DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 15 OCTOBER 2015 SPEAKING LIST AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Transcription

1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 15 OCTOBER 2015 SPEAKING LIST AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Speaking List /01319/FUL Officer Update /01320/LBC Officer Update /01807/FUL Objections from Mr and Mrs Cooke Officer Update /01359/FUL Comments from Councillor Hosking Officer Update /01827/FUL Officer Update /01888/FUL Officer Update /01779/FUL Officer Update /01254/FUL Officer Update /01869/FUL Officer Update /01706/ADV Officer Update /01948/ADV Officer Update /01949/ADV Officer Update ITEM 5 15/01891/TPO Officer Update (1)

2

3 SPEAKING LIST DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 15 OCTOBER 2015 APPLICATION NO. ADDRESS REQUESTS TO SPEAK IN OBJECTION TIME ALLOCATED RIGHT OF REPLY OR SPEAKERS IN FAVOUR TIME ALLOCATED 15/01319/FUL Howe Park House, 32 Hengistbury Lane, Tattenhoe Councillor Bald (MKC) Up to 3 Mins Mr A Keller Up to 3 Mins 15/01359/FUL 37 Northampton Road, Lavendon, Olney Mr Andrew Ledson Up to 3 Mins Mr Ian Lapsley Up to 3 Mins 15/01779/FUL 118 Watling Street, Bletchley, Milton Keynes Councillor Webb (MKC) Up to 3 Mins Mr M Lake (Agent) Up to 3 Mins 15/01254/FUL 6 Prospect Place, Newport Road, Emberton (Recommended for refusal) Mr Paul Allen (AP Engineers) Up to 3 Mins (2)

4

5 Application Number: 15/01319/FUL Minor 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 Target: 17th August 2015 Ward: Tattenhoe Parish: Shenley Brook End & Tattenhoe PC Report Author/Case Officer: Kanchan Sharma Contact Details: Team Leader: Nicola Wheatcroft Team Leader Strategic Applications Team Contact Details: Officer s Update The Application site contains a Grade II listed building and in accordance with s.66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990, special regard and considerable importance and weight have been given to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its setting.this comes not only following the case of Barnwell Manor When, in considering whether to grant listed building consent for any works, special regard and considerable importance and weight have been given to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Condition 5 has been amended as following condition A landscaping scheme, which shall include provision for the planting of trees and shrubs around parking spaces, 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, soft and hard landscape features; 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. Reason: To protect the appearance and character of the area and to minimise the (3)

6 effect of development on the area. Officer s Recommendation The officer s recommendation has not changed, it is still recommended for approval with amended condition listed above. (4)

7 Application Number: 15/01320/LBC Minor 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 Target: 17th August 2015 Ward: Tattenhoe Parish: Shenley Brook End & Tattenhoe PC Report Author/Case Officer: Kanchan Sharma Contact Details: Team Leader: Nicola Wheatcroft Team Leader Strategic Applications Team Contact Details: Officer Update The Application site contains a Grade II listed building and in accordance with s.66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990, special regard and considerable importance and weight have been given to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its setting.this comes not only following the case of Barnwell Manor When, in considering whether to grant listed building consent for any works, special regard and considerable importance and weight have been given to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Officer s Recommendation The officer s recommendation has not changed, it is still recommended for approval. (5)

