AT Genesis House, Midsummer Boulevard, Central Milton Keynes. Council

Transcription

1 APP 04 Application Number: 16/01209/FUL MAJOR Refurbishment of building elevations including replacement of the curtain walling, over cladding of the brickwork, illuminated feature panels, external lighting, replacing cladding to the plant screen and alterations to the entrance doors and reception AT Genesis House, Midsummer Boulevard, Central Milton Keynes FOR BL St Albans Limited Target: 6 th August 2016 (Extension of Time Limit: 5 th September 2016) Ward: Central Milton Keynes Parish: Central Milton Keynes Town Council Report Author/Case Officer: Adam Smith Senior Planning Officer Contact Details: Adam.Smith@milton-keynes.gov.uk Team Leader: Sarah Evans DM Strategic Business Unit Manager Contact Details: Sarah.Evans@milton-keynes.gov.uk 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 All matters have been taken into account in writing this report and recommendation. 1.2 The application is being brought to the Development Control Committee due to the receipt of an objection from CMK Town Council. 1.3 The Site The application site is located in Central Milton Keynes in a prominent position on the corner of Midsummer Boulevard and Witan Gate, opposite the Hub. It is designated for office purposes on the Proposals Map for the Milton Keynes Local Plan and is occupied by an office building known as Genesis House. 1.4 Genesis House has a rectangular footprint with five floors of office

2 accommodation. It has weather protection to its front elevation with a walkway running through the centre of the building. The façade of the building comprises mirror glazing separated by brick pillars with a brick parapet. 1.5 The Proposal The application seeks planning permission for the refurbishment of the elevations of the building. The proposed alterations to the elevations include the following: Replacement of the mirror glazing with clear glazed panels including look-a-like panels between floors. Over cladding of the brickwork with metal panels between first and fourth level and with limestone coloured panels at ground floor level and to the roof parapet. Over cladding of roof plant enclosure with metal cladding. Illuminated feature panels to the northern front and southern rear elevations. External lighting including pencil up/down lights to the sections of metal panels. Replacing cladding to the plant screen to the southern rear elevation. Alterations to the entrance doors and reception including ground floor infill extension measuring 3.7 metres in width by 3 metres in depth. Replacement of planters to walkway with balustrade glazing. 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, and 14 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development 17 Core Planning Principles Building a Strong, Competitive Economy and Good Design 2.2 Local Policy Core Strategy (2013) Policies: CSA Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development CS3 Employment Land Supply CS7 Central Milton Keynes CS13 Ensuring High Quality, Well Designed Places Milton Keynes Local Plan Saved Policies: D1 Impact of Development Proposals on Locality D2A Urban Design Aspects of New Development D2 Design of Buildings

3 CC5 Office Development CC8 Design and Layout CC9 Design of New Buildings CC11 Central Business District CMK Alliance Plan 2026 Policies: G1 Classic CMK Infrastructure G7 Active Frontages G8 Development Blocks and Blocklets G9 Design and Height of Buildings T1 Access and Design Supplementary Planning Documents None relevant. 2.3 Neighbourhood Plans Once a Neighbourhood Plan has been agreed at a referendum and is made (brought into legal force) by the Local Planning Authority, it becomes part of the local planning authority s development plan as an official development plan document which carries statutory weight. Applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. If a policy contained in the development plan for an area conflicts with another policy in a development plan, the conflict must be resolved by the decision maker in favour of the policy which is contained in the latest document to become part of the development plan. Any non-compliance with a policy in a Neighbourhood Plan may not mean a proposal fails to comply with the development plan as a whole, or that having regard to all material considerations, planning permission cannot be granted. 2.4 Neighbourhood Plans therefore form part of the development plan for the relevant area. They will necessarily be in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in the development plan for the area. If they are the most recent document to become part of the development plan, they will attract statutory priority and will take precedence over non-strategic development plan policies. Under some circumstances emerging Neighbourhood Plans can also carry weight as a material planning consideration, as with any emerging development plan document. 3.0 MAIN ISSUES (The issues which have the greatest bearing on the decision) 3.1 The main issue for consideration comprise as follows: Background Character and appearance of the area Highway safety Residential amenity

