, it is likely that there will be issues regarding the interface of pedestrians with Vicarage Road

(224) particularly as residents of the development to access the High Street and users of the nursery cross the road to or from the Telegraph Walk car park. The Town Council asks that MKC negotiate a planning obligation to address at least the need for some form of pedestrian crossing to provide a safe crossing of the road

A3.2 Senior Conservation Officer See Paras 5.1 – 5.4

The rectory has been demolished and the site is now occupied by a modern sheltered accommodation building. The development now being proposed occupies the same garden land contained within the stone boundary walls that once pertained to the rectory and so, on this basis, I advise that there is also a setting issue for the walls. The proposals are not seeking to make alterations to the listed wall itself however.

Having examined the former stable block I concluded that the structure is much altered but retains some residual interest in terms of its presence being indicative of the level of provision afforded a rectory and the historic location of the stable block in relation to the house.

As I attach only limited significance to the listed stable and there are demonstrable public benefits to be gained from adapting it to a new use as a nursery I find that there could be a case in principle for its alteration.

In terms of harm to the listed walls I find that the key component surviving on the site are the trees and their contribution to the sense of a historic garden which the walls

(225) were once intended to partially enclose. Assuming minimal harm to extant trees and reviving garden features I would advise that there would be very limited reasons for not accepting the principle of development in the grounds on the basis of harm caused to the setting of the walls.

On balance, because of the residual nature of significance associated with the stable building combined with the proposal to actually retain it as part of the nursery development and the limited further impact on setting from the erosion of surviving trees in the former rectory garden, I take the view that there are insufficient grounds to object to the proposed development in principle based on inconsistencies with local and national policy and guidance.

Detail The proposals seek an extension that would double the floor plan of the existing stable building and intensify the plot use. The extension would also extend beyond the secondary site access gap in the wall meaning that it will be seen from public vantage points on Vicarage Road.

The external configuration and materials (large areas of glazing and untreated vertical cedar board) are not of a type that reference historic details and materials found in the conservation area. However, I also accept that the final appearance of the building will be quite muted and unassuming, if contemporary, and as a result not appear as a jarring overly conspicuous mismatch to the listed walls, the stable building or other historic buildings in the vicinity. The nursery will also appear as subordinate to the proposed larger scale supported living development which

(226) accompanies this proposal that will dominate the site. In part this is due to the height of the extension which will be single storey and the muted nature of the choice of external cladding.

I therefore also conclude that in terms of detail there will be insufficient visual disruption to the character or appearance of the conservation area or weakening of the listed walls’ and stables’ significance to warrant an objection on matters relating to scheme details and inconsistency with local and national policy and guidance.

A3.3 Local Residents Noted.

The application was advertised by a site notice and an advertisement in the newspaper.

2 representations have been received to the application. These representations are in support of the application but raise parking and highway safety issues.

(227) APP 04

Application Number: 15/01025/REM Major

Reserved matters application pursuant to outline planning permission 13/02382/OUTEIS for access and layout - first phase infrastructure works comprising roads, attenuation ponds, foul and surface water drainage including ditch diversions and associated earthworks

AT Land At Glebe Farm, South of A421, Newport Road

FOR Gallagher Estates

Target: 5th August 2015

Ward: Danesborough And Walton Parish: Wavendon Parish Council

Report Author/Case Officer: Sarah Hine Contact Details: 01908 252283 [email protected]

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

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

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

1.2 The Site The application site, measures approximately 65.66 hectares, and consists of two areas to the north and south of Newport Road. The site is located within the Strategic Land Allocation Area and falls within the area covered by the Strategic Land Allocation Development Framework Supplementary Planning Document as appropriate for up to 2,900 residential dwellings.

1.3 The larger of these two areas, is situated immediately to the south of the A421 and Lower End Road forms the southern boundary of the site. The eastern boundary of this area adjoins land within third party control (Mereton College, University of Oxford and Wavendon Residential Properties LLP), which also forms part of the Strategic Land Allocation, and is the subject of a separate outline planning consent 14/00350/OUTEIS. The smaller area, which lies to the

(228) south of Newport Road, is located to the north of Wavendon Village and immediately east of Stockwell Lane. The application site excludes ‘The Gables’ which is occupied by the Sibley Haulage depot and adjoins the site north of Lower End Road.

1.4 The topography of the application site slopes gradually from south to north with an approximate gradient of 1:60. Details of the location of the site and its relationship to surrounding properties can be seen in the plans attached to this report.

1.5 The Proposal Reserved matters planning permission is now sought pursuant to outline planning permission 13/02382/OUTEIS for the first phase of infrastructure provision on the site including principle road infrastructure, attenuation ponds, foul and surface water drainage which includes a ditch diversion and associated earth works.

1.6 This application does not include the detailed design of dwellings or features within the site; a Design Code for this site is currently under consideration, which will establish the design principles. The code will set parameters for the development including appearance of dwellings and local infrastructure.

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

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

2.1 National Policy National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 11, 12, 13, 14 The Presumption in favour of sustainable development 35 Promoting sustainable transport 99 and 103 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change 109, 111 and 112. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

2.2 Local Policy Core Strategy CS1 (Milton Keynes Development Strategy) CS5 (Strategic Reserve Areas) CS13 (Ensuring High Quality, Well Designed Places) CS14 (Sustainable Construction) CS19 (Healthier and Safer Communities) CS20 (The Historic and Natural Environment)

2.3 Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 S3 (City Expansion Areas) S4 (Phasing of the City Expansion Areas) D1 (Impact of Development Proposals on Locality) T1 (The Transport User Hierarchy)

(229) T2 (Access for those with Impaired Mobility) T3 (Pedestrians and Cyclists) T10 (Traffic) T15 (Parking Provision) EA2 (Expansion Area)

2.4 Supplementary Planning Guidance Parking Standards for Milton Keynes (2009) Strategic Land Allocation Development Framework Milton Keynes Drainage Strategy, Development and Flood Risk (2004)

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

3.1 Principle of development The principle of the development of this site was established in the outline consent therefore this application only considers the proposed road, attenuation and surface water drainage infrastructure.

3.2 Highways Matters The application proposes the principal roads within the site, which are the first phase of highways infrastructure. The proposed highways are in accordance with the outline consent and Strategic Land Allocation Development Framework and are therefore considered acceptable.

3.3 Attenuation ponds The application proposes the development of five attenuation basins to deal with surface water drainage within the site. The site is within the jurisdiction of the Bedford Internal Drainage Board, representations confirm that the drainage proposals are in accordance within the agreed drainage strategy and discharge rates and are therefore acceptable a condition is proposed to secure the discharge rates.

3.4 Foul and surface water drainage including ditch diversions and associated earthworks The application proposes the development of the surface water and foul water drainage system within the site. The drainage scheme will include the diversion of ditches within the site and associated earthworks which are considered to be acceptable.

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

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

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

5.1 Principle of development The principle of a residential development on this site was established within

(230) the outline application 13/02382/OUTEIS which was approved on the 2nd April 2015. The application proposals are in accordance with the Strategic Land Allocation Development Framework.

5.2 Highways Matters The proposed highways included within this application are in considered to be in conformity with development framework and principles established within the outline planning application. The Highways Officer has confirmed no objection to the technical details of the road layout subject to the conditions proposed within Section 6 of this report.

5.3 Future proofing grid road In accordance with SLA Development Framework and outline planning permission the current infrastructure application proposes the safeguarding of land required for the future dualing of the grid road and safeguarding for the provision of an underpass and is therefore considered acceptable.

5.4 Newport road traffic signals Representations from Woburn Sands Town Council have commented on the proposed installation of traffic lights on Newport Road (A5130). The principle of an access from the site onto Newport Road was established at outline however, the traffic management of this access is outside of this application and will be subject a separate consent.

5.5 Attenuation Ponds The application proposes 5 detention basins located at the sites northern boundary which is in accordance with the locations identified in the approved master plan and parameters land use plan. The attenuation ponds are considered to be in accordance with drainage principles set out within the adopted drainage strategy SPD and are therefore considered in principle to be acceptable.

5.6 The Parks Trust has commented on the landscaping treatments and ecological functions of the attenuation basins in accordance with design principles included within the outline applications Design and Access Statement. This application seeks approval for the technical details of the attenuation and drainage strategy. It is therefore considered that information in relation to the landscaping strategy including planting schemes and species is secured within the outline planning permission condition requiring full landscaping details and principles will be established within the Design Code.

5.7 Foul and surface water drainage including ditch diversions and associated earthworks The application proposes the use of a new drainage ditch systems which will link into the existing ditches and the attenuation system. The drainage ditch systems will benefit from a 5 metre maintenance easement. The proposed ditch system is in accordance with drainage solutions which are set out as acceptable within the adopted drainage strategy and SLA framework.

5.8 The proposals require ground raising to the north west area of the site in order

(231) to facilitate gravity drainage. The raising is required in three locations within the site to mitigate the level change between the east and west and ranges from 0- 2.0 metres. Given that this work is required to maintain the drainage system and minimum ground cover levels this element of the proposals is considered to be acceptable.

5.9 The application proposes a site wide storm water drainage system. The Internal Drainage Board have commented that on the basis that the proposal follow the agreed strategy of restricting all surface water discharge to the equivalent of 3 litres per second per hectare and the applicant obtains all the necessary land drainage consents there are no further comments. On this basis it is considered that the technical details of the drainage system within the site are acceptable.

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

1. Application for approval of all the reserved matters in respect of all phases or parts of the development shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the 2nd April 2025.

Reason: To comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. No development shall take place until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) for this phase of development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP shall set out site procedures to be adopted during the course of construction, including inter alia construction traffic routing, how dust and other emission will be controlled and construction noise and vibrations from the development in each case so as to cause minimum disturbance. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed CEMP.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the surrounding residential areas and to comply with policy D1 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

3. No development shall take place until construction vehicle wheel cleansing facilities have been provided to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Such facilities shall be used by all construction vehicles leaving the site and shall be permanently maintained in working order throughout the construction period.

Reason: To ensure the safe and efficient use of the highway and protect the amenity of the surrounding residential areas and to comply with policy D1 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

4. Prior to the commencement of the development details of the estate roads and footways shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No dwelling shall be occupied until the estate roads and

(232) 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: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the development.

5. There shall be no other means of vehicular and pedestrian access to the development other than shown in the approved drawings.

Reason: To minimise danger and inconvenience to highway users.

6. Development shall not commence until such time as details of the visibility splays have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No development shall take place until the visibility splays have been laid out and constructed in accordance with the approved details. The splays shall be kept free of any obstruction in excess of 1.05m in height.

Reason: To provide adequate visibility and to ensure the safety and convenience of users of the highway.

7. Prior to the commencement of the development, details of the disposal of surface water from the highway shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no dwelling shall be occupied until the works for the disposal of surface water have been constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To minimise danger and inconvenience to highway users.

(233) Appendix to 15/01025/REM

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

A1.1 13/02382/OUTEIS The development of Glebe Farm as part of a mixed-use sustainable urban extension comprising: up to 1,140 dwellings; land for one primary school (for children between the ages of 2 - 11) and one secondary school (for children between the ages of 12 and 18); a mixed use neighbourhood centre comprising of a retail food store of approximately 350 square metres (gross floor space area), additional non-food retail, a GP health centre; multi- functional green infrastructure (totalling approximately 18.5 hectares.) including parkland, sports pitches, children's play areas, informal open space, allotments, woodland, landscaping and surface water attenuation; new multi- functional community building; vehicular access points from the A421 via the Fen Farm roundabout, Newport Road and a future connection to the adjoining development land to the east; and internal streets, footpaths and cycleways. PERMITTED 02.04.2015

A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS (Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)

A2.1 S.106 This application is covered by the Section 106 agreement which was made at outline stage and therefore this application does not trigger the requirement for another agreement.

(234)

(235) (236)

(237)

(238)

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

Comments Officer Response

A3.1 Cranfield Airport No response received

A3.2 Councils Archaelogists Noted Any significant archaeological remains within the site should be dealt with under the programmes of evaluation and mitigation set out under the relevant planning condition on the outline application.

In relation to this application I would note that field evaluation of this area required under the outline condition has not yet been completed and reported on or mitigation in relation to any areas of archaeological significance agreed.

A3.3 British Waterways No response received

A3.4 British Pipeline Agency Noted Not in zone of interest

A3.5 Footpath Officer No response received

A3.6 RAMBLE Ramblers Association No response received

(239) A3.7 Parish – Wavendon No response received

A3.8 Ward - Danesborough And Walton - Cllr D Hopkins Discussed in paragraph 5. 3 Comments made following the consultation session on 9th July 2015: I am concerned about the future proofing of the grid roads and the estate road crossing the grid roads. Whilst I appreciate the design deals with the here and now and fulfils the obligation to reserve a grid road corridor the design does not allow for satisfactory estate road crossing points, especially public transport crossing points. I would also seek reassurance that cycle/redway and or footway crossing on dual carriageway points will have reserved land for underpasses to be constructed at some stage in the future. Otherwise, I will be keen to see the evidence (traffic Discussed in paragraph 5.4 modelling) work that has been produced to support the erection of three sets of traffic lights along Newport Road in terms of flow of traffic. There are very natural concerns in Wavendon that drivers may choose to rat run through the village via Walton Road.