8

9 Objections to the Development Application No. 15/01807/FUL 1. Why is this extension required? The property already has 4 bedrooms (3 upstairs and 1 downstairs) It has an upstairs bathroom and downstairs en-suite. It has two large living rooms downstairs and a conservatory, and a kitchen. Why would any normal family require more, or why would a 60+ man and a 92 year old lady the current residents, require an extra sun-room/games room? 2. The proposed large window to the front of the property is 2440 wide x 1500 deep and will look directly into the bedrooms of the properties opposite especially in to our property no. 85 which is immediately opposite the proposed extension, in-fact it looks directly into our daughters bedroom, which we find totally unacceptable. By the very virtue of the purpose of the room (sun-room) someone could be sitting at this large window for hours looking into our bedrooms. 3. The whole concept of the first floor sun-room/games room at this location is strange, as the view from the rear window with the Juliet balcony is just, at most times, a very quiet road leading to the alleyway that goes to the side of Nicky's Store to the Bradwell Road. The only time when there is anything interesting going on is when lots of children use it to go to and from the schools at Stanton Middle and Stantonbury Campus. The side window and front window look directly in to the bedrooms of the other houses in the cul-de-sac, so I cannot understand why such a room would be of such great interest? 4. When reading the planning officer's, recommendations to the Councillors all the other neighbours who had objected to the application were noted i.e. to the side and rear of the property, however we at no. 85 to the front of the property did not get a mention, and he has not mentioned the huge proposed window to the front of the extension. I have contacted him and he tells me that he will be putting in an additional paper with our objection, and correcting the other mistakes pointed out to him. 5. Matthew Pearce the planning officer who has presented the application states in his report 5.2 that similar properties can be found in the locality i.e. 59 and 61 Bradvue Crescent, however both of these properties have retained their garages and rear accesses and the first floor extensions have bedrooms overlooking the side elevation of houses opposite and not large windowed sun-rooms looking into bedrooms of houses opposite. 6. Matthew Pearce, in his report 5.9 Impact on Parking Provision states that if the property is sold then future occupiers may use the room as a 'fourth' bedroom, however he has forgotten the downstairs bedroom so the property already has the fourth bedroom and the addition of this room turns it into a five or if this large room is split into two it will become a six bedroomed property and this puts a very different slant on the property and it's parking provision, and in-fact its whole potential future use. 7. Matthew Pearce also states in 5.10 that the double gates to the rear of the property are intended to provide pedestrian access to the rear, these gates are to be 1.8m wide that is wider than our car. I would suggest that 1m is sufficient to give access to a wheelchair or pushchair without encouraging larger vehicles to use this access. (a wheelchair is approx (24'' 27'') 0.7m 0.8m wide) (6)

10 8. We would ideally hope to see this application rejected however, if all the local objections to this application are rejected (so much for the Neighbourhood Plan) we would request that at least that the size of the front window be the same as any ordinary bedroom with a window cill height 1.7m or better still have skylight windows to protect our daughter's privacy. We tried to apply to speak at the Committee Meeting but were told we were a few hours too late to put in our application to speak. We hope that you will carefully consider the above points and put yourselves into our position when making your decision. David and Christine Cooke Bradvue Crescent Bradville Milton Keynes (7)

11 Application Number: 15/01807/FUL First floor side extension and rear timber mobility access gates AT 73 Bradvue Crescent, Bradville, Milton Keynes FOR Mr Michael Yates Target: 29th September 2015 Ward: Stantonbury Parish: Stantonbury Parish Council Report Author/Case Officer: Matthew Pearce Contact Details: Team Leader: Debbie Kirk Minor Applications Team Leader Contact Details: Additional plan The location and block plan for this application were not included in the panel report, a copy of these plans can be found on the following two pages. Updates can be found after these plans. (8)

12 (9)

13 (10)

14 2.0 Neighbouring amenity Numbers 85 & 87 Bradvue Crescent are located to the East on the opposite side of the cul-de-sac facing the front elevation of the application site. The New Residential Design Guide 2012 supplementary planning document does not contain a front-to-front spacing and separation distance for privacy and as such there is no definitive guidance as to what is found to be acceptable. A back-toback spacing and separation distance for privacy of 22 metres (as measured from first floor level) is the nearest comparable guidance by which the application could be assessed. There is a spacing and separation distance of approximately 28 metres from the front elevation of the application dwelling to front elevation of the neighbouring properties No s 85 & 87. As such, it is regarded that there is an acceptable distance in order to avoid overlooking from the proposed sun room/games room to the neighbouring properties No s 85 & 87. Whilst the proposal is for a sun room/games room rather than a bedroom, both are deemed to be habitable rooms and as such the amount of use of the proposed room would not vary greatly. 3.0 Number of bedrooms Within Section 5.9 it is stated that future occupiers may use the proposed room as a fourth bedroom. There is an existing fourth bedroom on the ground floor and as such 5.9 should read as may use the proposed room as a fifth bedroom. This does not however change the requirements for the number of on-plot parking for the application site; a five bedroom dwelling in accessibility zone 3 requires two allocated parking spaces from Councillor A. Walker An has been received from Councillor A. Walker on Wednesday 14 th October who has been contacted by the applicant. The applicant has asked if members could carry out a Member s site inspection in order to view the application site and the local area. 5.0 Recommendation As per Councillor A. Walkers request, it is recommended that this application is deferred from the panel on 15 th October so that a member s site inspection can be carried out. (11)

