CHANGE OF USE OF AMENITY LAND TO RESIDENIAL GARDEN LAND WITH BOUNDARY FENCES

Transcription

1 Application Number: 09/01450/FUL Other CHANGE OF USE OF AMENITY LAND TO RESIDENIAL GARDEN LAND WITH BOUNDARY FENCES AT 1 Harlow Crescent, Oxley Park, Milton Keynes FOR Mr And Mrs M Hale Target: 13th October 2009 Ward: Emerson Valley Parish: Shenley Brook End & Tattenhoe PC Report Author/Case Officer: Nicola McTeer Contact Details: nicola.mcteer@milton-keynes.gov.uk Team Leader: Andrew Horner Contact Details: andrew.horner@milton-keynes.gov.uk 1.0 SUMMARY (A brief explanation of what the application is about, what the main issues are and the officer's Recommendation to the Committee) 1.1 This application was deferred at the Panel meeting on 22 October 2009 and at the Panel meeting on 26 November The application seeks permission for the change of use of public amenity land to residential garden with boundary fences at 1 Harlow Crescent, Oxley Park. 1.3 The key issues in determining this application are considered to be the impact on the character and appearance of the area, the protection of public open space and existing facilities and any potential impact upon residential amenity of neighbouring properties. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out at the end of this report. 2.0 REASON FOR REPORTING APPLICATION TO COMMITTEE (Most planning applications are dealt with by the Chief Planning Officer under powers delegated by the Development Control Committee) 2.1 The application has received a request from Ward Councillor Burke for this application to be reported to a committee if recommended for refusal, and a members site visit be carried out, as a result of the consultation process. (108)

2 3.0 INTRODUCTION (A brief description of the site and its surroundings) Harlow Crescent is a large detached dwelling with its associated grounds located on a corner plot along Harlow Crescent, Oxley Park. To the south of the dwelling are the garage and driveway and a large strip of amenity land that runs alongside the adjacent woodland. To the south of the strip of amenity land is dense woodland that is an archaeological notification site. The application site is also located adjacent a wildlife corridor. The application site is located within a predominantly residential area with properties of varying styles. The site does not lie within a Conservation Area. 4.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application) 4.1 The most important factor that the Committee must consider is the relevant planning policies. Firstly there are the Council's own planning policies, particularly the policies in the Adopted Local Plan, but including other policy documents such as Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG). Relevant Government policy documents, such as Planning Policy Statements (PPS) or Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) and Circulars also need to be considered, along with Regional Plans and policies. Planning legislation requires that all planning decisions should be in line with the relevant policies. 4.2 Local Policy The most relevant policies in the Milton Keynes Local Plan are: D1 Impact of Development Proposals on Locality D2 Design of New Development L2 Protection of Public Open Space and Existing Facilities Appendix L2 Proposals for the Change of Use of Amenity Open Space 5.0 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) /01902/FUL Rear Conservatory. Permit APPLICATION AS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED (Details of the proposal as originally submitted) 6.1 The current proposals under consideration seek permission for the change of use of public amenity land (structural landscaping provided as part of the overall development but conveyed to an occupier rather than offered up for adoption) to a private garden enclosed by new boundary structures. To the south side of the driveway a 1.8 metre high close boarded timber fence is proposed and this would follow the drive west for approximately 21 metres from the existing driveway turning head to the proposed gates to the driveway access. The proposed boundary would continue for a further approximately 17 (109)

3 metres east to meet the proposed wrought iron open fence. This fence is proposed to be 1.2 metres high to match neighbouring properties. It would run across the front (north) of the application site and would be located approximately 4 metres in front of the existing dwelling. 7.0 AMENDMENTS (Any changes that have been made to the application since it was originally submitted) 7.1 None 8.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS (Who has been consulted on the application and the responses received) 8.1 Archaeologist Officer No comments on the proposal. 8.2 Countryside Officer Comments that in addition to the North Bucks Way from the rear of the houses, he recalls that this strip of public amenity land was left open as an easement for the long-distance (Ellesmere Port to Heathrow) aviation fuel pipeline beneath. 8.3 Senior Landscape Architect Objects to the application on the grounds that the dwelling occupies a prominent end plot adjacent to an open space corridor then a mature hedge. He comments that the remaining dwellings adjacent to the hedge are open and share the same interface between hedge and dwellings. He highlights that the hedge retention with the associated open interface provides a very important part of the landscape structure and character, and any reduction and enclosure of this he objects to. He also comments that any enclosure is likely to set a very strong precedent for similar applications. He does comment that the front enclosure with iron fencing to match adjacent properties, he would however accept, but only to the corner of the garage block, which would maintain an open view along the open space corridor and that further fencing details must be provided. The Landscape Architect notes that all points of Local Plan Policy L2 apply. 8.4 Shenley Brook End and Tattenhoe Parish Council First comments on 17 September 2009 state, Although we are sympathetic to the applicants concerns, we consider that the area of land suggested in the proposal is too large and the change of use would result in a loss of amenity to other residents. Enclosing a smaller area, as suggested in your pre-application correspondence would enhance the security of the property without such detriment and would be more appropriate (110)