A3.9 Ward - Danesborough And Walton - Cllr Bramall No response received

A3.10 Ward - Danesborough And Walton - Cllr V Hopkins No response received

A3.11 Highways Development Control Discussed in paragraph 5. 2 This planning application is a reserved matters application for access and layout - first phase infrastructure works

(240) comprising roads, attenuation ponds, foul and surface water drainage including ditch diversions and associated earthworks.

This planning application is in conformity with the development framework and outline application.

However, it should be noted the radius provided as a traffic calming feature on the bend shown on drawing No. 14057 – C203 is unacceptable. In accordance with this authority’s highway design table 4.0, road type 5 should have a minimum C.L radius of 60m. The centre line radius shown is only half that value. I would only be willing to accept a lesser radius if tracking can be provided showing a car and a bus are able to pass each other without encroachment into each other’s lanes. Should some form of widening be required on the bend then in this instance we would only accept widening on the inside of the bend.

With regards to the visibility splays in accordance with MK guidance for 30mph road a forward visibility distance of 43m needs to be provided with no obstruction of height greater than 1.05m to be located within the visibility splay.

Conclusion:

I have no highways objection subject to conditions.

A3.12 Landscape Architect Noted No comment

(241) A3.13 Councils Countryside Officer No response received

A3.14 Landscape Services Manager – Trees No response received

A3.15 Environment Agency Noted No comment

A3.16 Anglian Water No response received

A3.17 Internal Drainage Board Discussed in paragraph 5. 9 On the basis that the proposed development is following the agreed strategy of restricting all surface water discharges to the equivalent of 3 litres per second per hectare and all Land Drainage Consents are obtained, the board has no further comments to make.

A3.18 Bucks And MK Environmental Records Centre No response received

A3.19 Central Beds Council Noted, Eagle Farm South and the subject land is outside of No objections however, please note that the proposed this application site. development should safeguard the future dualling of the A421 at the Eagle Farm end of the site.

A3.20 Canals and Rivers Trust Noted No comment

(242) A3.21 Passenger Transport Officer Noted- This application site is part of the Tariff arrangement I note that bus stop locations are shown with the note "Bus and therefore the funding for the bus stop provision is Stop Locations and Dimensions to be Confirmed" secured through the tariff.

Can it also be confirmed that bus stops will be built as part of these works and will not have to be retro-fitted at the Councils expense at a later date?

A3.22 Parish - Woburn Sands Noted and discussed in paragraph 5.4 Woburn Sands Town Council has asked that I raise in advance of the Gallagher’s consultation in the Memorial Hall in Woburn Sands on Wednesday 2-6pm, on future planning detail issues relating to the SLA.

In particular, the connection onto the A5130 and any plans for a series of traffic lights- possibly two sets- one at the crossroads and one at the junction with Lower End Road as well as the ones at the Kingston Roundabout. The detailed evidence needs to be presented that guarantees that the installation of traffic lights will not impact negatively upon congestion and will not result in traffic rat running through Walton Road in Wavendon in particular. Officers need to be content that there will be adequate footpath and cycle access from Woburn Sands to allow safe and secure access to the new Primary and Secondary Schools at Glebe Farm.

Woburn Sands Town Council objects to the proposal for a traffic light junction at the Glebe Farm access onto Newport Road.

We object because there will already be traffic lights at the

(243) Kingston roundabout slightly north of this new junction and the hold up to traffic on the Newport Road will be unacceptable. The modelling undertaken for the Kingston Roundabout works demonstrated the lengthy queuing on Newport Road and the Kingston works were designed to help alleviate the problem. This proposal will simply reinstate the problem a little to the south.

The outline permission for Glebe Farm makes no mention of the form this access to the Newport Road should be.

If traffic is discouraged by additional lights on the Newport Road, it will result in increased rat running through Walton Road, Wavendon, and will encourage residents of Woburn Sands, Aspley Heath and Aspley Guise to all attempt to access Milton Keynes via Hardwick Road, The Leys and instead. These roads simply cannot cope.

We are extremely disappointed, that after a long discussion not much over a year ago with David Hill, Chief Executive of MKC and Andy Swannell, responsible for Highways Planning applications in which the Town Council was promised we would be fully consulted on any highways matters affecting our community in future, this is still not happening. Instead we have Highways, with no consultation whatsoever, suggesting possibly two further sets of traffic lights on Newport Road, the one which is the subject of this application and a further one at Lower End Road.

There is no reason why this minor access road from Glebe Farm should not access Newport Road by a simple t-

(244) junction. Nor is there any reason why a slip road access cannot be made onto the A421 alongside one of the redway access points. This would give residents of the estate three possible exits onto the main highways instead of two.

We would sincerely hope that no decision is made on this reserve matters application until Woburn Sands Town Council has had a meeting with the interim head of Highways and Andy Swanell in order that the whole matter of access points onto Newport Road can be discussed. We are urgently seeking this meeting with the relevant persons.

A3.23 Parks Trust Noted and discussed in paragraph 5.6 The Parks Trust is concerned that the layout of the The principles for the aesthetics and ecological value of detention basins 3, 3a and 3b does not accord and is these elements of the site will be established within the incompatible with the description of the ‘Northern Wetland Design Code. Park’ given in the Design and Access Statement (DAS) submitted with Planning Application 13/02382/OUTEIS. In paragraphs 17.3 & 17.4 of the DAS, the Northern Wetland Park (NWP) is described as ‘harnessing’ the attenuation features “to provide ecologically and aesthetically valuable wetlands, aquatic planting, and water entering Glebe Farm and Eagle Farm South. Residents pass over the bodies of water on causeways creating a distinct entrance feel. To the southern edge of the attenuation features is an attractive boulevard that overlooks the water and links into the wider Milton Keynes network of Redways”. This description is illustrated by Figure 17.2 which is a landscape vignette showing features such as bands of reed planting and photograph images showing strong landscape character links between built environment and water features. In contrast to this description, the General Arrangement

(245) drawing submitted with application 15/01025/REM shows most of the NWP space taken up by uniform, utilitarian- shaped attenuation basins that do not appear to lend themselves to meeting the description cited above, either ecologically or aesthetically. The NWP has been badged as a major strategic multi-functional feature in this development and further demonstration is needed at this stage that the ecological, aesthetic and access functions and objectives for the space will be met by the proposed drainage design. Whilst we do not wish to object to this application per se, we are concerned that the drainage infrastructure design as submitted lacks sufficient consideration of the other objectives and functions vaunted for this space and we urge the planning authority to request that further design information be provided for assessment at this stage to demonstrate how the design of the drainage system is consistent and compatible with the multifunctional objectives and description of the NWP cited in the Design and Access Statement for 13/02382/OUTEIS.

A3.24 Parish - Bow Brickhill Noted No comment

A3.25 Aspley Guise Parish Council No response received

A3.26 Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application: 1-9 St Marys Close Wavendon Glebe Farm Newport Road Wavendon Wavendon Golf Centre Lower End Road Wavendon

(246) Warehouse At The Gables 1 Lower End Road The Gables 1 Lower End Road Wavendon 4, 2A, 2, 1 Cross End Wavendon Drive Car Hire And Van Rental, Wavendon Service Area, Newport Road Ground Floor Office The Gables 1 Lower End Road First Floor The Gables 1 Lower End Road Solus Drive Ltd, Wavendon Service Area, Newport Road John Lewis Distribution Centre, Fen Street, Magna Park Wavendon Service Area, Newport Road, Wavendon In N Out Services Ltd, Wavendon Service Area, Newport Road Grafton Motorcycle, Wavendon Service Area, Newport Road Bp Filling Station, Wavendon Service Area, Newport Road The Wavendon Arms, 2 Newport Road, Wavendon 27- 35 (odd), 23, 21, 9-17 (odd) Walton Road Wavendon 4-10 (even) The Grove Newport Road Wavendon 12-36 (even) Newport Road, Wavendon 1-7 (odd) Walton Road, Wavendon 48-52 (even) Walton Road, Wavendon 5 Phoebe Lane Wavendon Milton Keynes The Chapel, Walton Road, Wavendon The Barn, Walton Road, Wavendon Stables Cottage, Walton Road, Wavendon Little Oak Community Nursery, Walton Road, Wavendon St Marys Wavendon C E Primary School, Walton Road, Wavendon Church Farm, Walton Road, Wavendon 70-80 Walton Road, Wavendon 54- 66 (even) Walton Road, Wavendon 37-43 (odd) Walton Road Wavendon

(247) Stockwell House 1 Stockwell Lane Wavendon 1- 10 Phoebe Lane Wavendon 1-20 Church End Wavendon Wavendon Community Centre Walton Road Wavendon 1-18 Wavendon Fields Wavendon Milton Keynes Frosts Landscape Construction Newport Road Wavendon Asquith Nurseries Newport Road Wavendon 1-45 (odd) Newport Road Wavendon South Lodge 33 Cross End Wavendon South Lodge Boutique South Lodge 33 Cross End Storage Land And Premises Newport Road Wavendon 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10A, 12, 14, 18 Cross End Wavendon Park Farm Lower End Road Wavendon Park Farm House Lower End Road Wavendon Park Farm Cottage Lower End Road Wavendon Unit B Xi Centre Kingston Gateway Whitehall Avenue Former Office World Harding Road Brinklow 1-40 Wavendon House Drive Wavendon Milton Keynes The Wavendon Swim Centre Lodge Farm Lower End Road 6 Schumann Close Browns Wood Milton Keynes River Island Distribution Centre Fen Street Magna Park Wavendon Rectory Walton Road Wavendon St Marys Church Walton Road Wavendon 2-6 (even) Walton Road Wavendon The Stables Stockwell Lane Wavendon Schubert House 4 Stockwell Lane Wavendon The Old Rectory Cottage 3B Stockwell Lane Wavendon The Old Rectory 3 Stockwell Lane Wavendon Seven Gables 2 Stockwell Lane Wavendon 10-15 St Marys Close Wavendon Milton Keynes On Behalf of Merton College,University of Oxford And

(248) Wavendon Residential Properties LLP Denton UKMEA LLP Pavilion 1300 Silbury Boulevard Campbell Park Milton Keynes By E-mail Only By E-mail Only By Email Only On Behalf of Wavendon Residential Properties LLP And Merton College David Lock Associates By Email Only Edwardofeltham C/o Terence O'Rourke 3 Whitcomb Street London

A3.27 10 third party responses have been received which raised the following:

A3.28 Concerns that the proposals do not adequately future proof Discussed in paragraph 5.3 the grid roads for future expansion, the 64 metre reserve corridor is supported but it is unclear how east-west crossing of the dualled grid road will work. Vehicle and pedestrian crossings should be considered now so all parties understand the options. Crossings should not be at grade.

A3.29 The application shows a redway crossing at grade to the Noted north of the site near to the A421 there is no detail of how this will be future proofed.

A3.30 The geometry of the local distributor road does not allow for Noted the grid road’s possible extension to Lower End Road. There is no detail as to how the distributor road crossing would be made by vehicles or cyclists/pedestrians. The plan does not include underpasses or bridges, whilst a fully designed scheme is not expected it is in all parties interest

(249) to understand that a fully dualled grid road can be put in place.

A3.31 It is unclear if Fen Farm roundabout is future proofed for Noted dualling.

A3.32 Newport Road cannot handle a vehicle access for a The principle of the access onto Newport Road was agreed development of this size. The vehicle access for this site within the outline application. should be on the A421. The road through Wavendon is already a rat run and is unsuitable for additional traffic.

A3.33 I understood that MKC had returned to the original MK Noted this application does not propose the remove of the Development Corporation vision of installing screening hedgerow on Lower End Road. between key roads and developments that would prevent the development being seen from the road. Under no circumstances should frontage development be allowed as in Broughton. Retention of hedgerows and boundaries to the site is important both so that the aesthetic of the new development fits in with the ethos of Milton Keynes and also to help keep the greenery around existing villages. I would strongly object to existing trees and hedgerows being cut down.

A3.34 There must be no access onto Lower End Road this would This application does not propose an access onto Lower be hazardous for cycle route 51. End Road.

(250)

APP 05

Application Number: 14/02799/FUL

Redevelopment of site to provide 73 dwelling units with associated car parking and new access from North Crawley Road (amended)

AT North Crawley Road, Newport Pagnell, MK16 9TG

FOR Bellway Homes Ltd (North Home Counties)

Target: 18th March 2015

Ward: Newport Pagnell South Parish: Newport Pagnell Town Council

Report Author/Case Officer: Nicola Wheatcroft Contact Details: 01908 253238 [email protected]

Team Leader: Sim Manley Contact Details: 01908 253846 [email protected]

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

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

1.2 The Site

The site comprises 1.98 hectares of employment land on a small commercial estate on the eastern edge of Newport Pagnell. The site, now cleared, consisted of a group of warehouse buildings and a brick office block (Newport House) all with on-site parking, served from a shared access to North Crawley Road adjacent to its junction with Tickford Street. The site lies in a mixed use area of residential and commercial/employment uses.

