DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE 14 NOVEMBER 2016 COUNCILLOR’S ADDITIONAL PAPERS - INDEX OF DOCUMENTS CIRCULATED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA 1. Speaking Commitment (Page 3) 2. Application 01 - 15/01533/OUTEIS i. Submission from Mr Andrew Gurney - Tenant Farmer of Eaton Leys Farm Water Eaton (Pages 4 to 8) ii. Submission from Development Management Manager – Aylesbury Vale District Council (Pages 9 to 12) iii. Submission from Highway Development Management – Buckinghamshire County Council (Pages 13 to 14) iv. Submissions from Liz Rawlinson – COBRA and The Mill Residents Association (Pages 15 to 23) v. Submission from Little Brickhill Parish Council (Pages 24 to 25) vi. Submission from Bletchley and Fenny Town Council (Pages 26 to 27) vii. Submission from Tracey Everard - Resident (Page 28) viii. Submission from Reg Edwards – COBRA (Pages 29 to 74) ix. Submissions from Newton Longville Parish Council (Pages 75 to 132) x. Submission from Director of Barton Willmore (Developer) (Pages 133 to 135) xi. Submissions from the following (Pages 136 to 145): Paul Simpson - Resident Peter Bellingham - Resident Alan & Pat Smith - Resident David Sutton - Resident (1) Christopher Leech - Resident Debbie Evans Sue Malleson - Resident Mike Crayford-West- Resident Mike Powell - Resident Councillor Petchey (with responses from Senior Planning Officer) Clerk to Stoke Hammond Parish Council Anne Baker - Resident Mike Robinson - Vice-Chair Stoke Hammond Parish Council Joel Cockerill – Resident Melanie Marshman – Resident Lucy Moore - Resident (2) SPEAKING LIST SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14 NOVEMBER 2016 APPLICATION TITLE REQUESTS TO SPEAK IN TIME RIGHT OF REPLY TIME NO. OBJECTION ALLOCATED OR SPEAKERS IN ALLOCATED FAVOUR 15/01533/OUTEIS Land at Eaton Leys, Galley Cllr Alan Webb (Ward (3 Mins) Mr Michael Knott (24 Mins) Lane, Little Brickhill Councillor) Applicant’s agent Cllr Sean Porter (Bletchley (3 Mins) and Fenny Stratford Town Council) Mr Steve Heath and Cllr Kate Ward (Newton Longville (3 Mins) Parish Council) Mr R Edwards (Consortium of Bletchley (3 Mins) Resident’s Association) Mrs E Rawlinson (3 Mins) (Mill Road Resident’s Association) Dr David S Neil FSA (3 Mins) Dr Andrew Smith (3 Mins) Mr Andrew Gurney (Tenant (3 Mins) Farmer) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) AYLESBURY VALE DISTRICT COUNCIL Customer Fulfilment Please ask for: Susan Kitchen Direct Line: (01296) 585436 Switchboard: (01296) 585858 Text Relay: prefix telephone number with 18001 Email: [email protected] Our Ref: Your Ref: 10 November 2016 [email protected] Dear Ms Hine Application Number: 15/01533/OUTEIS Outline planning application with all matters reserved for a residential-led development including up to 1,800 dwellings, distributed between Aylesbury Vale and Milton Keynes as follows: Within Milton Keynes; the development of up to 600 dwellings, a local centre to include retail and a community centre, a health centre, land reserved for a one 1 form of entry primary school, associated highway infrastructure including one proposed vehicular accesses with the A4146, one proposed pedestrian and cycle bridge crossing the river Ouzel, multi-functional public open space, informal amenity space, children's play space, open space incorporating the scheduled monument, surface water attenuation and strategic landscaping, and associated services and utilities infrastructure. Within Aylesbury Vale; the demolition of all existing farm buildings (except farmhouse) and the development of up to 1,200 dwellings, one 2 forms of entry primary school, associated highway infrastructure including one proposed vehicular accesses with the A4146, one proposed pedestrian and cycle bridge crossing the river Ouzel, multi-functional public open space, informal amenity space, children's play space, playing fields, allotments, surface water attenuation and strategic landscaping, and associated services and utilities infrastructure. AT Land At Eaton Leys, Galley Lane, Little Brickhill I am writing following the publication of the report to the Development Control Committee on 14 November 2016 regarding the above planning application. As you are aware, there are submitted 2 applications for a development which crosses the boundary between our respective authorities, with upto 600 dwellings in Milton Keynes Council’s administrative boundary and upto 1200 dwellings within Aylesbury Vale District Council and Buckinghamshire County Council’s administrative areas, together with related facilities and infrastructure. The applications have been the subject of considerable discussions between Milton Keynes and Aylesbury Vale District Council’s officers for many months however Aylesbury Vale District Council were not aware until 17 October 2016 that a report was being prepared for this particular committee date to consider the application within Milton Keynes nor that the likely recommendation was for approval, subject to a S106 agreement. We had expected to agree co ordination of reporting to committee in the spirit of a collaborative approach. It therefore has come as a surprise to