15 12 Paxton Close Olney Milton Keynes MK46 5PR 14 th October 2015 Dear Panel Members, Having read the officer report, relating to Application Number: 15/01359/FUL, I am writing in support of the recommendation to refuse planning permission at 37 Northampton Road in Lavendon. As someone who has campaigned for the rural areas of Milton Keynes, across many issues, I believe that this application, in its current state, is detrimental to the rural character of the area. In particular, I would like to highlight Saved Policies D2 (i and ii) of the Milton Keynes Local Plan and Policy CS19 of the Core Strategy and advice given National Planning Policy Framework as grounds for refusal. I would therefore ask you to support the officer recommendation to refuse planning permission at your panel meeting on 15 th October Yours, David Hosking Ward Councillor for Olney, Milton Keynes Council (12)

16

17 Application Number: 15/01359/FUL Minor 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 Ben Brock Target: 6th August 2015 Ward: Olney Parish: Lavendon Parish Council Report Author/Case Officer: Kanchan Sharma Contact Details: Kanchan.Sharma@Milton-keynes.gov.uk Team Leader :Nicola Wheatcroft Team Leader Strategic Applications Team Contact Details: nicola.wheatcroft@milton-keynes.gov.uk Officer s update 1. Member s site inspection was held on the 12 th October. Cllr Derek Eastman attended the site inspection. 2. The Application site lies within a setting of a listed building and in accordance with s.66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990, special regard and considerable importance and weight have been given to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its setting. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the listed building or its setting. This comes not only following the case of Barnwell Manor Additionally, the site lies within the Lavendon Conservation Area, in accordance to the section 72 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990; it is the duty as a Local authority to respect the conservation areas in exercise of planning functions. For any buildings or other land in a conservation area, special attention has been paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. 3. Impact on the conservation area Following further consideration to this matter, a different emphasis has been placed on the balance of the impact of the proposal on the conservation area. As a result, there are concerns about the impact of the proposed development on the conservation area. It is considered that the proposal will not preserve the character of Lavendon Conservation Area. This should (13)

18 replace paragraph 3.3 of officer s report. 4. Principle of residential development Paragraph 5.1 should be read as the following, which removes reference to the previously developed land which was included by error. The application site lies within an existing residential area on the saved Milton Keynes Local Plan Proposals Map. The proposed development of two dwellings would be compatible with the surrounding land uses which are predominantly residential. Saved Policy H7 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan states that housing development on sites within the limits of development will be assessed against a number of criteria. The development would be located in the rear garden of number 37. The proposed use would be compatible with the land uses in the surrounding area, there would be sufficient capacity in the existing infrastructure to serve the proposed development and there are not any constraints affecting the site. The principle of development is acceptable and the development would comply with saved Policy H7 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan Subject any proposed development not harming the character and appearance of the area, the Conservation Area, the setting of a listed building, adequate parking and access to the site. 5. Conclusion It is thus considered that the proposed development will have some impact on the Lavendon Conservation area. The recommended reason for refusal has been amended as follows: 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 and Policy CS19 of the Core Strategy and advice given National Planning Policy Framework. (14)

19 Development of two detached dwellings Application Number: 15/01827/FUL Minor AT Land Between 4 And 4A, Paddock Way, Bletchley FOR Mr David Jay Target: 22nd September 2015 Ward: Bletchley East Parish: Bletchley & Fenny Stratford Town Council Report Author/Case Officer: Kanchan Sharma Contact Details: Kanchan.Sharma@Milton-keynes.gov.uk Team Leader :Nicola Wheatcroft Team Leader Strategic Applications Team Contact Details: nicola.wheatcroft@milton-keynes.gov.uk Late Papers 1. Additional comments from Highway officer 2. Additional representations 3. Officer s update 4. Additional conditions 5. Officer recommendation (15)

20 1. Additional comments from Highway officer I refer to the revised plan which is acceptable. There remains the issue of a lost facility for parking, an issue that has been refused planning permission on previously. The area could and probably would have demand for spaces especially given the demand for similar other facilities locally. I am aware that usage has been very limited in recent times. However, although I am not raising an objection in this instance (and there is perhaps an argument for doing so), the loss of the facility is regrettable. Recommended conditions are as follows: 1. No part of the development shall begin until details of the relocated street lighting column have been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No dwelling shall be occupied until the street lighting column has been relocated in accordance with the approved details. Reason: for the safety and convenience of users of the highway and of the access. Informative: the developer should contact the council s street lighting team for advice on relocation of the lighting column. 2. There should be no means of vehicular access to the development other than from Paddock Way. Reason: To minimise the danger and inconvenience to highway users. 3. Prior to the commencement of the development the new means of access shall be sited and laid out in accordance with the approved drawing and constructed in accordance with Milton Keynes Council s guide note Residential Vehicle Crossing Details. The access so laid out shall be retained thereafter. Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the access. Highway informative 3 and Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted the car parking area shown on the approved drawings shall be constructed, surfaced and permanently marked out. The car parking area so provided shall be maintained as a permanent ancillary to the development and shall be used for no other purpose thereafter. Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision at all times so that the development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or the safety on the neighbouring highway. (16)