1.3 The site is a distorted rectangle in shape and adjoins the Newport Pagnell household and commercial waste site to the eastern boundary; the northern boundary adjoins farmland whilst the western boundary adjoins two storey commercial buildings located within Vantage Court behind whilst the northern section of the western boundary adjoins residential bungalows in The Canons. To the southern boundary the site fronts North Crawley Road extending along

(251) the junction, for a short length with Tickford Street. The junction of these two roads is controlled by a mini-roundabout with an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing to the front of the site. Opposite are two storey dwellings, whilst Renny Park Estate is located opposite the site on North Crawley Road. An electricity sub-station is located on the site, accessed from Tickford Street and a footpath straddles the northern boundary. All boundaries are planted with trees and other planting with a more extensive treed area on the northern boundary with the adjoining farmland whilst the eastern boundary with the adjacent recycling centre is planted with mature trees and the western boundary comprises of mesh fencing inter-planted through to the first section of the boundary after which it converts to fencing and conifer planting.

1.4 The Proposal

This application seeks the redevelopment of the site for residential use with a total of 73 dwellings proposed (at a density of 37 dwellings per hectare) with a combination of apartments and a mix of house types and sizes including terraced through to detached dwellings with 30% affordable housing being proposed.

1.5 Access is proposed to be taken off the North Crawley Road/Tickford Street roundabout and comprises a single major street which serves the development and terminates at the northern end of the site in a turning head. This road is sized to accommodate a bus route. A redway is proposed along the site frontage but without being connected beyond the site boundaries.

1.6 Internally the site is laid out in a series of culs-de-sacs and dwellings and apartments are located to front the main road and side streets. Dwellings and apartments front or are positioned side on to Tickford Road and North Crawley Road and are set behind a planted verged area with footpath links through to the development from the main roads. Within the site the houses extend to the side boundaries with a separation planted and treed buffer to the eastern boundary separating the site from the recycling facility adjacent.

1.7 The apartments and dwellings range between two and three storeys in height, including roofs in the roof space and are proposed to be constructed in brick and rendered or painted elevations under pitched tiled or fibre-cement slate roofs. Parking takes the form of predominantly on-plot parking with some grouped parking and a small element of grouped tandem parking. A 4 -4.5 metre high acoustic fence is proposed to separate the development from the recycling facility.

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

2.1 National Policy

National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs:

Paragraph 4: Accordance with Development Plan

(252) Paragraph 14: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Paragraph 17: Core Planning Principles Paragraph 22: Employment Sites Paragraph 29: Promoting Sustainable Transport Paragraph 37: Policies should aim for a balance of land uses in an area Paragraph 48: Windfall Sites Paragraph 50: Affordable Housing Paragraph 58: Design Paragraph 60: Planning should not impose architectural styles or tastes Paragraph 69: Creating healthy and inclusive environments Paragraph 93, 99-103: Meeting the challenge of climate change and flooding Paragraph 98: Sustainability Paragraphs 109 & 118: Natural Environment Paragraphs 120 -124: Pollution and Contamination

2.2 Local Policy

Core Strategy CSA: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development CS1: Development Strategy CS2: Housing Land Supply CS8: Other Areas of Change CS9: Strategy for the Rural Areas CS10: Housing CS11: A Well Connected Milton Keynes CS12: Developing Successful Neighbourhoods CS13: Ensuring High Quality, Well Designed Places CS18: Healthier and Safer Communities CS21: Delivering Infrastructure

Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011(Saved Policies) S1: General Principles D1: Impact of Development Proposals on Locality D2a Urban Design Aspects of New Development D2: Design of Buildings D4: Sustainable Construction NE3: Biodiversity and Geological Enhancement T1: Transport User Hierarchy T3 & T4: Pedestrians and Cyclists T5: Public Transport T9: The Road Hierarchy T10: Traffic T15: Parking Provision T17: Traffic Calming EA4A: New Strategic Reserves H2: Priority Housing Requirements H3 & H4: Affordable Housing incl Thresholds H7: Housing on Unidentified Sites H8 & H9: Housing Density and Mix E1: Protection of Existing Employment land

(253) L3: Standards of Provision PO1: General Policies PO4: Percent for Art

Supplementary Planning Guidance

Parking Standards (Jan 2005) and Addendum (2009) Education Facilities SPG (2004) Leisure, Recreation and Sports Facilities (2004)

Supplementary Planning Document

Sustainable Construction (April 2007) Affordable Housing (March 2013) Social Infrastructure (2005) New Residential Development Design Guide (April 2012)

Newport Pagnell Neighbourhood Plan

Newport Pagnell Neighbourhood Plan is an emerging Neighbourhood Plan which has been submitted to the Council (July 30) for publication prior to Examination in the autumn. The Neighbourhood Plan is afforded some weight as an Emerging Plan albeit limited weight due to its pre-Examination stage.

The emerging Neighbourhood Plan identifies the application site and adjacent land, including the recycling facility and farmland to the rear, Tickford Fields Farm Strategic Reserve Site and Tickford Fields Farm East as a potential large Scale housing development area.

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

3.1 1. The acceptability of the Principle of Development in terms of sustainable location of the site and the loss of employment land. The site is located within the urban area of Newport Pagnell and Saved Policy H7 (Housing on Unidentified sites) of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 - 2011 is of relevance. Furthermore the site is part of the allocated strategic reserves in the Local Plan (Policy EA4A).

2. The acceptability of the design and layout, in relation to urban design matters and the context of the locality. The layout complies with the requirements of Policy CS13 of the Core Strategy, policies D2, D2A of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 - 2011 and the New Residential Development Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document.

3. The relationship of the proposed development to neighbouring uses, the recycling facility and office block and sub-station and whether an acceptable standard of residential amenity can be achieved for future occupiers. Careful consideration has been given to the relationship of the application site and the adjoining Household Waste Site. On balance

(254) it is concluded that whilst the relationship between the two uses is not ideal however the mitigation measures proposed are adequate to ensure that the residential amenity of the proposed dwellings will not be adversely affected to a significant degree.

4. Highways and parking matters, including the provision of a redway to the site frontage, retention of a footpath link at the rear of the site, access into and through the site, with potential to link through to the land to the rear of the site (Strategic Reserve land). Proposed alterations may also be required to the existing roundabout to the front of the site.

5. S106 obligations including affordable housing and off-site contributions.

6. Status of the emerging neighbourhood plan in relation to the proposed development site.

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

4.1 It is recommended that planning permission be approved subject to the completion of a S.106 legal agreement to secure the contributions set out in Paragraphs 5.15 and 5.16 and subject to the conditions at section 6 of this report.

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

5.1 The acceptability of the Principle of Development in terms of sustainable location of the site and the loss of employment land.

The site is identified on the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011 Proposals Map as employment land and is therefore considered under saved Policy E1 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 - 2011 which seeks to protect and retain employment land in the Milton Keynes administrative area unless there would be no conflict with existing or potential neighbouring uses and the use would not significantly reduce the provision of local employment opportunities.

5.2 The site prior to clearance contained an office building and freestanding warehouse units all of which have been removed. The locality comprises commercial and residential development. The application is supported by a Marketing Exercise which seeks to demonstrate that the loss of the site for employment purposes will not adversely affect the overall supply of employment land in Milton Keynes. Overall it is assessed that the redevelopment of this site would not result in the loss of important employment land or would compromise the Council’s economic development policies. The principle of development is not considered to raise any Local Plan Policy issues and is accepted.

5.3 Saved policy H7 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011 states that

(255) housing on unidentified sites are assessed against the following criteria:

i) Whether the site has been previously developed ii) Whether any buildings on the site are empty or under-used and suitable for conversion to residential use. iii) The location and accessibility of the site to jobs, shops and services by means other than the car, and the potential for improving such accessibility. iv) The compatibility of housing development with existing land uses in the surrounding area v) Whether there is sufficient capacity in existing infrastructure, including water supply, drainage and other utilities, and community facilities (such as schools and health facilities) to serve the proposed development vi) Whether there are any physical and environmental constraints, such as contamination, noise and flood risk, affecting the site.

5.4 The application site has been previously developed and is currently cleared so there are no buildings suitable for conversion. It is located within a mixed area with some residential properties, commercial activities, schools and a swimming pool within the immediate vicinity. Together with a range of shops in the High Street within walking distance. There has sufficient capacity in existing infrastructure to accommodate the proposal. And S.106 contributions will be made to mitigate the impact of the development in terms of school places and health facilities. The site is located adjacent to a household waste site, which can be a noisy activity. The applicant has undertaken noise surveys and proposed mitigation measures which will help to minimise any noise issues on residents of the proposed development. This matter is discussed in more detail in paragraphs 5.9 – 5.12 below. Overall it is considered that the proposed development complies with the requirements of saved Policy H7 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011.

5.5 The site is allocated as a Strategic Reserve site in the Local Plan (Policy AE4A). This identifies the application site together with the adjacent Tickford Fields site as having potential for development after 2011. But it will only be considered as a housing site as part of any plan review, this will be a matter picked up by Plan MK or the Site Allocations Document. The Core Strategy does identify Newport Pagnell as a Key Settlement for Growth. The Neighbourhood Plan also identifies the application site as having capacity for 73-80 homes, this is discussed in more depth in paragraphs 5.17 and 5.18.

5.6 The acceptability of the design and layout, in relation to urban design matters and the context of the locality.

The proposed layout has been the subject of detailed discussion and is predicated on the Town Council’s view that access into the site should

(256) extend into the rear of the site to enable access onto the reserve land to the rear. The layout has been derived from this with the highway sized to accommodate a potential bus route. Within the development a series of shared surface culs-de-sacs mews streets. A planted buffer area provided along the eastern boundary separating the site from the adjacent waste facility. Car parking is provided either on-plot or grouped and bike stores.

5.7 The buildings are shown up to three storeys in height with front corners positioned with 3 storey key buildings fronting North Crawley Road and wrapping round into Tickford Street. The size of the units varies from 1 and 2 bed apartments and ‘flats over garages’ (FOG’s) to two –four bed houses in detached and terraced arrangements. The design of the dwellings is traditional with brick and small areas of render and more contemporary to North Crawley Road reflecting the modern development opposite whilst within the site a more traditional approach to house design is introduced. Dorner windows and chimney stacks/pots are provided on the dwellings. The majority of the development is two or two and a half storey in height with the apartment blocks three storey and a limited number of three storey dwellings. The overall design of the houses is considered reflective of the traditional Victorian and Edwardian appearance of development in Newport Pagnell and the affordable housing does not differentiate from the market housing in appearance.

5.8 The layout to North Crawley Road and which laps around Tickford Street is arranged as three storey key buildings either end of the frontage interspersed with detached dwellings. Within the site a traditional layout arrangement approach has been undertaken with houses fronting the roads with minimal set backs and laid out in pairs of dwellings with linked garages/carports to provide a continuous frontage to the street. Houses positioned to the eastern side of the site are separated from the waste facility by a road and planted buffer to the front of a 4 -4.5 metre high acoustic fence. The overall design of the layout and built development design is considered acceptable in urban design terms and is considered to provide a reasonable frontage to North Crawley Road which is varied in terms of its appearance and the scale of adjacent buildings both residential and commercial. There is therefore no over-riding defining design character to this part of North Crawley Road. It is considered that the proposal would respect the requirements of both the Core Strategy policy CS13 and saved Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 – 2011 policy D2A together with the New Residential Development Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document.

5.9 The relationship of the proposed development to neighbouring uses, the recycling facility and office block and sub-station and whether an acceptable standard of residential amenity is achieved for future occupiers. The site is located adjacent to a household waste site, this has potential noise implications for the residents of the eastern part of the site. The application is supported by a noise assessment and the Environmental Health Officer (noise) has analysed the assessment in depth. He has raised concerns that activities at the recycling which include the use of

(257) noisy equipment could have an adverse impact on the amenities of the residents of the development. The noise levels could potentially be significant and up to 7 days a week.

5.10 The National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) states:

‘The potential effect of a new residential development being located close to an existing business that gives rise to noise should be carefully considered. This is because existing noise levels from the business even if intermittent (for example, a live music venue) may be regarded as unacceptable by the new residents and subject to enforcement action. To help avoid such instances, appropriate mitigation should be considered, including optimising the sound insulation provided by the new development’s building envelope.’

5.11 Following detailed discussions with the applicants, the noise assessment has been updated and the scheme amended. The alterations include moving the housing away from the east boundary by relocating the road to adjacent to the boundary. Also minimising windows and opening is the houses and flats facing the eastern boundary. A 4 - 4.5 metre high acoustic fence will extend along the boundary, this will help to substantially reduce the transfer of noise from the waste site to the housing development. In addition all properties with elevations facing the eastern boundary will have mechanical ventilation, thereby reducing the need for windows to be open. There may be a degree of noise disturbance to users of the rear gardens of these houses but houses themselves act as a buffer helping to reduce noise levels. The Environmental Health Officer has confirmed that there will be no statutory noise nuisance issues for the residents of the scheme.

