DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 23 FEBRUARY 2017 COUNCILLORS’ ADDITIONAL PAPERS - INDEX OF DOCUMENTS CIRCULATED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA 1. Speaking Commitment (Page 2) 2. Applications 01 and 02 - 16/02998/FUL and 16/02998/LBC Emberton House Farm i. Representations and Photographs – Mr C Tierney (Pages 3 to 9) ii. Representations from Applicant – (Pages 10 to 21) 3. Applications 06 and 07 - 16/03347/FUL and 16/03347/LBC The Small House, 6 High Street, Sherington. i. Representation - Mr D Williams (Page 22) ii. Representation - Mr S Parmar (Pages 23 to 24) iii. Officer Update (Pages 25 to 41) (1) SPEAKING LIST DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL – 23 FEBRUARY 2017 APPLICATION ADDRESS REQUESTS TO SPEAK IN TIME RIGHT OF REPLY TIME NO. OBJECTION ALLOCATED OR SPEAKERS IN ALLOCATED FAVOUR APP01/02. Emberton House Farm, Mr C Tierney 3 Mins Councillor P Geary 3 Mins 16/02998/FUL and Newport Road, (Ward Councillor) 16/02999/LBC Emberton Councillor D Hosking 3 Mins (Ward Councillor) Ms G Davidson 6 Mins (Applicant’s Agent) APP03/04. Old Bunsty, Ms K Hanson 3 Mins Ms J Armstrong 9 Mins 16/02955/FUL and Bunsty Pastures, (Applicant’s Agent) 16/02956/LBC Hanslope Road Mr E Hanson 3 Mins Mr J Kane 3 Mins APP06/07. The Small House, Cllr W Bush 3 Mins Mr K Sherwood 9 Mins 16/03208/FUL and 6 High Street, (Sherington Parish (Applicant’s Agent) 16/03209/LBC Sherington Council) Mr O Powell 3 Mins Mr D Carew 3 Mins APP 10 - 16/03305/FUL 11 Wordsworth Avenue, Ms M L’Honore 3 Mins Mr M Cowling Newport Pagnell, (Applicant’s Agent) Right of reply declined. (2) Objection to Planning Appn. 16/02998/FUL Artist impression using scale dimensions and representative colours from Applicants Plans (3) Objection to Planning Application 16/02998/FUL 1 Recommendation – The Application Must be Rejected “ Nobody is saying “don’t build”, we owe it to our heritage and landscape, that the Design and Appearance is appropriate” (4) Objection to Planning Application 16/02998/FUL 2 Rationale for Reasonable Objection 1) The report produced by Planning Officer, recommending approval by committee is inaccurate, incomplete and flawed 2) The proposed development is clearly of Inappropriate Design and Appearance in the context of its setting 3) The above presents sufficient material consideration for rejection (supported by relevant policy and legislation) (5) Objection to Planning Application 16/02998/FUL 3 Current Setting (6) Objection to Planning Application 16/02998/FUL 4 Design & Appearance of Proposed Development Artist impression using scale dimensions from Applicants Plans (7) Objection to Planning Application 16/02998/FUL 5 Summary of Main Arguments POOR REPORT DESIGN & APPEARANCE • 5.17 Amenity impact #3 Honey Hill not • Enabling Planning approach led to mentioned <22m from development “modernist” design & scale (seen in report Appendix) • Parish Council and 100% residents • Adjacent houses “stone” not “brick” as affected object to design & appearance FLAWED DATA CLEARLY quoted • 6m height projects 3.5m above wall (all FOR INAPPROPRAITE • Hanging sentence with no conclusion in other property 1.5 height) DECISION DESIGN main Design & Appearance argument • Double Storey – 220m2 of red/brown • Conservation Officer recommendation aluminium amongst stone & heritage missing dwellings (CO requests design softened) POLICY/LEGISLATION CONSIDERATIONS KEY QUESTIONS FOR PANEL • Not Conducted - Heritage Impact • Normally planning would not be allowed assessment for impact on Grade II in this location – level of diligence? building HistoricMAJOR England (NPPF Para. 128) • Is report accurateCLEAR or complete? • Not AssessedPOLICY - Distance ITEMS to #3 Honey • Has adequate siteLOCAL assessment been Hill (New ResidentialREMAIN Design Guide SPD) undertaken (#3OBJECTION Honey Hill)? • Not Considered - Loss of Amenity to • Is the design appropriate (simple in #1 & #3 (Human Rights Act protocol art. 1 & 8) appearance) and complementing listed • NPPF Presumptive Argument – buildings? adverse impacts outweigh benefits • Should you listen to residents/Parish? (8) Objection to Planning Application 16/02998/FUL 6 Recommendation – The Application Must be Rejected “ Nobody is saying “don’t build”, we owe it to our heritage and landscape, that the Design and Appearance is appropriate” Actual building height (6m) and sample colour - shows 1st floor at actual dimensions (3m) taken from the plan White area is the actual size of 1 of 14 1st floor windows overlooking the east Thank You. Any Questions? (9) Objection to Planning Application 16/02998/FUL 7 EMBERTON HOUSE - REPRESENTATIONS FROM APPLICANT We are pleased that our application has been recommended for approval by Nicola Wheatcroft and we are looking forward to the panel meeting on Thursday evening. We are acutely aware, however, that this is not a straight forward application and we wanted to provide some more detail around what may well be one of the most contentious elements of the proposal; the design. We think it would be useful