officers and members of this Council as well as that of officers at Buckinghamshire County Council, and I am therefore writing on behalf of Aylesbury Vale District Council to make representations for the members of the committee’s consideration. The Gateway, Gatehouse Road, Aylesbury Bucks HP19 8FF DX 4130 Aylesbury www.aylesburyvaledc.gov.uk (9) I do not consider that the officer report accurately reflects this position as set out in paragraphs 5.61 and 5.62 . Aylesbury Vale District Council have sought to take a proactive approach to identify all of the relevant planning issues and to seek to resolve those matters where appropriate and not to frustrate or delay a decision being made on this application. Whilst I fully accept that each authority is responsible for determining the development within its own boundary, the Council would wish to draw members of the committees attention to the concerns which Aylesbury Vale District Council have which apply equally to that part of the development within Milton Keynes jurisdiction. The Environmental Statement: The Environmental Statement (ES) assesses the proposal on the basis of the impact of the proposal across the whole of the site. It fails to consider the different scenarios of a stand alone development within each authorities boundaries. This applies across all the assessments, however we would draw particular attention to that of the landscape and visual impact and also highway impact. This is fundamental to the consideration of the application as the mitigation measures needed to attempt to mitigate or minimise the effect to an acceptable level relies on mitigation outside of the Milton Keynes boundary (MKC) and has an affect on Aylesbury Vale District Council (AVDC). This has not been adequately addressed in the report. Landscape and visual impact: The ES masterplan and accompanying parameter plans show the district boundary runs across the middle of a residential land use block, with 2 and 3 storey development right up to the district boundary. The landscape strategy does not show any landscape mitigation or buffer along the district boundary. There is nothing in the report that addresses this properly. The land itself lies within a designated Area of Attractive Landscape (AAL) to which policy RA8 of the Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan applies. This states: The Proposals Map defines Areas of Attractive Landscape, identified in the County Structure Plan, and Local Landscape Areas, defined by the District Council, which have particular landscape features and qualities that are considered appropriate for particular protection. Development proposals in these areas should respect their landscape character. Development that adversely affects this character will not be permitted, unless appropriate mitigation measures can be secured. Where permission is granted the Council will impose conditions or seek planning obligations to ensure the mitigation of any harm caused to the landscape interest. It is appreciated that this designation and policy does not apply to the northern part of the site within MKC, however there is no distinction in landscape character terms between the landscape within MKC and that in AVDC, it is all part of the same landscape character area. There are clear views across the land in each authority area to and from the AAL, and the value of the landscape should be regarded in the same way and is still a valued landscape in NPPF terms. Page 85 of the report sets out the comments of Milton Keynes own landscape officer who advises that (10) “consideration must be given to the inclusion of a substantial buffer landscaping along the joint boundary….. as the current layout relies heavily on permission being granted on the adjoining land in AVDC”. The report appears to down play these comments at paragraph 5.57 and refers to “a buffer between the two administrative areas if considered appropriate. A buffer in this location would help to reduce the impact of the development on the neighbouring landscape designation.” No buffer is indicated along this district boundary on the masterplan or parameter plans which form part of the ES, and the development as indicated could result in a harsh abrupt edge to the development. The provision of a landscape strip or hedgerow would be wholly inadequate to mitigate this effect, and any such mitigation would require a substantial buffer as advised by your own landscape officer. Even if such a buffer is provided this would be unlikely to overcome the significant adverse impact on the land within AVDC as a valued landscape. The ES and report to committee does not adequately deal with this as an issue and assess the harm from development taking place right up to the boundary with no mitigation. It therefore fails to provide any mitigation for this site to come forward independently of the land within AVDC. AVDC do not accept the findings of the LVIA contained within the ES on either landscape or visual impact. I consider that there would be a significant adverse effect on the land within AVDC which is designated an Area of Attractive Landscape and is a valued landscape in NPPF terms.