5.12 Overall, the introduction of a new housing development adjacent to a noise generating site is far from ideal. However, the applicant has attempted to mitigate potential noise problems and conflicts. It is considered that the mitigation measures are acceptable in principle and more details will be sought through the imposition of a condition on any planning permission. It is therefore considered that on balance the scheme is acceptable from this perspective. There is the potential for the waste site to be relocated in future years as a result of the proposed wider Tickford Fields development.

5.13 Highway Matters

The Highways Engineer has accepted that the traffic arising from the proposed development can be accommodated on the local network when considered as a standalone site. He raises concerns about the possible impact from traffic generation when/if the Tickford Fields development comes forward. This is not a material planning consideration in the assessment of the current planning application. Members are advised that the current application needs to be considered on its merits at the present time. The application has allowed for some future proofing as the application has an access road which enters the site and could be extended in due course to allow access to Tickford Field. The applicant has

(258) agreed to transfer over the land at the end of the access road to the Council to ensure access can be provided to the adjacent site in due course if needed, this will be covered in any S.106 legal agreement.

5.14 Concern has been raised by the Highway Engineer as to the acceptability of the access into the site from a Highway Safety perspective. An update on this matter is awaited and will be provided at the Development Control Meeting.

5.15 The proposed parking provision for the development is in line with the Addendum to the Parking Standards For Milton Keynes Supplementary Planning Guidance. The layout of the parking area to the rear of flats 55-65 is not ideal in terms of the location of spaces and surveillance. A condition should be imposed on any planning permission to require more details on this to ensure an optimum layout is provided.

5.16 A redway is now proposed along the frontage of the site to the north of North Crawley Road. This is in line with the Highway Engineers and Town Councils requirements to ensure that the site is integrated fully into the local area. This matter will be secured by a legal agreement.

5.17 S106 Matters

Following detailed discussions during the consideration of the planning application, an acceptable S.106 package has been agreed consisting of: 25% Affordable Rent (22 units) 5% at a level broadly equivalent to Social Rent and 5% Shared Ownership. This is in line with the Councils Supplementary Planning Guidance on Affordable Housing.

5.18 In addition the following contributions have been agreed:

Social Infrastructure Contribution Library £19,694.07 Adult Continuing Education £9,349.71 Crematorium/Burial Grounds £7,957.20 Health Facilities £136,267.05 Waste Management £22,479.09 Social Care - Day Care £4,774.32 Social Care - Older Persons Housing £29,242.71 Emergency Services £4,376.46 Voluntary Sector £16,511.19 Milton Keynes University £62,861.88 Milton Keynes College £22,280.16 Inward Investment £16,511.19 Public Art - 1% rest of Borough £67,220.00 Waste Receptacles £7,300.00

(259)

Leisure Recreation & Sports Contribution Playing Fields £41,864.82 Playing Fields Maintenance £35,807.40 Local Play £62,662.95 Local Play Maintenance £44,560.32 Neighbourhood Play £59,679.00 Neighbourhood Play Maintenance £76,389.12 Swimming Pool £25,222.99

5.19 Note the Following Heads of Teams, through consultation with the Town Council, are being taken from their respective headings and allocated towards Willen Road Playing Fields as this is a key priority in the emerging Newport Pagnell Neighbourhood Plan. This gives an additional Playing Fields contribution (in addition to the amounts listed above) of £107,620.61:

Museums and Archives £13,925.10 Allotments £7,459.88 Sports Hall £9,275.18 Community Hall £18,475.03 Local Parks £7,957.20 Local Parks Maintenance £11,537.94 District Parks £15,914.40 District Parks Maintenance £23,075.88

Education Contribution

Early Years £47,466.46

Primary pupils £234,540.15 Secondary pupils £252,434.29 Post 16 pupils £54,754.01

5.20 On top of the contributions listed above:

The applicant has agreed to the provision of a redway link to the

front of the will be provided and

The securing of a highway reserve to the north of the site to provide

access to Tickford Fields if needed at nil cost to the Council.

The above S.106 provisions are in line with the Councils Supplementary

Planning Guidance/Documents on Planning Obligations and will mitigate

the impact of the development on the local environment. The provisions

are all CIL Regulations compliant.

5.21 Neighbourhood Plan

The Newport Pagnell Neighbourhood Plan was submitted in July 2015. The

policies of the emerging plan can be a material consideration but it is for

the decision-maker to determine whether this is the case and to what

(260) extent (NPPG: 41-007-20140306). In this instance the main issue appears to the prematurity and whether the proposed development should be brought forward later concurrently with the Tickford Fields Site.

5.22 The key policy in the emerging Neighbourhood Plan in respect of this application is NP2 which gives detailed policy advice for the development of the site. The aim of Policy NP2 and the Neighbourhood Plan as a whole is to develop the Tickford Fields development. This would not be prejudiced by the apprival of the current Bellway Application. The proposal respects the general principles of the Tickford Fields Allocation, but some of the detail (such as access) is outweighed by other advice. As the Neighbourhood Plan has not yet been made this is considered to be an acceptable approach.

6.0 CONDITIONS

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

Reason: To prevent the accumulation of planning permissions; to enable the Local Planning Authority to review the suitability of the development in the light of altered circumstances; and to comply with section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. (D11)

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

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

3 Prior to any development taking place, the developer shall carry out a post demolition assessment of ground conditions, in the previously inaccessible areas of the site, as recommended in the preliminary ground investigation report reference Hydrock:R/11367/001, the developer shall also complete the gas monitoring survey as recommended in the same report to determine the likelihood of any ground, groundwater or gas contamination of the site. The results of this survey detailing the nature and extent of any contamination, together with a strategy for any remedial action deemed necessary to bring the site to a condition suitable for its intended use, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before construction works commence. Any remedial works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved strategy and validated by submission of an appropriate verification report prior to first occupation of the development. Should any unforeseen contamination be encountered the Local Planning Authority shall be informed immediately. Any additional site investigation and remedial work that is required as a result of unforeseen contamination will also be carried out to the written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

(261)

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

4 Prior to the commencement of development above slab level , details of a scheme that demonstrates that 10% of the total energy to be offset by the on-site renewable sources; details of which should be submitted to and approved by the LPA

Reason: To ensure the proposal is energy efficient and meets the requirements of Policy D4 of the Local Plan

5 Prior to work commencing above slab level, details of how at least 10% of the total value of building materials would be derived from recycled or reused content to be submitted to and approved by the LPA.

Reason: To ensure the proposal is energy efficient and meets the requirements of Policy D4 of the Local Plan

6 A landscaping scheme, which shall include provision for the planting of trees and shrubs, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any part of the development is commenced. The scheme shall show the numbers, types and sizes of trees and shrubs to be planted and their location in relation to proposed buildings, roads, footpaths and drains. All planting in accordance with the scheme shall be carried out within twelve months of commencement of development. Any trees or shrubs removed, dying, severely damaged or diseased within two years of planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with trees or shrubs of such size and species as may be agreed by the Local Planning Authority. (L01)

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

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

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

8 All existing trees and hedgerows to be retained shall be protected in accordance with the provisions of BS 5837:2012 'Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction-Recommendations'. All protective measures especially the fencing and ground protection must be in place prior to the commencement of any building operations

(262)

Reason: To ensure all existing vegetation is protected during construction

9 Prior to the commencement of construction of any dwellings hereby permitted, a Sustainability Assessment outlining how the proposed development will meet as a minimum details required by saved Policy D4 of the Local Plan 2001-2011 and accompanying Supplementary Planning Document Sustainable Construction Guide. The approved details shall be completed for each dwelling prior to the occupation of that dwelling.

Reason: To ensure the development complies with saved Policy D4 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan. 10 Prior to the commencement of construction of any part of the development hereby permitted, details of the hard landscaping including the proposed surface treatments to all adoptable and non-adoptable roads, footways, cycleways, parking courts and private driveways shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of any dwelling served by that road, footway, cycleway, parking court of private driveway and maintained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with saved Policy D2 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan.

11 Prior to the commencement of construction of any part of the development hereby permitted, details of the proposed boundary treatments to all dwellings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include the type and height of fences, hedges, walls, gates and other means of enclosure and shall be provided for each dwelling prior to the occupation of that dwelling.

Reason: To protect the appearance of the locality and safeguard the privacy of neighbours.

12 Prior to the commencement of construction of the apartments hereby permitted, details of the proposed storage of refuse and materials for recycling for all apartments shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved storage facilities for each apartment shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of that apartment and shall thereafter be maintained for the purpose or refuse and recycling storage and used for no other purpose.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and to secure a satisfactory standard of development in accordance with saved Policy D4 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan.

(263)

13 Prior to the commencement of construction of the apartments hereby permitted, details of the proposed cycle storage for all apartments shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved cycle storage for each apartment shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of that apartment and shall thereafter be maintained for the purpose or cycle storage and used for no other purpose.

Reason: To ensure that adequate cycle storage facilities are provided to serve the development in accordance with saved Policy T3 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan.

14 Prior to the commencement of construction of any private drive or parking court, a lighting scheme to demonstrate how that private drive or parking court will be lit to the BS5489 standard shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting scheme shall include details of what lamps are being proposed, a lux plan showing maximum, minimum, average and uniformity levels, details of means of electricity supply to each lamp and how the lamps will be managed and maintained in the future. The approved lighting scheme for each private drive or parking court shall be fully implemented prior to the first occupation of any dwelling served by that private drive or parking court and maintained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of safety and amenity and in accordance with saved Policy D1 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan.

15 All dwellings shall achieve Secured by Design accreditation. Prior to the occupation of each dwelling, a copy of the certificate confirming the achievement of Secured by Design accreditation for that dwelling shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of reducing crime and disorder and in accordance with saved Policy D1 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan.

16 Prior the commencement of construction of any part of the development hereby permitted, details of how superfast broadband infrastructures will be delivered to every household in the development, subject to network capacity being available, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved superfast broadband infrastructures for each dwelling shall be installed prior to the occupation of that dwelling.

Reason: To ensure that residents have access to high quality telecommunications and ICT networks in accordance with Policy CS5(8) of the Core Strategy.

17 Prior to the commencement of any building operations (including any structural alterations, construction, rebuilding, demolition and site

(264) 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), a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP shall include details of site procedures to be adopted during the course of all building operations including working hours, intended routes for construction traffic, vehicle wheel washing facilities, location of site compound, lighting and security and how dust and other emissions will be controlled. All building operations shall be carried out in accordance with the approved CEMP.

Reason: To ensure that there are adequate mitigation measures in place and in the interests of existing and future residents.

18 No development shall commence above slab level until full details of a noise mitigation scheme to protect the residential amenity of the occupiers of the proposed development have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the proposed details.

Reason: To protect residential amenity.

19 Notwithstanding the submitted details, no development shall occur above slab level until details of the parking arrangement to serve units 55 – 65 have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the development has adequate, usable parking spaces and in the interest of avoiding traffic congestion.

(265)

(266)

(267)

(268)

Appendix to 14/02799/FUL

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

A1.1 97/00885/MK Ground floor extension to offices Permitted 10.10.1997

98/00215/MK Construction of additional car parking spaces Permitted 31.03.1998

04/00337/FUL Infill of open area under main structure to form tyre fitting bay Permitted 26.04.2004

A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS

(Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)

A2.1 None

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

Comments

A3.1 Parish - Newport Pagnell

Our main concern with this application is that there is adequate provision for a redway along the North Crawley Road. Our Sustainable Transport Plan is an appendix to our Neighbourhood Plan and states that

The development of Tickford Fields Farm and industrial sites for housing will be required to provide a redway network within the site, and redway connections along North Crawley Road to Tickford Street and London Road, and also to Street.

Our Neighbourhood Plan also includes a Development Brief for the four sites in the Tickford Fields Farm area, which includes this site, and it states the following:

The development shall provide a redway along the North Crawley Road, extending from London Road to the A509 over-bridge, and within the site linking from the North Crawley Road to both Chicheley Street and Keynes Close. Developers should also seek to negotiate with Anglian Water a redway route through the lakeside land to link with Priory Street. A redway should be provided to link between Sites A,C, D, and E as part of a phased but comprehensive route.

Final Comments I am pleased to confirm that subject to the following conditions the Town Council is prepared to withdraw its objection to

planning application 14/02799/FUL:

1. Bellway Homes agrees to unconditionally gift to Milton Keynes Council the piece of land between the northern end of the main access road and the site boundary with the Tickford Fields Estate, thereby avoiding any ransom strip at this vital link to the main TFE site. 2. The S106 Agreement requires Bellway Homes to provide funding for the redway along the North Crawley Road as shown, either at the cost stated or, if they prefer, to build it themselves at a cheaper price.