21 2. Additional representations Two additional public representations have been received 1 in objection and 1 in support of this planning application. 2.1 The objection letter has raised the following issues: Impact on the street light Dealt by the additional condition in the late papers Impact on the Silver Birch tree Dealt by the condition 9-11 in the officer s report Impact on traffic and parking Discussed in Officer s Report paragraph Not in keeping with the character of the area Discussed in Officer s Report paragraph A Letter in support was received and it supports the application on the following basis: Impact on Appearance The proposed development is similar to the 4A and 4B and would fit well in the area. Impact on Open aspect The existing long wall for the back of the garages does not present good view to the area and thus proposed development will present better view. Impact on traffic and parking The proposed development will not have detrimental effect on the traffic and parking situation sin the area. (17)

22 3. Officer s update 3.1 Has the current application addressed all the reasons for the refusal on the previous application? 3.2 The previous application 14/01710/FUL for the demolition of existing redundant garages and the erection of 3 x 1 bed bungalows and ancillary works. This application was refused on the following reasons: 1. The proposed design, scale and appearance of the dwellings fail to relate well to or enhance the surrounding built environment and would constitute over development of the site. The proposal is therefore contrary to saved policies D2 and D2A of the Milton Keynes Local Plan The proposals have not included an access to the public highway across land within the control of the applicant. The planning application if permitted would likely result in vehicles parking on street to the detriment of highway safety and convenience contrary to policies D1 and T15 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. 3. The proposed cycle store is positioned such that vehicle access to number 25 Western Road would be prevented leading to additional on street parking to the detriment of highway safety and convenience contrary to policies D1 and T15 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. 4. The proposals will result in the loss of parking and garages which can provide a facility for local residents to park clear of the public highway and help alleviate instances of on street parking and inappropriate parking. The proposals are therefore contrary to policy T15 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. 3.3 The officer s report has only addressed the refusal reasons 1 and 4 because the reasons 2 and 3 were directly related to the previously refused scheme and not relevant to the current application. The overhanging on highway and cycle store is not an issue in the current proposal. (18)

23 4. Conditions 4.1 New additional conditions as a result of highway comments: 1. No part of the development shall begin until details of the relocated street lighting column have been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No dwelling shall be occupied until the street lighting column has been relocated in accordance with the approved details. Reason: for the safety and convenience of users of the highway and of the access. 2. There should be no means of vehicular access to the development other than from Paddock Way. Reason: To minimise the danger and inconvenience to highway users. 4.2 Amendment to the proposed conditions 3. Prior to the commencement of the development the new means of access shall be sited and laid out in accordance with the approved drawing and constructed in accordance with Milton Keynes Council's guide note "Residential Vehicle Crossing Details". The access so laid out shall be retained thereafter. Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the access. Replace Condition 5 Prior to the initial occupation of the development the means of access shall be altered in accordance with the approved drawing and constructed in accordance with Milton Keynes Council's guide note " Residential Vehicle Crossing Details" and shall be retained as altered thereafter. Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and of access 4. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted the car parking area shown on the approved drawings shall be constructed, surfaced and permanently marked out. The car parking area so provided shall be maintained as a permanent ancillary to the development and shall be used for no other purpose thereafter. Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision at all times so that the development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or the safety on the neighbouring highway. (19)

24 Replace Condition 6 The development shall not be occupied until the car parking area (and turning area) shown on the deposited plan has been constructed, surfaced and permanently marked out. The car parking area so provided shall be maintained as a permanent ancillary to the development and shall be used for no other purpose at any time.(p01) Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision at all times so that the development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or the conditions of general safety along the neighbouring highway. 4.3 Withdraw the condition 12 because it is duplication of condition 8. 5 Officer recommendation The additional information submitted as a part of this late paper does not change the officer s recommendation. It is still recommended for approval with additional and amended conditions listed above. (20)