4 and acceptable in our view. Further comment from the parish council on 25 September 2009 state, It appears my of 17/09 may have given an incorrect perception of the parish council view on this application so I will now attempt to rectify this. The parish is concerned that the loss of all of this area of amenity land could be detrimental to other users but we appreciate the applicants concerns that they should be able to enjoy their property in security, which would require the enclosure of sufficient land to provide access in and around the property without being exposed. If this requires change of use of part of the amenity land we would not see this as inappropriate in the circumstances. It is a question of balancing the two aims, which should not be impossible. We now understand that the amenity status of the land has also been questioned and, given this situation, we would have thought an equitable solution would be in the interests of all concerned. 8.5 Crime Prevention Design Adviser Supports the proposals. He comments that in general corner plots adjacent to public space in particular often have a raised vulnerability to criminal attention. He comments that, 1 Harlow Crescent is not only a corner plot in such a situation, but 'Radburn' in layout terms; i.e. the largely discredited 's reversed residential layout that successfully confused legitimate visitors and encouraged the burglar and vandal. Any person arriving at 1 Harlow Crescent by vehicle will transit through Flynn Croft and will almost certainly enter the house through the side/rear barriers. He notes that the extended drives off Flynn Croft are semi-private in nature and are not adopted for local authority lighting or maintenance. This situation would result in much of the drive and adjacent open space being illuminated to a standard well below adoptable standards of uniformity. He comments that 1 Harlow Crescent has no side windows on the gable end and its dedicated vehicle drive feeds to a garage significantly set back from the rear building line. The Crime Prevention Design Advisor comments, it is therefore no surprise that the applicants feel unable to control their own private space and have a heightened sense of vulnerability and fear of crime; the dwelling s situation lacks the facility to provide the full potential for natural surveillance over the western side of the property and adjacent public space. This is a major failure in design and subsequent crime prevention, as the current layout and lack of barriers have facilitated unsupervised public congregation, anti-social activity and public transit on what should be defined and in this case, secured private space. In conclusion the Crime Prevention Design Advisor comments that the orientation and position of this dwelling have facilitated anti-social behaviour, provided an increased potential for crime and a significantly raised fear of crime for the residents. He comments that this proposal seeks to address the (111)

5 design deficiencies of the past and that the application and the granting of planning consent are supported by this department. 8.6 Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application: 5 Flynn Croft, Oxley Park 3 Harlow Crescent, Oxley Park A site notice was erected adjacent the site. No neighbour comments have been received to date. 9.0 CONSIDERATIONS (The analysis of the issues which are critical, material, considerations and/or of greatest concern to objectors for the Committee to weigh up before making a decision) 9.1 Policy Background Amenity open space is defined within the text that accompanies local plan policy L2 (Protection of public open space and existing facilities) as "smaller open areas, including woods, copses and ponds, where recreational use is incidental to their primary function as attractive features in otherwise built-up areas, or as wildlife habitats. It includes privately owned areas to which there may be no public access. Areas of amenity open space are found mostly in residential areas, but also in employment areas and shopping centres. Only the larger sites protected by this policy are shown on the proposals map. Other sites, such as play areas and incidental open space, which are too small to be individually identified on the Map, are given equal protection by this policy." (Milton Keynes Local Plan , paragraph 13.14). The term amenity open space includes small strips of landscaping around residential areas that soften the street scene and add greatly to the visual amenity of residential areas; many of the strips of landscaping (which can vary in size from very narrow up to several metres) are in private ownership. When planning a development, the builder is required to provide open areas and landscaping as part of the layout for the benefit of the appearance of the area. However the builder cannot be made to transfer these areas to the council for future maintenance, and these areas are often conveyed to the nearest house as a means of disposing of the land without having to pay the council to adopt and maintain them. Therefore, the repositioning of the fence has resulted in a change of use from amenity open space to garden land. 9.2 Policy L2 states that in considering proposals involving the loss of amenity open space, the council will take into account the criteria set out in Appendix L2 (Proposals for the change of use of amenity open space). Appendix L2 states that planning permission will only be granted for the change of use of amenity open space, including the incorporation of such areas into private garden land, if: 1) the land does not now or is unlikely in the future to fulfil a useful purpose in terms of its appearance, landscaping, recreational use or wildlife value; 2) the loss of amenity open space would not set a precedent for other similar proposals which cumulatively would have an adverse effect on the locality; and 3) the continued maintenance of the land for public amenity (112)