(270) A3.2 Ward - Newport Pagnell South - Cllr McCall

No response received.

A3.3 Ward - Newport Pagnell South - Cllr Alexander

No response received.

A3.4 Ward - Newport Pagnell South - Cllr Eastman

I have no comments at this stage, although I understand Mr Bowley has e-mailed concerns relating to development. I concur with his comments. A3.5 Highways Development Control

Whilst it is accepted that the traffic arising from the proposed development can be accommodated on the local network when considered as a standalone site, I am aware of the possible development of the Tickford Fields Farm which could accommodate up to 1200 residential units together with Educational Facilities.

Therefore it is essential that the existing North Crawley Road/Renny Park Road Roundabout as modified has the capacity to accommodate traffic flows to/from this development and those going to/from the Tickford Fields Site.

Unfortunately such analysis is not incorporated in the submitted Transport Assessment.

The current 3-arm roundabout is “off-set” from the east/west alignment of the North Crawley Road and in an ideal world, would be re-designed to be centred on the North Crawley Road to create a 4-arm roundabout. However the applicant has not chosen to do this and has simply added a fourth arm to the existing layout.

The proposed design has been subject to a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit. Comments were made (by the Audit Team) on the absence of longitudinal or cross sections with the proposed layout, the absence of surface water drainage and other services details, the absence of swept path analyses, the potential for visibility

(271) being obstructed by vegetation/foliage adjacent to the proposed access and the absence of road signage details, carriageway markings and street lighting.

The designer’s response indicates that some of these matters will be dealt with at the detailed design stage. However the swept path analysis has subsequently been undertaken and assurances given that the existing foliage/vegetation will be cleared to ensure adequate visibility.

However the Road Safety Audit Team raised no concerns in respect of the local alignment. Therefore a second opinion was sought from a member of our design office and his views are précised below:

From inspection of the drawing submitted with the application it would appear that the existing roundabout has an inscribed circle diameter of approximately 29.5 m with a kerbed central island of 4 m in diameter. In terms of the relevant standards – i.e. TD 16/07 "Geometric Design of Roundabouts" - the existing roundabout is a "Normal Roundabout", with flared entries and exits to allow two vehicles to enter or leave the roundabout on a given arm at the same time.

In reviewing the applicant’s chosen design, the point at which the entry radius (approach from the west) meets the exit radius (into the proposed development site) is positioned outside the inscribed circle of the existing roundabout. As such, vehicles entering the roundabout from the west and continuing east or south, could follow the line of the entry radius but would then have to alter course to avoid the splitter island on the proposed access.

It is considered that an inscribed circle diameter of approximately 32 m could more readily facilitate the proposed 4th arm and entry radii and exit radii on the north side of the roundabout would be 10 m and 20 m respectively. It might also be possible to increase the diameter of the central kerbed island to 12 m, thereby reducing the entry path radii.

A request has also been made to the Council’s Road Safety Team for their views and I am awaiting their response.

Whilst the minor modification suggested above can be achieved with only minimal impact on the proposed site layout, the same cannot be said if a larger roundabout is needed to accommodate the traffic generated by

(272) the Tickford Fields Farm development. Hence my view that it is necessary to ensure that the existing North Crawley Road/Renny Park Road Roundabout as modified has the capacity to accommodate traffic flows to/from this development and those going to/from the Tickford Fields Site before planning permission is granted to this proposal.

In terms of access to the Tickford Field Farm site, it is understood that vehicular access through this site will be limited to buses only. Therefore the proposed internal access road, at 6.2m in width, can be considered acceptable.

The remainder of the proposed residential access roads can also be considered acceptable in highway design terms.

The proposed parking provision on the site accords with the Council’s parking standards for a Zone 3 area and for the majority of the site can be considered acceptable in terms of its location. However the allocated parking in the courtyard to the rear of Nos. 55 to 65 needs re-planning/re-allocating such that the parking spaces are closer and more readily overlooked by the properties they are intended to serve.

It is understood that discussions have taken place with regard to the provision of Redway routes in the vicinity of the site. It is also understood that although a route through this site is no longer required, one will be required on the northern side of North Crawley Road.

Therefore the proposed development should provide or make allowance for the provision of a Redway along the North Crawley Road frontage. MKC will consider as part of any planning obligation package (S106) whether the development site shall provide all or part of the Redway.

The provision of such a Redway will impact on the proposed layout and may affect the siting of Plots 1 – 8. However the “turning area” in front of Plots 74 and 75 and the two visitor spaces will need to be realigned /relocated.

In a highway context I would advise that the application needs amending and / or further information is required.

(273) A3.6 Public Transport Officer

The Transport Assessment contains incorrect information regarding bus services (page 10 – table 3.15), in particular service 2 which does not provide a 15 minute frequency along Tickford Street. Service 2 only serves Tickford Street in the evening and on Sunday. It would be helpful if the consultant made reference to the fact that although there is at present 3 buses per hour Central Milton Keynes the service is split between the two bus stops: a. Northbound stop = 2 to CMK (Evening & Sunday), 24 and C10 towards CMK, 40 towards Bedford b. Southbound stop = 2 to Renny Lodge (Evening & Sunday), 25 towards Coachway & Kingston/Bletchley and C10 towards Bedford, 40 towards CMK The Councils budget proposals for 2015/16 mean that is likely that there will be changes (reductions) to this level of service. The size of the development means that we cannot ask for the substantial public transport contribution needed to maintain an hourly daytime service but I would be looking for the two nearest bus stops to be upgraded to the current MKC standard, including the provision of RTPI displays. This would amount to £60,000 in total. In addition to this the developer should provide a travel information pack for each household, the opportunity for an annual all operator bus pass for Milton Keynes (£550 per household at current prices).

A3.7 Travel Plan Officer There are a number of positive actions outlined in the residential travel plan for the proposed site. There is a good amount of engagement activities with resident planned. As noted by Andrew Coleman travel packs (also included as an action in the Travel Plan) should be distributed to residents. The number of cycle parking spaces should be in line with Milton Keynes Council’s parking standards. The variety of sustainable travel initiatives included in the Travel Plan is good, ensuring all types of sustainable travel are catered for. It is excellent to see that the report considers reducing the need to travel and lists the nearest local services available. Targets As mentioned in the travel plan targets must be reviewed once the initial baseline survey has been

(274) carried out to ensure targets are realistic and challenging. The indicative targets (based on census data baselines) do not suggest targets which are overly challenging considering the amount of travel planning measures which will be promoted on an ongoing basis to residents. Baseline figures for the initial travel plan survey must be communicated with MKC and targets agreed at this point. The survey should be carried out within3 months of occupation (rather than 6). The document and targets should then be reviewed within 3 months of the baseline travel survey being undertaken.

Action plan All actions, including monitoring actions must be included in the action plan. This means any activities which are mentioned throughout the Travel Plan must be included as an action in the action plan so they are not overlooked. The action plan must be updated as the Travel Plan evolves and given definite dates of which actions will be undertaken. The updated documents must be shared with Milton Keynes Council’s Smarter Choice Transport Planners. It would be a good idea to assign costs in the action plan so there are sufficient funds for the given Travel Planning activities.

Ongoing monitoring Consideration has been given to ongoing monitoring of the plan. As noted the travel plan co-ordinator should be in place prior to occupation of development. The travel plan co-ordinator details must be given to MKC as soon as a travel plan co-ordinator is appointed. These details can be sent to [email protected] . It is good to hear that he details of the co-ordinator will also be available to the residents. The travel plan must be updated (with surveys undertaken) annually for the first 5 year and bi-annually thereafter. This information must be included in the Travel Plan. The current dates of review for the Travel Plan do not reflect these dates (they show reporting only after years 1, 3 and 5). This must be amended. As noted in the document, the travel plan must be updated within 3 months of the initial baseline survey being undertaken. The travel survey should be undertaken within 3 months of occupation rather than 6 months of occupation.

(275) Funding The Travel Plan outlines that the Travel plan co-ordinator will be provided with sufficient funds to A3.8 undertake the work. Amounts must be outlines in the Travel Plan to ensure that enough funding has been set aside for travel planning measures.

Environment Agency A3.8 No objection

Conservation Officer

A3.9 No observations on the application the proposed development is not regarded as being of significant potential archaeological impact. As such it is, in my view, unnecessary to conduct any pre-determination archaeological investigation nor do I wish to recommend any archaeological condition in respect of the site.

A3.10 Environmental Health Manager (Contamination)

Recommends the introduction of a condition re. contamination of the site.

Environmental Health Manager (Noise)

I do not believe that the proposed measures are adequate to protect the properties from excessive noise disturbance from the activities of the Commercial and Community Waste site, particularly those abutting the site boundary line.

There is a potential for statutory nuisance for prospective occupants of properties on the site from the activities of the Waste Site.

Section 4.2.5 of the acoustic report indicates – ‘the most significant night-time noise events associated with the recycling centre were early in the morning on Thursday 25/09/14, from about 3am’. I do not know the regularity of activity on the waste site circa 3am, but I consider noisy activity at this time of day would constitute an unacceptable interference to residents on the proposed development site.

(276)

From discussions with staff members on the waste site, operations regularly commence from 05.30hrs- 06.00hrs for loading and unloading the waste storage bins, which is a noisy activity. This is before the site opens for use in taking receipt of commercial waste loads and waste from members of the public.

In section 5.3 of the acoustic report – the assumption ‘that the elevation of the gardens is similar to the elevation of the recycling centre’ is incorrect. The waste transfer site is multileveled; at present the highest elevation is the built up section of the commercial waste loading area to the front left of waste site on the site boundary. The loading height of the skip is 3 metres higher than the lower ground level – the lower ground level on the waste site having the same elevation as the warehouse on the proposed development site boundary. The floor level at the commercial waste loading area is c. 2metres higher than the development site floor level.

The activity of the excavators’ mechanical grabber boom will be in excess of 6 metres from the lower ground level of the waste site – they do not operate on the elevated section. A 2 metre high acoustic screen will be an ineffective noise barrier and line of sight to noise sources on the waste site will still exist, at multiple locations on the proposed development site.

Although there has been no frequency analysis undertaken of noise from the waste site, I strongly suspect from my observations that there is a prominence of low frequency noise from onsite activities. A 2 metre high close boarded fence (mass of ≥10kg/m2) will not be effective in reducing the impact of low frequency noise from activities on the waste site; namely bin movements, bin loading and unloading, excavator movements, crushing /grappling arm actions – impact noise, commercial vehicle movements.

The scrap metal deposit / storage bin is to the front left of the waste facility and directly abuts the site boundary, with further 5 waste bins in alignment away from the site boundary. Accumulated waste metal objects are thrown into the skip by hand and the mechanical grabbing arm of the excavator moves and crushes the metal in the skip to maximise the space in the skip.

The commercial waste weigh bridge directly abuts the site boundary – commercial vehicle movements.

The ‘bin park’ and lorry parking area directly abuts the site boundary to the rear of the site and is operational

(277) from 05.30hrs – 06.00hrs, with vehicles loading and unloading bins. Large vehicle movements including bin loading activities are not time restricted.

The community recycling facility is open to the general public between 08.00hrs to 20.00hrs during the months of April to September and between 08.00hrs to 17.00hrs during the months of October to March.

The report does not include a BS4142 assessment of the noise from the waste site (methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound), which I think should be included in the assessment of noise impact on the development site. I suspect that the outcome of such an assessment would conclude that there would be a significant adverse impact – i.e. complaints of noise from the waste site being likely.

I would suggest that consideration of the inclusion of an acoustic buffer zone on the development site should be made to mitigate noise impact of the waste site operation.

Although not related to noise, but relating to nuisance (complaints of which are investigated by Environmental Health under the Environmental Protection Act 1990), unless I missed it in the documentation, I do not believe that there has been any consideration of dust / odour from the waste site affecting prospective residents of the proposed development site.

Rubble and hard-core can be disposed of at the site, both of these have the potential to create fugitive dust which could affect residential dwellings.

A3.11 Development Plans Manager (Sustainability)

have checked the submitted sustainability statement and I am happy with the information provided. The proposal would meet the requirements of policy D4 subject to conditions on: 1) 10% of the total energy to be offset by the on-site renewable sources; details of which should be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority 2) Details of how at least 10% of the total value of building materials would be derived from recycled or reused content to be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority

(278) A3.12 Development Plans Manager (Policy)

The issues at hand are not concerned with prematurity and this is should not be a material consideration in determining the application anyway (NPPG: 21b-014-20140306). The policies of the emerging plan can be a material consideration but it is for the decision-maker to

determine whether this is the case and to what extent (NPPG: 41-007-20140306). The stage of preparation is one factor that influences the weight that can be afforded to the plan (NPPF: para 216). I consider that the move from pre-submission consultation to submission should result in a corresponding increase in material weight although this increment is logically not as significant as the plan being successfully examined or passing referendum.