to outline the Council planning team’s advice to date on this subject: • We submitted a pre-application proposal, Feb 2015, with indicative elevations and forms showing a traditional design and materials. • A site meeting was held on 10 July 2015 with Debbie Kirk and Martin Ellison. They requested submission of further pre-app proposals of modern design, avoiding more traditional approaches. • We submitted a design concept document (copy attached) to Debbie Kirk, in consultation with Martin Ellison and Simon on 11 Aug 2015. • Debbie Kirk’s response presenting the collective view of planning and conservation, dated 14 Aug 2015, was as follows: ‘Dear Mr Mercer, The Senior Conservation and I have assessed the Design Brief Ideas and Concepts and would advise: The early formative brief for the proposed dwellings and broadly speaking the ideas mooted are along those that the Senior Conservation Officer envisaged. Although a set of nearby barns indicated the general direction of travel, that is, the proposals are to be barn like inform, the ‘template’ structures are too austere and of no architectural worth. Whilst the intention might be (from roadside vantage points at least) to create an impression of unassuming low-height windowless structures that might evoke the appearance of working buildings associated with the farmhouse there is also a good deal of scope to create good quality interesting and expressive contemporary buildings on sides facing away from the wall and road. The Senior Conservation Officer thinks this approach is effectively being alluded to in the submitted text and supporting photos. From roadside vantage points stone and/or brick under slate (or possibly zinc) could be used but on less conspicuous faces there would be greater scope for modern design idioms and materials with a more contemporary balance of glazing to solid wall and so on. The Senior Conservation Officers preference for contemporary buildings is for the use of contemporary building methods and styles to be deployed so that they are more ‘honest’ as new contributions to their context. Pastiche, in his (10) experience, can be a reasonable option but is difficult to do well under modern building constraints and using modern materials and also tends not to offer the same opportunities for innovation. To give the project the best chance of success there will need to be input from appropriately architectural advisers with a track record. The line drawings submitted are evidently rough impressions intended to help inform the general intention and direction but deft handling of form, materials and detail will be required to create a convincing architectural composition…’ • On the advice of Debbie Kirk we attended a meeting of the Parish Council on 5th October 2015 to discuss with them the contemporary design direction that we were being asked to follow to obtain their early views. Although the Parish Council felt that they could not fully comment until they saw the actual plans, in principle they had no objection to the contemporary design approach. • We then appointed Nicolas Tye Architects in December 2015, owing to their national and international reputation for award-winning, high quality, contemporary architecture. • We attended a meeting at MK Council offices 26 May 2016 with our planning consultant, Debbie Kirk and Martin Ellison. We presented the Nicolas Tye scheme with the design very much as ultimately submitted. We also discussed the planning principle (lack of 5-year housing land supply and enabling development), scale, materials, siting, impact on neighbours and how to mitigate, highways, parking. The scheme, with some slight alterations to siting of the dwellings and other very minor changes, was accepted positively and went on to be formally submitted in the planning application. • The design has been welcomed by all officers, including the conservation officer who has the specialist design skills to assess the impact of proposals on the setting of Listed Buildings. • Whilst we appreciate that Council officers provide advice without prejudice to any formal decision the Council may reach on an application, we wanted to give the background to how closely we have worked with MK planning team throughout to try and deliver a proposal that worked for the majority. The guidance around modern design was very clear. It is also fair to say that this approach has resulted in costs much higher than for a more traditional and pastiche design but this was done in the knowledge that we had been given clear advice on what type of design to produce and materials to use. We are also aware of many images that have been generated by some objectors to the scheme and made public via the planning portal and various other forums. These images are unattested and they are wholly misleading being inaccurate in size, scale and representation of the appearance of the proposed dwellings. We would kindly (11) ask that the panel disregard these pictures and consider only the official, verified images in the formal application pack.