6 purposes would be impractical or unduly onerous. In certain cases, the loss of amenity open space may be acceptable if it is adequately compensated by proposals for improvements to the quality of landscaping and appearance of amenity space elsewhere in the locality. 9.3 The Impact on the Character of the Area The dwelling occupies a prominent end plot adjacent to an open space corridor then a mature hedge to the woodland. The enclosure of the amenity land with a 1.8 metre close boundary fence and 1.2 metre wrought iron fence would result in a harsh boundary feature in a prominent location. The fence would enclose an existing large area of the open space corridor which would previously have contributed towards the open, landscaped character and appearance of the area. 9.4 It is considered that the proposed construction of boundary fences at No. 1 Harlow Crescent would have an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the locality. The siting of the fence is considered to have an unsympathetic appearance and the proposed spacing between the fence and the existing woodland would result in an adverse effect on the locality. The remaining dwellings face onto the strip of open amenity land and as the Landscape Architect comments they share the same interface between hedge and dwellings. 9.5 It is considered that the construction of a 1.8 metre fence in this prominent location would be incongruous and out of character. It has to be emphasised that the application site is a corner plot in a prominent location overlooked by properties along Saltwood Avenue, Flynn Croft and from the adjacent footpaths, where a potential loss of a significant amount of structural landscaping would have a severe impact on the visual amenity of the area and that any enclosure is likely to set a very strong precedent for similar applications and the council would have difficulties in resisting other areas of landscaping within the housing development being lost. 9.6 A significant amount of pre application discussion was held between the case officer, agent, applicant, Council s landscape officer and crime prevention design advisor prior to the submission of this application. The outcome of the pre application discussions was that the applicant was advised that in the case officer s opinion the principle of an enclosure and gating of the dwelling s drive is considered acceptable. The case officer advised that if the fencing encloses the driveway to the garage corner, then the enclosure of amenity land with a close boarded fence could be acceptable and that consideration should be given to the line of the fencing around the drive s turning head. A plan illustrating this was enclosed with the written advice. It is therefore considered that a compromise position, where part of the amenity land is enclosed, retaining the gap between the driveway and mature hedges i.e. any fence following the driveway edge and ending at the existing garage corner, which would maintain an open view along the open space corridor, may be acceptable. (113)

7 9.7 Further to the Panel meeting of the 26 November the case officer asked the applicant whether they would like to submit a revised scheme as discussed in pre application meetings/correspondence and at the Panel meeting of the 26 November. The applicant responded,..i am under no obligation to change my application, as I am looking to fence up my land and as no proof has be presented otherwise to the status of this land, I am not looking to suggest alternatives Further information was requested at the Panel regarding the status of the land adjacent the application site as the Council regards this land as amenity land. Attached at the end of this report is the approved landscaping plan from the original permission for the application site as well as the approved boundary treatment plan. In addition, there is the approved section 106 public open space plan and although only indicative, the developers (Persimmon Homes) plan of what they regard as public open space. On all of these plans it is evident that the area outside of the approved 1.8 metre high timber close boarded fence boundary (as shown on the boundary treatment plan) is outside the approved residential curtilage of the site and therefore requires a change of use application from amenity land to private garden. It is considered that all of the plans clearly show a strip of public open space that runs to the west of the application site and illustrates the strong building line that runs adjacent the long strip of open space. 9.9 It is considered that on the whole the proposed change of use and development would result in the loss of amenity open space and does not satisfy the criteria of Appendix L2 and is therefore contrary to policy L2 of the Local Plan as the land fulfils a useful purpose in terms of the appearance and landscaping of the street scene and its loss sets a precedent for the loss of similar strips of land throughout Milton Keynes There have been previous cases that have been taken to Development Control Committee regarding the erection of fences and the enclosure of amenity land which have been refused. Several such cases have gone to the Planning Inspectorate and the appeal has been dismissed. An example is Appeal Ref: APP/Y0435/A/08/ (14 Dexter Avenue, Oldbrook, Milton Keynes). The Inspector makes reference to the land registry conveyance plans that indicate that the area of amenity land is in private ownership and the Inspector does not dispute this. The Inspector does not question the status of the land and refers to Policy L2 and the criteria within Appendix L2 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan Other examples of applications that have been refused for a change of use of land from amenity land to residential garden and dismissed at appeal are application reference 07/01125/ful, 07/01859/ful and 08/01450/ful. Although each application is based on its own merits it is felt that the Council should take a consistent approach to enclose relatively large areas of amenity land in visually prominent locations such as this. (114)

8 9.11 Neighbouring Amenity It is considered that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact upon the amenities of adjoining occupiers CONCLUSIONS (The officer advice to the Development Control Committee on the appropriate decision, based on the policies of the Development Plan, taking into account the issues detailed in the report) 10.1 Based on the planning merits of the proposed change of use of public amenity land to residential garden land with boundary fences it is recommended that planning permission be refused REASONS (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.) 1. The proposed change of use of amenity land to residential garden land with boundary fences would result in the loss of a landscaping buffer and the loss of continuity within the landscaped strip between the property and the adjacent woodland. It would result in a tall and overly dominant enclosure resulting in an enclosed and hard appearance in the street scene. The loss of the landscape buffer and the impact of the fence would therefore be detrimental to the visual amenity and character of the area and the development is therefore contrary to policies D1, L2 and the criteria within Appendix L2 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan (115)

9 Site Plan (116)

10 Fence Location Plan (117)

11 Section 106 Approved Public Open Space Plan (118)

12 Approved Landscaping Plan (119)

13 Developers (Persimmon Homes) Plan of Public Open Space (120)

14 Approved Boundary Treatment Plan (121)