25 Application Number: 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 Target: 28th September 2015 Ward: Stony Stratford Parish: Stony Stratford Town Council Report Author/Case Officer: Matthew Pearce Contact Details: matthew.pearce@milton-keynes.gov.uk Team Leader: Debbie Kirk Minor Applications Team Leader Contact Details: debbie.kirk@milton-keynes.gov.uk 1.0 How the previous reasons for refusal have been addressed. 1.1 This current application is a re-submission of application 15/00241/FUL which sought the conversion of the old school hall and the erection of a two storey building comprising of 2 apartments. The application was refused for the following reasons: (1) The conversion and part demolition of the school hall building and the construction of domestic units would undermine the still prevailing historic commercial character of the locality. The proposed scale, form, design and detailing of the new development would cause harm to the setting of the non-designated heritage asset, and fail to preserve the character of the Stony Stratford Conservation Area. The development would be contrary to policy CS19 of the Core Strategy, saved policies D2, HE5, HE6 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan and advice with the National Planning Policy Framework (2) The access serving the site is inadequate by reason of width to serve the proposed development with safety and convenience. The development would be contrary to saved policies D1 (i), (vi) and T10 (i) of the Milton Keynes Local Plan The panel report does not specifically demonstrate how previous reasons for refusal have been addressed. This update report will address how the reasons for refusal, as set out above, have been addressed so that the officer s recommendation for the application is permission. 1.3 The local area has a number of small scale developments to the rear of the High Street which re-use the existing historic outbuildings for a mix of (21)

26 residential, business uses and offices. This proposal seeks to re-use an existing building and create an additional dwelling, as opposed to the previous application which sought the creation of 2 apartments and the re-use of an existing building. Whilst the High Street consists of a number of commercial properties, there are residential properties in the vicinity and Russel Street is primarily residential in character. It is therefore regarded that the character of the local area is sufficiently mixed to allow for residential development within the application site. 1.4 The scale and design of the application have been altered somewhat from application 15/00241/FUL with the length of the proposed new dwelling being shortened which allows for greater views between the proposed dwelling and the Old School Hall. Design elements and details such as the bullnose brickwork cills around the windows and doors have been added in order to better relate to the original building of the Old School Hall. Conditions should be imposed, on any planning permission, in order to control the details of doors & windows as well as the bricks & roof materials of the proposed new dwelling. This is to ensure these features would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area and setting of a number of listed buildings which lie within the vicinity of the site. The amendments which have been made from the previous application are considered to address the first reason for refusal under application 15/00241/FUL. 1.5 In addition, the application site is within Stony Stratford conservation area and within the vicinity of a number of listed buildings. In accordance with section 66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990, special regard and considerable importance and weight have been given to the impact of the desirability of preserving the listed buildings and there settings. Additionally in accordance with Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990, which specifies the general duty as respects to conservation areas in exercise of planning functions, for any buildings or other land in a conservation area; special attention has been paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. 1.6 Whilst the access to the application site has not materially changed, the number of proposed dwellings within the application site has been reduced from three to two. This reduction in the number of dwellings will reduce some of the number of vehicular movements along the access serving the site and has led to the highways engineer removing his previous objection. The previous reason for refusal was finally balanced as there was a previous use which utilised the access and generated vehicular movements, albeit some years ago, the applicant has reduced the intensity of use along the access road so that the access is now deemed to be more acceptable. It is considered that the second reason for refusal has been addressed. (22)

27 2.0 Rights of way As identified on plan number A SLP04/D there are private rights of way for both pedestrians and vehicles across parts of the application site. The current application does not infringe or develop on these rights of way and so remain accessible by all relevant parties. A planning site notice was posted on 21 st August and an advert in the local newspaper created, in order to ensure that all relevant parties who had an interest in the rights of way were notified. 3.0 Recommendation The above considerations do not alter the recommendation of this application. It is recommended that permission be granted subject to conditions as set out in section 6.0 of the panel report (found on page of the agenda). (23)

28

29 Application Number: 15/01779/FUL Minor 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 Target: 15th September 2015 Ward: Bletchley East Parish: Bletchley & Fenny Stratford Town Council Report Author/Case Officer: Katy Lycett Contact Details: Team Leader: Nicola Wheatcroft Team Leader Strategic Applications Team Contact Details: Update To confirm that in accordance with Paragraph 5.3 of the report. This application is compliant with Policy T15 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan In addition, Condition 7 is to be removed as the hours of construction are already covered within Condition 3 which relates to the Construction Environmental Management Plan. There are no further updates and the application recommendation remains as set out in Paragraph 4.1 subject to the attached conditions excluding Condition 7. (24)