4 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 in Section 6.0 of this report. 5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have led to the officer Recommendation) 5.1 Background There have been two previous planning applications for refurbishments to the elevations of the application property under references 12/02026/FUL and 14/02247/FUL. Whilst the earlier permission has lapsed, the latter permission is extant and these applications are considered to form material considerations in the assessment of the current application. These previous applications granted permission for the replacement of the existing mirror glazing on the property with clear glazing, the addition of pencil down and up lights, the tinting of the brickwork and the replacement of the brick planters with glass balustrates. Further, the 2014 permission also granted permission for an extension to the entrance lobby for the building. 5.2 The key differences between the current application and planning permission 14/02247/FUL comprise as follows: - The brickwork is proposed to be clad with a mixture of limestone coloured and metal cladding rather than the bricks being tinted. - The addition of Illuminated feature panels to the northern front and southern rear elevations. 5.3 Character and appearance of the area Saved Policies D2, D2A, CC8 and CC9 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan , Core Strategy Policies CS13 and CS18 and Policies G1 G7, G8 and G9 of the CMK Alliance Plan 2026 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, the quality of the public realm and have active frontages in the interests of crime prevention. 5.4 The application property is situated in a prominent position on the corner of Witan Gate and Midsummer Boulevard, opposite the Hub. It was constructed in the mid 1980s and is of the New Town Architectural Style with a simple rectangular form and design including significant amounts of mirror glazing and a covered walkway fronting Midsummer Boulevard. The façade of the building also incorporates brickwork pillars and roof parapet with the mirror glazing having a bronze tint to reflect the brown colour of the brickwork. The building has been vacant since 2009 and has a somewhat tired appearance. 5.5 Whilst the building reflects the New Town Architectural Style, it is considered that it does not have a degree of significance such that it would comprise a Non-Designated Heritage Asset. 5.6 As detailed above, the installation of clear glazing and pencil down and up lights, replacement of the planters with glazed balustrades, and extension of

5 the entrance lobby has previously been considered acceptable by the Council under application 14/02247/FUL. 5.7 The key design issues to consider therefore are the differences between the previous permission and the current application, namely the cladding of the brickwork and installation of illuminated feature panels, and the overall impact of all the changes on the resulting building. 5.8 CMK Town Council object to the current application and detail that the core issue relates to attempting to fix a superficial façade, based on horizontal lines, onto a building that was designed with a strong vertical emphasis. 5.9 The existing building does not however benefit from any protection as a heritage asset, as identified above. In addition, the Senior Urban Designer, whilst acknowledging that the proposal would mix the existing strong vertical emphasis with some horizontal features, does not object to the application. Further, the Senior Urban Designer details that the updated façade would modernise the building with the revised façade relating better to the more recent buildings on the opposite side of Midsummer Boulevard. As such, subject to a condition to ensure the quality of the materials, it is considered that the cladding would relate well to surrounding properties and not appear out of place in Central Milton Keynes Turning to the lighting panels, these would be sizeable and prominent additions to the building. However, the site is in a vibrant part of Central Milton Keynes, opposite the Hub and Exchange House, which benefits from activity both in the day and during the night. It is considered that these additions, subject to details being submitted by condition, would comprise night time features and would make a positive addition to the building and locality Overall, it is considered that the resulting building would integrate acceptably with the character and appearance of the locality and Central Milton Keynes. No objections are therefore raised with regards to Saved Policies D2, D2A, CC8 and CC9 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan , Core Strategy Policies CS13 and CS18 and Policies G1 G7, G8 and G9 of the CMK Alliance Plan Highway safety Saved Policy T10 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan and Policy T1 of the CMK Alliance Plan 2015 relate to highway safety. Further, Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) details that proposals should only be refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe The proposed Illuminated feature panels and up/down lighters would be visible from the surrounding highway network. The Highway Engineer has been consulted on the application and raises no objections subject to conditions restricting luminance and requiring submission of further lighting details. As such no objections are raised with regards to Saved Policy T10 of

6 the Milton Keynes Local Plan and Policy T1 of the CMK Alliance Plan 2015 in relation to highway safety Residential amenity Saved Policy D1 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan and the Core Planning Principles in the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) seek to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings The nearest residential properties to the development are apartments located in Manhattan House, which is the westernmost block in the Hub and set over 90 metres away from the southern corner of the application property. As such, it is considered that the proposal would not adversely affect the residential amenities of any neighbouring properties and no objections are raised with regards to Saved Policy D1 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan Conclusion To conclude, it is considered that the proposal would relate well to the character and appearance of Central Milton Keynes and would not adversely affect Highway safety or the residential amenity of properties in the locality, subject to conditions. Further, the proposal has the potential to rejuvenate a building which has a somewhat tired appearance and has been empty for a substantial period of time, thus helping to secure sustainable economic growth in accordance with the Government s commitments set out in Paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012). 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 ) 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 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, samples of all external cladding/panelling to be used in the refurbishment of the building hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality in accordance with Saved Policies D2A and D2 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan Adopted , Core Strategy Policies CS13 and CS18 and Policy G9 of the CMK Alliance Plan Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted,