The key policy in the emerging Neighbourhood Plan in respect of this application is NP2 and specifically

NP2(e):

“Vehicular access shall be taken solely from North Crawley Road through a minimum of three junctions one of which shall be through the North Crawley Road Industrial Land. No access other than for pedestrians and cyclists will be allowed from Chicheley Street.”

This policy cannot be considered inviolate given the plan’s limited weight. I do not consider that the move from pre-submission consultation to submission alters the individual weight of this specific policy. Therefore the issue rests on a balance of the Council’s Highways advice against Policy NP2(e). If the highways advice does not actively preclude the general land-assembly principle of Policy NP2 (i.e.

the delivery of the wider Tickford Fields development area) then I consider it a fair balance to give greater

weight to that advice than the specific elements of Policy NP2 such as NP2(e). Indeed this is reflected on page 9 of the applicant’s planning statement where the conclusion of community consultation was that the proposals were acceptable provided they did not prejudice land to the rear. If based on concerns rather than uncertainty the highways advice may also constitute an unresolved objection to the emerging plan. Paragraph 216 of the NPPF indicates that greater weight may only be

given to emerging policies where unresolved objections are less significant.

(279) Notably, part of the application site and the area directly to the north are both covered by a Strategic Reserve (SR5), as per Policy EA4A of the Local Plan. This could lend weight to the argument that the application site and access the area to the north should be considered concurrently. However, Policy

EA4A does not cover the details of delivery and simply identifies broad areas that have potential for

development.

A3.13 Housing Strategy (Affordable Housing)

1) The site requires 30% Affordable Housing as per the Affordable Housing SPD 2013(25% Affordable Rent -5% at a level broadly equivalent to Social Rent - and 5% Shared Ownership). The applicant proposed 22 Affordable out of 73 total units (18 (25%) Affordable Rent & 4 (5%) Shared Ownership) - I could not see the confirmation in the amended plans but this mix is acceptable and complies with policy. 2) The proposed Affordable Housing house size mix is predominantly 2bed, and then 1bed with some 3 bed in line with current affordable housing need and policy. 3) The Council needs Affordable housing for Rent to house people in housing need – it had 120 households placed in B & B accommodation as of 19July 2015.

A3.14 Landscape Architect

Initially raised concerns about the lack of a play area and details of the landscaping strategy. Following discussions with the applicant confirmed Further to the comments made previously I am satisfied that sufficient space has been allocated for planting and trees and the detail of this can be submitted as a landscape condition.

A3.15 Waste Disposal

MKC Urban Design Flats for each 8 flats we recommend 1x1100 Black euro bins, 1x1100 Pink euro bin, 240

Blue bin, and a 240 green for food waste.

Perimeter fence adjacent to the Community Recycling Centre Height consideration for screening.

(280) A3.16 Bedford Group of Drainage Boards No Comments

A3.17 Public Realm Officer (Play Areas)

Local Plan sets out 300m as the catchment for a Local Play Area, and they should be set at 500m intervals. There is another play area of this type that is around 300m away although it does involve crossing a road to get to it (foot note to appendix L3 also points out the need for a flexible approach) From my discussion with NPTC over many year they had always supported the idea that fewer but better play sites was more important than numerous sites with limited potential. This approach has also been agreed through the Play area Action plan that was adopted in 2013. Also given potential issues with viability Public Realm would be concerned about adopting play areas and open space where there may be insufficient maintenance contribution-.

A3.18

Request contributions towards additional policy costs to fund the new development.

A3.19 Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application: 75 Wordsworth Avenue Newport Pagnell Newport Pagnell 32 The Canons Newport Pagnell MK16 9GF 31 The Canons Newport Pagnell MK16 9GF 28 The Canons Newport Pagnell MK16 9GF 2 Vantage Court Tickford Street Newport Pagnell 30 The Canons Newport Pagnell MK16 9GF Vantage Court Tickford Street Newport Pagnell 33 The Canons Newport Pagnell MK16 9GF 29 The Canons Newport Pagnell MK16 9GF 1 Vantage Court Tickford Street Newport Pagnell 178 Tickford Street Newport Pagnell MK16 9BG 182 Tickford Street Newport Pagnell MK16 9BG

(281) 186 Tickford Street Newport Pagnell MK16 9BG 176 Tickford Street Newport Pagnell MK16 9BG 184 Tickford Street Newport Pagnell MK16 9BG 14 North Crawley Road Newport Pagnell MK16 9FE 33 Addenbrookes Road Newport Pagnell MK16 9FD 8 North Crawley Road Newport Pagnell MK16 9FE 2 North Crawley Road Newport Pagnell MK16 9FE 16 North Crawley Road Newport Pagnell MK16 9FE 10 North Crawley Road Newport Pagnell MK16 9FE 4 North Crawley Road Newport Pagnell MK16 9FE 23 Addenbrookes Road Newport Pagnell MK16 9FD 18 North Crawley Road Newport Pagnell MK16 9FE 31 Addenbrookes Road Newport Pagnell MK16 9FD 25 Addenbrookes Road Newport Pagnell MK16 9FD Jenna House North Crawley Road Newport Pagnell

A3.20 The following five observations were received:

Increase in traffic noise and congestion Increased pressure on facilities such as doctors and schools Affect on house value Failure to address deficiencies in local infrastructure: 1. Pedestrians have great difficulty crossing North Crawley Road between the two roundabouts and there should be a local widening of the carriageway, a central refuge and wider pavement/cycleway adjacent to the development site for its whole extent. 2. It is important to plan for cyclists at this location where a potential redway would link across Tickford Street and into North Crawley Road and the Tickford Fields Development Sites further east. Potential for a pelican/toucan crossing. 3. A bus shelter on London Road southbound is necessary. This site is an integral part of the Strategic Reserve Site and the first phase of a major new estate development, which must be properly

(282) considered and planned to provide the full range of facilities needed to make it sustainable. This requires a comprehensive development brief to be prepared in advance of any planning application decision. This is a key gateway site, the development of which will set a precedent and character for the rest of the larger development. The current proposed development does not adequately consider these wider implications, is poorly designed and laid out, and seeks to maximise the capacity of the site to the detriment of proper planning of the area. This application should be refused for the reasons given above, and a design brief prepared prior to the consideration of any further application. A TPO should be made on T1 Lime, as matter of urgency. The amended plans continue to show an over intensive development with a very poor outlook and privacy for dwellings at two edges of the site. The infrastructure requirements for the wider area of a total of c1400 houses are not addressed. There should not be a ransom strip where the spine road anticipated in the NP Neighbourhood Plan (final consultation document) meets the site boundary. The width of pavement on North Crawley Road remains inadequate for the anticipated cycle facility and the needs of pedestrians crossing N C Road

(283) ITEM 7 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE 25 NOVEMBER 2015

DRAFT PASCAL DRIVE, MEDBOURNE DEVELOPMENT BRIEF

Contact: Grant Gibson Design and Special Projects Manager

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Milton Keynes Development Partnership (MKDP) Agreement requires MKDP to seek approval from MKC for development briefs for each site in its ownership before they are marketed

1.2 Two sites off Pascal Drive, Medbourne are contained within the current Business Plan for MKDP which hence requires a development brief to be prepared

1.3 The Council’s amended adopted protocol for preparing and adopting development briefs (January 2015) includes the Development Control Committee as a consultee at the formal consultation stage

1.4 The formal consultation period for this Development Brief runs from the 5th October to 1st December 2015

1.5 The aim of this report is to summarise the key guidance contained within the draft Brief (included as an Annex)

2.0 AIM / PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT BRIEF

2.1 The aim of the Development Brief is to provide clear planning and design guidance for these two development sites so that the selected developer/s have a degree of clarity and confidence in preparing planning applications having regard to the site context as well as MKDP, Council and local stakeholder expectations for the site.

2.2 The development brief will also be used to help determine planning application/s.

3.0 SCOPE OF BRIEF

3.0 The Development Brief has been informed by current planning policy, the site context and reflects best practice, MKC Corporate Aims as well as the aspirations of the landowner; Milton Keynes Development Partnership and Milton Keynes Council .

(284) 3.1 The Brief provides strategic guidance that is important to any eventual detailed planning application. It is not intended to stifle the creativity of developers but rather provide clarity on what the key principles and parameters of any schemes should be.

4.0 CONTENT OF BRIEF

Planning Policy

4.1 There is an expectation that both sites will be developed as they are allocated in the adopted Local Plan for development. Sites A to the north of Pascal Drive is allocated for commercial use and Site B, to the south is allocated for housing.

4.2 While the Brief cannot be used a means to formally change the existing land use allocation, in certain cases there may be material considerations that suggest variations of current policy may be appropriate. MKDP’s Business Plan indeed states that “MKDP is actively investigating potential land use re-allocations to meet emerging demand, local and national policies, changes in the economy, changes to work practices, [and] enhancement of the local amenity”. It further states that “Where considered appropriate MKDP will promote land use changes through the Development Brief process and seek re- allocations where there is evidence to substantiate such change of use.”

4.3 Given the above, there is an existing local centre within close proximity (300m) to the site at Singleton Drive in Grange Farm. This can be easily accessed via Coulson Avenue and an additional redway adjacent to Flamsteed Gate which passes underneath the H5. It is considered therefore, that there is insufficient need or demand for additional commercial / retail facilities on Site A.

4.4 The brief therefore proposes to bring both sites forward for residential use. This is considered to be an appropriate use, as the sites lie within an established residential area and there is a demand for new housing sites to come forward. Any housing proposals would need to be accompanied by evidence that there is no reasonable prospect of Site A being used for commercial / retail use.

Site context

4.5 The sites lie in close proximity (400m) of a range of other uses. To the north within Grange Farm is Christ the Sower School and a local centre. To the south of the site is Medbourne Community Pavilion and associated playing fields and parkland as well as Shenley Wood. The close proximity of this open space and the backdrop of Shenley Woods to the south forms an attractive setting for the site.

(285) 4.6 Both sites together approximately extends to 1.22 ha (3.01 acres). A feature of the sites is the high amount of street frontage offered by Flamsteed Gate, Pascal Drive and Coulson Avenue. The site is bordered to the north east and south west by existing 2-4 storey housing. The housing immediately to the north east is characterised by 3-4 storey apartments.

4.7 The site is bordered on the north west by mature trees and planting which acts as screening as is part of the H5 Portway grid road corridor.

4.8 The south east of site B is bordered by a hedgerow the length of the site which follows the Swans Way footpath and Bridleway.

4.9 The sites are very accessible by vehicle; via Flamsteed Gate,Pasal Drive, Vernier Crescent and Coulson Avenue which provide direct access to the H5 Portway, V3 Fulmer Street, H2 Tattenhoe Street and Grange Farm respectively.

4.10 The sites are also very accessible by foot and cycling with an existing redway running along Pascal Drive and Flamsteed Gate while Swan’s Way provides a leisure route/bridleway through to Oakhill Wood. There are 2 pedestrian routes (including 1 redway) providing access to the local centre and Christ the Sower school in Grange Farm.

4.11 The sites are also well served by public transport with bus stops adjacent to it on Portway.

4.12 Both sites are largely unconstrained comprising mainly grassland although Site A in particular has a significant slope down to Pascal Drive. There is some strategically located tree planting along Pascal Drive forming a vista stop at the end of Flamsteed Gate and Coulson Avenue.

4.13 Vision as outlined in the Brief

“To create a high quality development that helps meet the need for and diversify the offer of housing in Milton Keynes while helping contribute to its reputation for innovation.

5.0 DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES

5.1 The close proximity of an existing local centre to the sites and the surrounding residential context suggests a high quality residential development would be appropriate for both sites.

5.2 Within the residential use category, opportunities for some custom build housing and an element of specialist / supported housing should also be explored to both broaden the range of offer as well as promote an innovative approach to housing delivery.

(286) 5.3 Key Planning and Design Principles

Some of the key planning and design principles outlined in the Brief include:

5.4 The draft Brief is not prescriptive on the layout of the sites but suggests that layouts such as a perimeter block layout that ensure a clear distinction between public and private space and provide surveillance over the public realm should be included. Development should face Pascal Drive, Flamstead Gate and Coulson Avenue while it could front or back onto Portway and Swan’s Way.

5.5 The layout of the development should be legible to enable easy wayfinding and ease of movement.

5.6 The layout should exploit the sloping nature of the site and take advantage of key views across to Shenley Wood.

5.7 Pascal Drive and Flamsteed Gate should be treated as key frontages in terms of the way development addresses them.

5.8 Densities should be of an average of 35du/ha but within this average higher and lower densities should exist to help provide a variety of homes and varying character across the site. Highest densities for example will be located along Pascal Drive, Flamsteed Gate and Coulson Avenue with lowest densities likely abutting Portway and Swan’s Way.

5.9 Building heights will generally be 2-3 storeys with tallest elements at along Pascal Drive. A small amount of 4 storey development maybe appropriate along Pascal Drive and at the corner of Coulson Avenue where it would complement existing 3-4 story apartments and help ‘celebrate’ Pascal Drive as the most important street in the movement network of Medbourne.