30

31 Application Number: 15/01254/FUL other 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 Target: 23 rd July 2015 Extension of time agreed to 24 th August 2015 Ward: Olney Parish: Emberton Report Author/Case Officer: Paul Bartos Contact Details: Paul.Bartos@milton-keynes.gov.uk Team Leader: Debbie Kirk Minor Applications Team Leader Contact Details: Debbie.kirk@milton-keynes.gov.uk 1.0 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1.1 In respect of strategic housing land supply within the Authority Paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that: Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-todate if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. In this regard, it has been accepted by the Council that it is unable to meet this requirement and for this reason the Council must rely upon the provisions of Paragraph 14 of the Framework to consider the submitted application. This states that: at the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date the Council must consider favourably applications for housing development and should grant permission unless: any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted. The starting point for the determination of this application is the fact that (25)

32 Authority does not have a 5 year housing land supply, and the proposed development would contribute towards meeting the identified shortfall. An assessment must therefore be made as to whether the proposal can be considered to be sustainable development in terms of the economic, social and environmental roles as set out in the NPPF. 1.2 In the case of this development, the original reasons for officers recommending refusal were based on saved policy S10 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan and the advice contained within paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework. In terms of it acting as a housing policy, the above statement clarifies that saved policy S10 is to be regarded as out of date. The main report clarifies that the proposal does not accord with the advice given in paragraph 55, with the commitment to construct according to Code Level 6 of the Code for Sustainable Homes being judged by members as representing a sufficient material consideration to outweigh this matter. 1.3 The following clarifies the identification of the application site as an isolated dwelling in the countryside and consequently the applicability of paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework. It also describes the way in which the proposal may be characterised within the three dimensions of sustainable development described in paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 1.4 Although the proposal locates a detached dwelling adjacent to a row of 6 terraced houses this group is located well outside of the built up area of Emberton, located approximately 800 metres from the settlement boundary. It is approximately 230 metres to the nearest public transport link in the form of a bus stop on Newport Road. The nearest infant school is approximately 1.8 kilometres away in Emberton, and the nearest shops and larger schools are in Olney approximately 2.5 km away. The site therefore occupies an unsustainable location and relative to paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework would be regarded as isolated dwelling in the countryside. As discussed in the main body of the report, none of the special circumstances which need to apply to such houses to mitigate the unsustainability of their location applies to this house except for the exceptional environmental credentials afforded by the commitment to build according to Code Level 6 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. 1.5 In terms of the three dimensions of sustainable development (social, economic, environmental) described in paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework the proposed dwelling can be assessed as follows. In terms of social issues, the development would only provide a single dwelling to meet the currently identified need. It would not provide any other community benefits. In terms of economic issues, the construction activities associated with the development would have limited potential in relation to local employment as this is a single dwelling. A single dwelling is not likely to contribute to the local economy to such a degree as to justify its presence in such an unsustainable (26)

33 location. Finally, with respect to environmental issues, the site is a greenfield area of land in a rural setting, which is within an area of designated attractive landscape. Its presence will erode the open character of the countryside in this area. Some mitigation is provided by the commitment to construct according to Code Level 6 of the Code for Sustainable Homes which addresses to a significant extent the environmental sustainability of the dwelling. 1.6 As paragraph 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework states to achieve sustainable development, economic social and environmental gains should be sought jointly through the planning system. To conclude, the application site is in an unsustainable location and contrary to advice given in paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework. It does not jointly capture the various features of the three dimensions of sustainability. The commitment to construct according to Code Level 6 of the Code for Sustainable Homes was the only material consideration weighed against these matters on the original application. 6.0 REVISED REASON FOR REFUSAL (The reasons that officers recommend that the application should be refused. The reasons must be ones that the Council can demonstrate with evidence, should the applicant appeal against the refusal.) The proposed dwelling is contrary to the advice in paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and does not jointly capture the various features of the three dimensions of sustainability given in paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework It is considered that relaxing the requirement to achieve zero net carbon dioxide emissions in favour of a 100% reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions, and only requiring the development to meet a maximum of Code Level 5 of the Code for Sustainable Homes, 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 (27)