7 details of the replacement glazing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include sections of the proposed windows to a scale of not less than 1:5 as well as details of their external finish. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reasons: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality in accordance with Saved Policies D2A and D2 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan Adopted , Core Strategy Policies CS13 and CS18 and Policy G9 of the CMK Alliance Plan Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details of the feature pencil lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reasons: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality in accordance with Saved Policies D2A and D2 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan Adopted , Core Strategy Policies CS13 and CS18 and Policy G9 of the CMK Alliance Plan Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details of the illuminated feature panels shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reasons: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality and in the interest of highway safety in accordance with Saved Policies D1, D2A, D2 and T10 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan Adopted , Core Strategy Policies CS13 and CS18 and Policy G9 of the CMK Alliance Plan The maximum luminance of the illuminated feature panels shall not exceed 300 cd/m2. Reason: To avoid glare which could lead to safety issues in accordance with Saved Policies D1 and T10 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan Adopted The approved development shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings/details: 12_008(00)001 Rev B received ; 12_008(90)001 Rev E received ; 12_008(20)010 Rev E received _008(20)011 Rev C received ; 12_008(20)012 received ; 12_008(35)100 Rev E received ; 12_008(20)020 Rev A received ; 12_008(20)021 received ;

8 12_008(20)022 received ; Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in accordance with the requirements of The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Amendment No. 3) (England) Order INFORMATIVE: For the avoidance of doubt, the works shown to the portecocheres on the submitted plan fall outside the red edge of the application site and do not form part of this planning permission, as stated in the submitted application Design and Access Statement.

9 Appendix to 16/01209/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 12/02026/FUL Replacement of doors and glazing of the reception area and extending it by 10.5m; glazing refurbishment including changing window glazing and replacement of the gaskets, pressure plates and cover caps; cleaning and tinting of brick facade; removal of existing brick planters and associated balustrade; implementation of glass balustrade along the front of the building. Permitted A1.2 14/02247/FUL Enlargement of entrance lobby with glazed panels and sliding doors, replacement of curtain walling, zinc cladding in two areas to rear elevation, installation of entrance lighting Permitted A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS A2.1 None (Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18 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 - Central Milton Keynes The Town Council accepts, in principle, that refreshing the exterior of Genesis House may help the applicant attract tenants; however it is difficult to support the proposals in their current form. Officer Response See paragraphs The cosmetic changes proposed are not consistent with MKC s planning policies which require high standards of design, quality materials and adding to local character. Design quality is a significant matter if CMK is to remain an attractive townscape and regional growth aspirations are to be achieved. We note that MKC has refused planning applications for CMK on grounds of conflict with design policies alone. 1. Context The original design of Genesis House is consistent with the understated, unpretentious architecture that characterizes much of CMK. It has a simple, well-expressed structure, carried through into the details, and is built in a harmonious palette of materials that suits its wider context. Unfortunately the proposals work against this context rather than working with it.

19 2. Unsympathetic design The core issue is that the proposal attempts to fix a superficial façade, based on horizontal lines, onto a building that was designed with a strong vertical emphasis. a) The proposed change from the clear perpendicular lines of the original building would result in a disjointed, jarring facade. For example, the brick pillars which currently flow straight from the pavement to the top of the building would now appear short and cut off from the rest of the building. b) Materials: the proposal to clad this brick building with synthetic stone panels fails to respect its context and is at odds with policies for CMK that prefer quality materials selected from a suitable range (eg brick, stone, glass and steel). c) In comparison with the original architecture the proposed elevational treatment is not well considered; it is contrived, superficial and lacks sensitivity to the building itself and its wider context. d) Instead of reinforcing the character of the townscape the proposals weaken it by introducing a fake façade in fake materials. This disregards the Modernist form-followsfunction aesthetic that gives distinction and character to CMK. e) The above flaws would be a matter of regret for any development but are particularly so for a building of this size and importance fronting Midsummer Boulevard. 3. Alternative proposals We suggest that the applicant could achieve better results if the refurbishment remained true to the logic, clarity and materials of the existing structure; for example cleaning the

20 brickwork and introducing new lighting could refresh its appearance. The TC recommends that MKC asks the applicant to reconsider the proposed changes in a more sensitive, policy-compliant manner. 4. Basis of objections: In its current form the Town Council objects to the application due to its conflict with the following policies: CMK Alliance Plan policy G9 b: The building s form, details and materials and associated public realm should be well considered and of high quality and the design should demonstrate an appreciation of and response to the wider context of the site. Saved policies D2, D2a of the MK Local Plan and Core Strategy policies CS13 and CS18 also seek to ensure that developments are of high quality, well designed, relate well to the surrounding area and reinforce townscape character and the quality of the public realm. A3. Ward - Central Milton Keynes - Cllr Betteley No comments received. A3. Ward - Central Milton Keynes - Cllr Wallis No comments received. A3. Ward - Central Milton Keynes - Cllr Williams No comments received. A3. MKC Urban Design This Genesis Office Block was constructed in the mid- See