5.10 The double hedgerow along Swans Way should be retained.

5.11 The small amount of existing tree line along Pascal Drive should be continued for its entire length particularly along its southern/eastern side.

5.12 The interface with Swans Way and grid road planting along Portway requires careful consideration. Development could either front onto or back onto these edges.

5.13 Direct vehicular access to individual properties on site A may be taken off Flamsteed Gate, Pascal Drive or Coulsen Avenue. However, in order to limit the number of vehicular movements crossing the redway adjoining site B, a limited number of grouped accesses will be permitted.

(287)

5.14 Parking is to meet the Council’s adopted standards and on street parking should be designed into the scheme so as to allow for the movement of free flowing traffic, including service delivery vehicles.

5.15 All buildings should be of exceptional design quality, should enhance their surroundings and be constructed from high quality, durable materials. A more restricted palette of materials should be employed within the proposed development.

5.17 The architectural approach to development should be informed by the contextual analysis. The adjoining development is characterised by a wide variety of building materials and forms. Housing directly to the north east has some interesting roof forms which help give a positive character to the area. This could provide a design cue for the design of housing on the sites.

5.18 Social / affordable housing provided must be in accordance to Council requirements and be indistinguishable from market housing (ie ‘tenure blind’).

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 That DCC note the contents of the draft Brief and offer any informal comment that they may have on it.

(288)

Urban Design & Landscape Architecture

Pascal Drive, Medbourne Development Brief

CONSULTATION DRAFT

www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/udla

July 2015 (289) Pascal Drive, Medbourne Development Brief

This document has been prepared by Milton Keynes Council’s Urban Design and Landscape Architecture Team.

For further information please contact:

Neil Sainsbury Head of Urban Design and Landscape Architecture Planning and Transport Group Milton Keynes Council Civic Offices 1 Saxon Gate East Milton Keynes MK9 3EJ

T +44 (0) 1908 252708 F +44 (0) 1908 252329 E [email protected]

(290)

2 Urban Design & Landscape Architecture

Contents

SECTION 1 SECTION 4

INTRODUCTION DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES

1.1 Location and Ownership 5 4.1 Development Opportunities 23 1.2 Purpose of the Development Brief 5

1.3 Structure of Brief 7

SECTION 5

SECTION 2 PLANNING & DESIGN PRINCIPLES POLICY CONTEXT 5.1 Introduction 25

2.1 National Planning Policy Framework 9 5.2 Layout 25

2.2 Milton Keynes Local Plan 9 5.3 Key Buildings and Frontages 25

2.3 Core Strategy 9 5.4 Density and Building Heights 25 2.4 SPG/SPDs 10 5.5 Detailed Design Appearance 25 2.5 Corporate Plan 10 5.6 Sustainable Construction and Energy Efficiency 28 2.6 Planning Summary 11 5.7 Access 28

5.8 Parking 28 SECTION 3 CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS 5.9 Public Realm and Landscaping 28

5.10 General Planning Requirements 28 3.1 Introduction 13

3.2 Surrounding Area 13

3.3 The Site 16

3.4 Opportunities and Constraints 21

(291) www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/udla 3 Pascal Drive, Medbourne Development Brief

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

(292)

4 Urban Design & Landscape Architecture

1.1 Location and Ownership 1.1.1 Fig 1a highlights land ownership and site area. All sites are entirely owned by Milton Keynes 1.1.1 This development brief concerns 2 allocated Development Partnership as identified by the development sites (known as Site A and Site B) red line. However, the area covered by the brief within the Medbourne Grid Square adjacent to has, for practical reasons, been extended to the H5 Portway (see fig 1) the back of existing carriageways as identified by the orange line. This land, including the 1.1.2 Milton Keynes Council and Milton Keynes area within the orange boundary, is owned by Development Partnership (MKDP*) have Milton Keynes Council as adoptable highway. high aspirations that development of these 2 The combined area of the both sites A and sites can help deliver the Council’s corporate B including orange boundary extends to aims concerning the delivery of housing and approximately 1.22 ha (3.01 acres). education across Milton Keynes that meet individual needs. 1.1.2 The site is in the ownership of Milton Keynes Development Partnership* (MKDP).

Redhouse Park

Blakelands

Oakridge Park Tongwell

A5 A508 Bolbeck Old Wolverton Park Stantonbury Pennyland Willen Stonebridge Willen Bradville Park Neath Hill Pineham Old Stony Blue Bridge Stratford Downhead WOLVERTON Wolverton Linford Wood Park Brooklands Mill Bancroft Downs Barn Newlands Greenleys Stacey Bushes Heelands Hodge Conniburrow Fullers Broughton Slade Lea Bradwell Bradwell Abbey Broughton Kiln Farm Bradwell Woolstone Gate Common Middleton Wymbush Rooksley Oakgrove Magna Park Two Mile Ash Kingston

Loughton Fishermead Monkston Lodge Monkston Great Holm Park Brinklow Eaglestone Oldbrook on-the-green Loughton Kents Hill Wavendon Crownhill Winterhill Leadenhall Walton Hall Wavendon Gate The Site Knowlhill Woughton Shenley Park Walnut Hall Grange Farm Church End Tree Old Farm Park The Bowl Simpson Hazeley Shenley Bleak Beanhill Medbourne Lodge Hall Mount Farm Oakhill Ashlands Shenley Browns Woods Redmore Woodhill Wood Denbigh Shenley Grandby North Mount Farm Brook End Furzton Denbigh Hall Caldecotte Oxley Park Fenny Fenny Lock Emerson Valley West Denbigh Westcroft Stratford Bletchley East

Kingsmead Tattenhoe BLETCHLEY Far Bletchley

Tattenhoe Water Park Eaton A421

Newton Leys Figure 1: Site Location (293)

www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/udla 5 Pascal Drive, Medbourne Development Brief

1.2 Purpose of the Development Brief Vision Statement: 1.2.1 The purpose of this document is to provide “To create a high quality development that N planning and design guidance for the helps meet the need for and diversify the offer development of site A and B in Medbourne. of housing in Milton Keynes while helping This will aid the development process, by contribute to its reputation for innovation. allowing developers to submit informed proposals that respond to Council (MKC), landowner and other local stakeholder expectations and aspirations for the site, and 1.2.3 The consultation process associated with respect the requirements of MKC planning the preparation of this development brief policy. is intended to give all interested parties full opportunities to set out their aspirations for the 1.2.2 The Brief has been prepared to help deliver site and to identify constraints that need to be the Council’s Corporate Plan Themes and accommodated. Outcomes as well as the Core Strategy.

SITE A

SITE B

Figure 1a: Site Boundary (294)

6 50 m 100 ft Urban Design & Landscape Architecture

Figure 2: Aerial photo of site

1.2.4 Development Briefs cannot be used as a means to change existing land use policy allocation. They normally therefore accord with the existing

Cities Revealed® Aerial Photography © The Geoinformation®land use Group policy 2012 with a key aim/role being to iShare printing contextualise planning and design policy for the Scale: 1:2500 site covered by the Brief. In certain cases there Printed on: 7/7/2015 at 15:54 PM may be material considerations that suggest © Astun Technology Ltd variations of current policy may be appropriate. Where this is the case, the Brief will state what they are and what the preferred use and / or variation in policy is. This will be weighed against the current policy when determining a planning application for the site. This brief is such a case where opportunities for alternative land uses to the allocated land use is being promoted.

(295)

www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/udla 7 Pascal Drive, Medbourne Development Brief

1.2.5 Once approved by Milton Keynes Council 1.3 Structure of Brief Cabinet, the guidance contained within the Brief will be a material consideration in helping The Brief is divided into five sections: determine planning applications for the site.

Section 1 outlines the purpose of the brief, its location and ownership and other administrative *MKDP is a limited liability partnership set up by information for developers. Milton Keynes Council to facilitate Milton Keynes’s  continued growth and economic success by promoting Section 2 describes the planning policy context the development of land assets transferred to the of the site. council from the Homes and Communities Agency, in  line with the Council’s Corporate Plan and Economic Section 3 provides a site analysis of the site Development Strategy. MKDP take a commercial and itself and the surrounding area. A thorough entrepreneurial approach to sell and develop these understanding of this will have an important assets with third party developers and investors, whilst bearing on the key design principles and ensuring full community and stakeholder engagement in parameters. the preparation of development briefs for the sites.

Section 4 outlines what the Brief is seeking to It is a requirement on the MKDP that an adopted deliver in terms of land uses Development Brief must be in place before they  commence marketing or developing any of their larger Section 5 represents the Key Design and sites. This is intended to enable the Council, following Development Principles, that should inform any consultation with all interested parties, to set clear development proposals. The accompanying expectations for the nature of any future development Parameters Plan spatially illustrates the design on the site; but also to assist the MKDP in marketing the principles. site and to give potential bidders/development partners a degree of confidence about the parameters within 1.4 Other Information which they should develop their proposals.

1.4.1 Once adopted the development brief will be followed and supported by a marketing brief prepared by MKDP which will outline pertinent information where appropriate regarding title, any existing leasehold arrangements, rights of access, restrictive covenants and clawback arrangements. 1.4.2 The marketing brief is also intended to set out additional MKDP aspirations for sustainability / energy standards, design and mix of uses and tenures, phasing of development, together with more detail on MKDP’s preferred route to the market and selection criteria.

(296)

8 Urban Design & Landscape Architecture

SECTION 2: POLICY CONTEXT

(297) www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/udla 9 Pascal Drive, Medbourne Development Brief

2.1 Policy Context 2.3 National Planning Policy Framework Any proposals for the site should be informed (NPPF) by and will be expected to support the delivery of the Milton Keynes Council Corporate Plan 2.3.1 The National Planning Policy Framework and comply with the below national and local (NPPF) was published in 2012. At the heart planning policy. of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

2.2 MKC Corporate Plan 2.3.2 The following sections of the NPPF are of particular relevance to the development of this 2.2.1 This Brief will, in particular, support the Themes site: of “Living in MK” and “Cleaner, Greener, Safer, • Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Healthier MK”. • Promoting healthy communities

• Requiring good design

(298)

10 Urban Design & Landscape Architecture

2.4 Milton Keynes Core Strategy 2.5 Milton Keynes Local Plan

2.4.1 The Core Strategy was adopted in July 2013 2.5.1 Site A is allocated in the Local Plan for and forms part of the development plan for commercial facilities while Site B is allocated for Milton Keynes. housing development. Given the close proximity of the site to the existing Grange Farm Local 2.4.2 Relevant Core Strategy policies include: Centre, there is no evidence of need for any • Policy CSA National Planning Policy Framework additional commercial / retail floorspace. The - Presumption in favour of sustainable Brief is therefore proposing residential uses on development the northern site. • Policy CS4 Retail and Leisure Development • Policy CS10 Housing 2.5.2 Policy H7 (housing on unidentified sites) sets • Policy CS11 A Well Connected Milton Keynes out criteria against which housing proposals • Policy CS12 Developing Successful on non-allocated sites will be assessed. Neighbourhoods Policies H4-H5 and L3 set out the Council’s • Policy CS13 Ensuring High Quality, New requirements with regard to affordable housing, Designed Places and open space, respectively. • Policy CS18 Healthier and Safer Communities • Policy CS19 The Historic and Natural 2.5.3 Policy D4 of the Local Plan sets out the Environment Council’s requirements with regard to sustainable construction.

2.5.4 Policies D1 and D2 are general design policies that apply borough-wide. They look at the impact of development proposals on locality and the design of buildings. Policies T10 and T15 take account of traffic and parking provision respectively, while Policy T11 sets out the Council thresholds regarding whether or not a Transport Assessment/Travel Plan is required.

(299) www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/udla 11 Pascal Drive, Medbourne Development Brief

2.6 Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG)/Documents (SPDs)

Urban Design & Landscape Architecture 2.6.1 The following Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents (SPG/SPDs) should be considered as material considerations when New Residential Development preparing any planning application for the site: Design Guide

• Sustainable Construction SPD (2007) Supplementary Planning Document • Parking Standards SPG (2005; Addendum Adopted April 2012 2009) • New Residential Development Design Guide (2012) • Affordable Housing (2013) • A suite of Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance relating to Developer Contributions

2.7 Planning Summary www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/Urban-Design

2.7.1 The two sites are allocated in the Local Plan for the provision of new commercial/retail uses and residential uses respectively. The Residential Design Guide (2012)

2.7.2 The promotion of other uses, particularly residential uses, would need to be accompanied by evidence that there is no reasonable prospect of the site being used for the allocated commercial use.

(300)

12 Urban Design & Landscape Architecture

SECTION 3: CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS

(301) www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/udla 13 Pascal Drive, Medbourne Development Brief

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 It is important to understand the existing sites and surrounding area and their features, as this informs the layout and design principles for any redevelopment of the site. Figures 3 to 6 provide an analysis of the site and its context.

3.2 Surrounding Area

Land Uses View of site looking north east along Pascal Drive 3.2.1 To the north east and south west of the two sites is housing. The site is bordered on the north west by mature trees and planting which acts as screening to the H5 Portway grid road corridor.