34

35 Application Number: 15/01869/FUL Change of use of amenity land to private garden land, to be bounded by a 1.8 metre high timber overlap fence AT 129 Crosslands, Stantonbury, Milton Keynes FOR Mr Krzysgof Fickowski Target: 13th October 2015 Ward: Stantonbury Parish: Stantonbury Parish Council Report Author/Case Officer: Joanne Horner Contact Details: joanne.horner2@milton-keynes.gov.uk Team Leader: Debbie Kirk Minor Applications Team Leader Contact Details: debbie.kirk@milton-keynes.gov.uk 1.0 Update The description has 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 has been put up on 13/10/2015. It is 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. (28)

36

37 Application Number: 15/01706/ADV Advertisement consent for 4x signs at roundabout AT Roundabout Sponsorship, Tilbrook Roundabout, Milton Keynes FOR Milton Keynes Council Target: 11th September 2015 Ward: Danesborough And Walton Parish: Walton Community Council Report Author/Case Officer: Danika Hird Contact Details: Team Leader: Debbie Kirk Minor Applications Team Leader Contact Details: Additional Condition It is recommended that an additional condition is imposed on this application, in addition to suggested condition on page 270 of the report which can be found under Section 6.0. The additional condition should read as follows: No contact numbers shall appear on the signage whatsoever. Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway. (29)

38

39 Application Number: 15/01948/ADV Advertisement consent to display four non illuminated signs AT Roundabout Sponsorship, Browns Wood Roundabout, Milton Keynes FOR Milton Keynes Council Target: 24th September 2015 Ward: Danesborough And Walton Parish: Walton Community Council Report Author/Case Officer: Petra Klemm Contact Details: Team Leader: Debbie Kirk Minor Applications Team Leader Contact Details: Additional Condition It is recommended that an additional condition is imposed on this application, in addition to suggested condition on page 279 of the report which can be found under Section 6.0. The additional condition should read as follows: No contact numbers shall appear on the signage whatsoever. Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway. 2.0 Revised Plan The plan shown on page 282 of the report has been revised and should be as follows: (30)

40 (31)

41 Application Number: 15/01949/ADV Advertisement consent to display three non illuminated signs AT Water Mill Roundabout, Caldecotte Lake Drive, Caldecotte FOR Milton Keynes Council Target: 24th September 2015 Ward: Danesborough And Walton Parish: Walton Community Council Report Author/Case Officer: Petra Klemm Contact Details: Team Leader: Debbie Kirk Minor Applications Team Leader Contact Details: Additional Condition It is recommended that an additional condition is imposed on this application, in addition to suggested condition on page 288 of the report which can be found under Section 6.0. The additional condition should read as follows: No contact numbers shall appear on the signage whatsoever. Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway. 2.0 Revised Plan The plan shown on page 291 of the report has been revised and should be as follows: (32)

42 (33)

43 Tree preservation order consent to crown-reduce and reshape by 25% (reduce offside limbs by 1.5 metres to give a finished canopy measuring approximatelly 8 metres across and 12 metres high) 1x Horse Chestnut tree that is overhanging 2 Weldon Rise Application Number: 15/01891/TPO Other AT 1 Weldon Rise, Loughton, Milton Keynes FOR Mrs Melanie Card Target: 28th September 2015 Ward: Loughton And Shenley Parish: Loughton & Great Holm Parish Council Report Author/Case Officer: Stephanie Lynes Contact Details: stephanie.lynes2@milton-keynes.gov.uk Team Leader: Alex Harrison Minor Applications Team Leader Contact Details: alex.harrison@milton-keynes.gov.uk 1.0 ADDITIONAL CONDITION 1.1 The hereby permitted Tree Preservation Order Consent shall be begun before the expiration of two years from the date of this consent. Reason: To prevent the accumulation of Tree Preservation Order Consents; to enable the Local Planning Authority to review the suitability of the development in the light of altered circumstances. (34)

44 2.0 ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATION Comments 2.1 Local Residents An additional representation was received by No. 1 Weldon Rise. Their comment is as follows: Officer Response Noted. Having read the report for the DCP meeting, I would like to confirm that the tree is situated within the boundaries of my property, 1 Weldon Rise. As already communicated on 30/09 via the planning website, I am supporting the application and I am convinced that the works will improve the appearance of the C.A., rectifying the asymmetry of the tree. (35)