21 1980s. I understand it was designed by Hobbs Architects. Character A place with its own identity The existing design of the office block relates in terms of scale, materials (brick and mirrored glazing) and design to the Development Corporation era and in this regard the building works well as a set of three with Acorn house and Midsummer House creating a set of three uncomplicated buildings. The updated façade modernises the building, adds more materials and mixes the strong vertical emphasis with some horizontal features. The revised façade relates better to the more recent buildings on the opposite side of Midsummer boulevard. Whilst some people may find this disappointing I don t feel this is a reason to refuse the application. I understand from the Design and Access statement that there is a desire to remove the section of the port-corhere that is attached to the building. Whilst I understand the reason behind wishing to do this the port-corchere s are a fundamental feature in the character of Milton Keynes and any proposal to remove any part of them should be accompanied with a robust rationale as it is likely that it will be challenged. I would also recommend investigating alternative solutions to increase the light and visibility in the lobby and the entrance of the building. Quality of the public realm The materials used need to be robust especially at ground

22 level and under the colonnade the brink that is being clad over has had minimal damage and is a robust material. With pedestrian access under the colonnade I do not want the proposed cladding to be vandalised and become an unsightly maintenance liability I would therefore like to see material samples. With regards to the illuminated panels I would like confirmation of the colour of the illuminated panels, possibly as a conditions related to the materials. Conclusion I do not object to this application; however I would like to see samples before the works commence. A3. Highways Development Control I have no objections to the vertical lights subject to a maximum luminance of 300cdm2. See There is not much detail in their description as to the form this will take as they mention they want it generic for the time being. This sounds like we need them to submit details (either now or as a condition). We would normally expect that the lights would be static, but I am aware that there are examples where light panels can change periodically. This would probably be acceptable as well as long as they did not flash or are constantly moving light sources. A3. Environmental Health Manager No comments received. Noted

23 A3. Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application: 1-72 Manhattan House 401 Witan Gate East Central Milton Keynes 251 (Soltice House), 302, 308 (Jurys Inn), 310, 312 (Ramada Encore), 316, 320, 326 Midsummer Boulevard Central Milton Keynes Milton Keynes 40 Rillaton Walk Central Milton Keynes Milton Keynes First and Second Floors Midsummer Court Offices 314 Midsummer Boulevard Ground, First and Second Floors 211, 213 and 215 Witan Gate East Central Milton Keynes 218, 220, 222, 224, 226, and 228 Regency Court Upper Fifth Street Central Milton Keynes Ground, First and Second Floors Sovereign Court 209 Witan Gate East Central Milton Keynes Sovereign Court 230 Upper Fifth Street Central Milton Keynes Ground, First and Second Floors Sovereign Court 232 Upper Fifth Street Central Milton Keynes All Rooms and Suites to Acorn House Midsummer Boulevard Central Milton Keynes Site notices were also posted and an advert placed in the newspaper to publicise the application. Two third party letters of comment have been received A letter has been received from an occupier of Sovereign Court, 230 Upper Fifth Street, CMK which includes the Matters relating to Noise and Dust are controlled by the Environmental Health legislation.

24 following comments: - The construction works would impact on adjacent commercial properties due to the delivery of materials, parking of contractors, noise, dust and fumes as well as place restrictions on access to the Sovereign Courts parking areas. - In the absence of assurances of undertakings from the developer on addressing issues of noise and access, would object strongly to this application. The parking area between Genesis House and Sovereign Court is in private ownership and therefore any matters relating to obstruction of parking would be a civil matter. In light of the above, and that a Construction Management related condition was not imposed on the previous permission (ref. 14/02247/FUL), it is considered that such a condition not be reasonably be imposed in this instance. A letter has also been received from an occupier of Manhattan House. This letter is based on a written description of the development only and includes the following comments: - Concerned that changes would alter view from apartment - Concerned proposal would have a detrimental impact on property values. - In particular concerned about illuminated feature panel not knowing its size and brightness; would be horrified if a huge neon sign is about to be erected. - Overall, hopeful this will be an improvement to the current yellow banner advertising the empty apartment. See , but in summary the adjacent flats are over 90 metres away from Genesis such that the proposal would no harm residential amenity. This is not a material planning consideration. The proposal is not for a neon sign. Noted.