3.2.2 The south east of site B is bordered by a hedgerow the length of the site following the Swans Way footpath and Bridle way. This separates the site from Medbourne Pavilion which includes a community centre and playing fields. The close proximity of the open space and backdrop of Shenley Woods to the south View of site A from Pascal Drive looking North West forms an attractive setting for development. along Flamsteed Gate towards Portway.

3.2.3 Further north beyond the H5 is Grange Farm and Christ the Soweer Ecumenical Primary School. Coulson Avenue runs from Grange Farm via an underpass of the H5 to the north east border of the site. The local centre within Grange Farm, includes a dental practice, children’s nursery, a supermarket and a number of unit shops.

View looking east across site B and along the hedgerow bordering Swans Way. (302)

14 Urban Design & Landscape Architecture

N

PRIMARY SCHOOL

Fulmer Street (V3) P O 800m

SECONDARY SCHOOL

Portway (H9)

PRIMARY SECONDARY SCHOOL SCHOOL

400m

Tattenhoe Street (V2)

HOUSING DAY NURSERY

EMPLOYMENT COMMUNITY CENTRE

EDUCATION OPEN SPACE

LOCAL CENTRE PLAY AREA

DOCTORS SURGERY BUS STOP

DENTIST REDWAY

P O POST OFFICE SITE BOUNDARY

Figure 3: Surrounding Area

(303)

www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/udla 15 Pascal Drive, Medbourne Development Brief

Building Heights and Setbacks

3.2.3 Development in the immediate vicinity of the sites is predominantly 2-2½ storeys. There are also 3 and 4 storey apartments addressing the corner of Coulson Avenue and Oldham Rise which overlooks the sites.

3.2.4 Setbacks along Pascal Drive in the vicinity of the sites are generous with wide verges laid to grass and tree lined with a redway between the road and property boundaries. Properties 3 and 4 storey apartments addressing the corner of Coulson Avenue and Oldham Rise which overlooks the sites. generally have a further set back from the redway and are typically 1-2 metres deep.

Public Transport Access

3.2.5 To the north of the sites there are existing bus stops on Portway (H5) and to the south on Tattenhoe Street (V2).

Redway network

Redway running between the sites adjacent to Pascal Drive 3.2.6 There is a redway running directly between the 2 sites along the southern side of Pascal Drive. This links into the wider redway network which provides cycle and pedestrian access to adjoining grid squares, and beyond.

3.2.7 There is also a leisure route footpath and bridle way which runs along the southern edge of site B. This route links into the network of footpaths within Shenley Wood and joins the North Way. Swan’s Way leisure route footpath and bridle way bordering the southern edge of site (304)

16 Urban Design & Landscape Architecture

3.3 The Site

Topography and Landscape

3.3.1 The sites are predominantly flat and laid to grass but does gently slope down to Pascal Drive from the North West.

3.3.2 The south east part of site B is bordered by a hedgerow the length of the site following the Swans Way footpath and bridle way. This

separates the site from Medbourne Pavilion and Mature trees and hedgerow boarders the site and screens from H5 Playing Fields.

3.3.3 Site A is screened from the H5 grid road by mature trees and planting.

Predominantly flat site, gently sloping down to Pascal Drive

(305) www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/udla 17 Pascal Drive, Medbourne Development Brief

N LANDSCAPE Site Boundary

Street Tree

Hedgerow

Grid Road Planting

Public Open Space

Woodland

Coulson Avenue

Flamsteed Gate Portway (H5)

Pascal Drive

Figure 4: Surrounding landscape (306)

18 Urban Design & Landscape Architecture

Vehicular Access

3.3.4 The site has easy access to the grid road network via Flamsteed Gate connecting to Portway (H5). Vehicular access is also provided under the grid road to Grange Farm via Coulson Avenue.

3.3.5 Vehicular access to the site can be taken directly from the existing surrounding street

network. Pascal Drive runs through the centre of Coulson Avenue boarders the site along the north east edge and runs the site, Coulson Avenue and Flamsteed Gate under the H5 to Grange Farm enclose the site on two sides. These streets have a pedestrian footway which adjoins the boundary of the site. Site A backs onto the planted grid road reserve and Site B backs onto the hedgerow of the Swans Way.

(307) www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/udla 19 Pascal Drive, Medbourne Development Brief

MOVEMENT N Site Boundary

Fulmer Street (V3) Grid Road

Ashford Crescent Principal Street Within Grid Square

Link Street to Adjoining Grid Square

Redway

Wickstead Avenue Dunthorne Way Pedestrian Route Bus Stop

Hail and Ride Stop

Singleton Drive

Morland Drive

Coulson Avenue

Oldham Rise

Flamsteed Gate

Pascal Drive

Pascal Drive Portway (H5) Kirkwood Grove

Swans Way

Tattenhoe Street (V2)

Derwin Close

Vernier Crescent Figure 5: Existing movement (308)

20 Urban Design & Landscape Architecture

OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS N Site Boundary Development Site Existing Hedgerow Grid Road Planting Existing line of Street Trees Development Frontage Opportunity Noisy Edge Portway (H5) Building Form Context: 2 Storey Building Form Context: 3 Storey Existing Redway Coulson Avenue Existing Pedestrian Route Indicative Vehicular Access Suggested new street trees New Pedestrian Route

Flamsteed Gate

Pascal Drive

Figure 6: Opportunities and Constraints (309) www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/udla 21 Pascal Drive, Medbourne Development Brief

3.4 Opportunities and Constraints

3.4.1 The preceding sections of the development brief provide an appraisal of the site’s existing character and context.

Opportunities

• The sites are allocated in the Local Plan as a development sites and there is an expectation that they will be developed. • Milton Keynes requires new housing and these sites, in close proximity to a range of facilities, can help to deliver this. • Good existing pedestrian and cycle links. • Sites are accessible by public transport and car. • Sites are relatively flat. • Site has street frontage to Pascal Drive, Flamsteed Gate and Coulson Avenue. • Potential to provide surveillance of public realm.

Constraints

• Vehicular noise from the adjacent H5 • Mature hedgerow borders the sites - sensitive approach required

3.4.2 The opportunities and constraints have served to underpin the rationale behind the planning and design principles and associated Parameters Plan, outlined in section 5.

(310)

22 Urban Design & Landscape Architecture

SECTION 4: DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES

(311) www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/udla 23 Pascal Drive, Medbourne Development Brief

4.1 Development Opportunities 4.1.6 It is expected that 30% of the total housing will be provided as affordable housing, as outlined in the Council’s Affordable Housing SPD 4.1.1 The planning policy context as outlined in adopted in 2013. Section 3 states that the sites are suitable for proposals for both housing and commercial development.

4.1.2 There is an existing local centre within close proximity to the site at Singleton Drive in Grange Farm which can also be easily accessed via Coulson Avenue which passes underneath the H5. It is considered therefore that there is insufficient need or demand for additional commercial / retail facilities on Site A.

4.1.3 It is therefore proposed to bring the site forward for residential use. This is considered to be an appropriate use, as the site lies within an established residential area. Any housing proposals would need to be accompanied by evidence that there is no reasonable prospect of the site being used for commercial / retail use.

4.1.4 Residential development is an appropriate use of site B and could come forward as a private housing development.

4.1.5 Within the residential use category, opportunities for some custom build housing and an element of specialist / supported housing should also be explored to both broaden the range of offer as well as promote an innovative approach to housing delivery.

(312)

24 Urban Design & Landscape Architecture

SECTION 5: PLANNING AND DESIGN PRINCIPLES

(313) www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/udla 25 Pascal Drive, Medbourne Development Brief

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 This section outlines the relevant planning 5.3 Key Buildings and Frontages and design principles appropriate to the development of the site. These principles have Key Buildings been informed by the existing planning policy 5.3.1 The entrance to Pascal Drive from Flamsteed position, the contextual analysis as well as Gate and Coulson Avenue should be marked the opportunities and constraints/challenges with a key buildings. They should be designed facing the two sites. A Parameters Plan serves so that they are distinct from the surrounding to spatially represent the key design principles. buildings by virtue of, scale, architectural style, (see figure 5) detailing or materials. 5.2 Layout 5.3.2 Buildings on the corner of streets should turn 5.2.1 Development should follow perimeter block the corner with active frontages provided to both principles, so that there is a clear public front streets. with entrances and a clear private back that faces other private backs. This principle may Frontages however vary for development facing the H5 where back gardens may face the H5 grid road. 5.3.3 All streets must be overlooked by development. In this regard care must be taken to avoid 5.2.2 The layout should not result in ambiguous space layouts and building footprints that result in that is not clearly public or private (such as blank elevations that front a public street. alleyways or other ‘leftover space’). 5.3.4 There is a planted landscaping belt along the 5.2.3 The layout of the development blocks should be southern and northern boundaries. Dwellings legible to enable easy wayfinding and ease of could back onto this boundary, subject to movement. strengthening of this landscaping belt. 

(314)

26 Urban Design & Landscape Architecture

5.4 Density and Building Heights 5.6 Sustainable Construction and Energy Efficiency 5.4.1 The density of development should reflect that of the surrounding area and therefore densities 5.6.1 The Council’s Local Plan Policy D4 and its of generally between 25-35 dw/ha would be supplementary Sustainable Construction SPD appropriate. sets sustainability standards that will have to be considered as part of the overall design 5.4.2 Building heights should be predominantly 2 to process. 2½ storeys, with the potential for the occasional 3 or 4 storey building to provide variety and 5.6.2 T o satisfy policy D4, developers will either mark key vistas. need to produce a sustainability statement  showing how the requirements of the relevant 5.5 Detailed Design Appearance checklist in the SPD will be satisfied, or carry out a BREEAM/Code for Sustainable Homes 5.5.1 The architectural approach to development assessment demonstrating how an excellent/ should be informed by the contextual analysis. Code For Sustainable Homes level 4 standard The adjoining development is characterised by will be achieved. a wide variety of building materials and forms. Housing directly to the north east has some 5.7 Access and Movement interesting roof forms which help give a positive 5.7.1 The principal vehicular access to the character to the area. This could provide a development will be taken off Pascal Drive. design cue for the design of the housing on Secondary access could also be provided off the sites. A more restricted palette of materials Coulson Avenue and Flamsteed Gate. should be employed within the proposed

development. 5.8 Parking

5.5.2 As a general principle, the appearance of 5.8.1 Car and cycle parking must be in accordance buildings should reflect Milton Keynes’s ethos with Milton Keynes Council’s Parking Standards. as a forward thinking, and innovative city. All buildings should be of exceptional design 5.8.2 The location of car parking should accord with quality, should be well proportioned, should the guidance in the Council’s Residential Design enhance their surroundings and be constructed Guide. from high quality, durable materials.

5.5.3 All social/affordable housing must be indistinguishable from market housing (i.e. ‘tenure blind’). (315) www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/udla 27 Pascal Drive, Medbourne Development Brief

5.9 Public Realm and Landscaping 5.10 General Planning Requirements

Nature Conservation 5.9.1 Development proposals should be accompanied by a plan illustrating indicative landscape 5.10.1 An Extended Phase One Survey Report, principles for the site. including information on the likely ecological

5.9.2 Landscaping should be used wherever possible impacts of the development and proposed to reduce the impact of blank side and rear mitigation, will be required. This survey will boundary fences. also inform the requirements for other more specific surveys and mitigation work.

5.10.2 Development proposals should be subject to the DEFRA Impact Assessment Biodiversity Calculator methodology to inform avoidance, mitigation and compensation to include biodiversity offsetting actions.

Safety and Security

5.10.3 The developer must consult with the Crime Prevention Design Advisor at an early stage in the design process: initially, regarding design and layout and subsequently, regarding any additional physical security or community safety requirements.

5.10.4 Most importantly, the layout of the development should avoid the creation of areas of public realm that are ‘leftover’ and not overlooked by any development, as they can become areas of anti-social behaviour. Furthermore, there should be no ambiguous space in terms of ownership.

Archaeology

5.10.5 Consultation with the Council’s Senior Archaeological Officer did not identify any significant archaeological constraint. (316)

28 Urban Design & Landscape Architecture

PARAMETERS PLAN

N Site Boundary Development Site Trees to be Retained (Except Where Removal is Necessary to Allow Access to the Site) Hedgerow to be Retained

Trees/Landscaping to be Retained Key Frontage Portway (H5) Key Building Corner Building Existing Redway Coulson Avenue Existing Pedestrian Route

Flamsteed Gate

Pascal Drive

Figure 5: Parameters Plan (317) www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/udla 29 Pascal Drive, Medbourne Development Brief

(318)

30 Urban Design & Landscape Architecture Planning and Transport Group Milton Keynes Council Civic Offices 1 Saxon Gate East Milton Keynes MK9 3EJ T +44 (0) 1908 252708 F +44 (0) 1908 252329 E [email protected]

www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/udla

Available in audio, large print, braille and other languages 01908 254836 (319)