Minutes of the meeting of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE held on THURSDAY 12 APRIL 2018 at 7.00 pm.

Transcription

1 ITEM 3(a) Minutes of the meeting of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE held on THURSDAY at 7.00 pm. Present: Officers: Councillors: Alexander, Bint, Exon, Geaney, A Geary (Substituting for Councillor Morla), Legg, McLean, Petchey and P Williams S Bridglalsingh (Service Director Legal and Democratic Services), B Leahy (Head of Planning), P Keen (Senior Planning Officer), D Law (Senior Planning Officer), S Taylor (Senior Planning Officer), N Thomson (Senior Planning Officer), E Verdegem (Senior Planning Officer), P Van Geete (Tariff Programme Manager), N Sainsbury (Head of Placemaking), D Blandamer (Urban Designer), G Gibson (Design and Special Projects Manager) and D Imbimbo (Committee Manager). Also Present: Councillors P Geary and Hosking and approximately 30 Members of the Public. Apologies: DCC83 Councillors Morla and C Wilson. Councillor Legg for lateness. ELECTION OF CHAIR The meeting was opened by the Committee Manager who advised the Committee that the Chair, Councillor Eastman, had tendered his resignation from the Council on retirement and asked for any nominations for Chair of the Committee. Councillor A Geary proposed that Councillor McLean be elected Chair, this was seconded by Councillor Exon. That Councillor McLean be elected Chair of the Development Control Committee for the remainder of the Council year. Councillor McLean took the Chair. DCC84 ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR Councillor McLean proposed that Councillor Exon be elected Vice Chair, this was seconded by Councillor Bint. That Councillor Exon be elected Vice Chair of the Development Control Committee for the remainder of the Council year.

2 DCC85 DCC86 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The Committee Manager reported two amendments to the published Draft Minutes of the meeting of the Development Control Committee on 8 March 2018; That the name Hopkins at the section Also present be amended to read Hosking. That at Minute DCC81 in respect of application 17/03332/FUL under objectors comments an additional bullet point be added to read That the application did not comply with policies CS9, CS13, CS19, D1, D2, HE5 and H7. The Chief Planner confirmed that the response to a question from Mr Skelton would be published in Councillors News for the benefit of the Committee and members and had been sent in the post to Mr Skelton. RESOLVED; That the minutes of the Meetings of the Development Control Committee held on 8 MARCH 2018 be agreed as an accurate record and signed by the Chair as such, subject to the inclusion of the additional points as detailed above. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS Councillor Bint asked that it be noted that he was the Council appointed member of the Board of MKDP and when acting in that capacity did so without prejudice to his role as a Councillor. Councillor Bint asked that it be noted that in respect of application 17/00541/FUL, the site was within his Ward, he had however not taken part in any discussions in respect of the application. Councillor Geaney asked that it be noted that in respect of Item 12 Development Brief in respect White Horse Drive, she was a member of the Parish Council. Councillor A Geary asked that it be noted that in respect of application 17/03385/REM, he had facilitated a meeting between the developers and the public in respect of the proposals but had expressed no view and would judge the application on its merits. Councillor A Geary asked that it be noted that in respect of application 17/03232/OUT when an application on this site had previously been considered he had declared a personal and prejudicial interest, however ownership of the land had now changed and his previous interests no longer existed. Councillor P Williams asked that it be noted that in respect of Item 9, Application 18/00266/DISCON he had engaged with numerous members of the public in respect of the proposals but had not expressed an opinion and would judge the application on its merits.

3 DCC87 DCC88 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The Committee received a question from Ms D Sutton; I was in the public gallery at the meeting of DCC on Thursday 8th February 2018 when members of the public asked questions under section 7. If they had all been answered verbally then all those present including members of DCC and members of the public would have been able to hear the answers. It was stated that the answers to two questions would be provided in writing. This is shown under DCC 69 Public Participation in the Minutes of the February meeting, which were tabled and agreed at the DCC meeting on 8th March. My question is: What is the process whereby members of DCC and members of the public are able to read the answer to questions which are replied to in writing rather than verbally? The Chair referred the question to the Committee Manager who responded that written responses were sent to the questioner who was at liberty to share the answer with whomsoever they wished, it was also published in Councillors News for the benefit of the Councillors. REPRESENTATIONS ON APPLICATIONS Mr D Brockett and Mr N Stacey (Chair of Governors for Hanslope School) spoke in objection to application 17/03385/REM, Approval of reserved matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the erection of 150 dwellings, including associated works. All matters reserved except access, pursuant to outline permission 16/02106/OUT at Land Off Castlethorpe Road, Hanslope. The Applicant s Agent, Ms E Bishop, exercised the right of reply. Mr T Evans, Mr K Viney, Mr L Lean, Councillor C Tennant (Olney Town Council), Councillor P Geary (Ward Councillor) and Councillor Hosking (Ward Councillor), spoke in objection to application 17/03232/OUT Outline application (with all matters reserved except access) for the erection of a retail foodstore within use class A1 with access, servicing, parking, bus/taxi stop, sub-station, sewer pump, recycling and landscaping, and up to 26 residential units within use class C3, with access, parking, recycling and landscaping and a new pedestrian/ cycle link along Lavendon Road at Land at Corner of Lavendon Road & Warrington Road, Olney. Mr J Best (Applicants Agent) and Mr T Williamson (Applicant) exercised the right of reply. Councillor A Thomas (Central Milton Keynes Town Council), spoke in objection to application 18/00160/FUL Fourth floor extension and

4 DCC89 additional fifth and sixth floors to provide 24 additional residential units at Medina House, Silbury Boulevard, Central Milton Keynes, Milton Keynes. Mr M Jones (Applicants Agent) exercised the right of reply. PLANNING APPLICATIONS 18/00223/FUL VARIATION OF CONDITION 10 ATTACHED TO APPLICATION 16/03023/FUL FOR DEMOLITION OF EXISTING B8 STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION WAREHOUSE, AND ERECTION OF A NEW B8 STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION WAREHOUSE WITH ANCILLARY B1 FLOORSPACE AND ASSOCIATED WORKS AT BLAKELANDS 1, YEOMANS DRIVE, BLAKELANDS, MILTON KEYNES FOR GUPI 6 LIMITED. Councillor Legg was not present for this Item. The Chair advised the Committee that the application had been withdrawn by the applicant and would not be determined by the Committee. 17/00541/FUL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 118 DWELLINGS (35 AFFORDABLE) TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED WORKS INCLUDING LANDSCAPING AND INFRASTRUCTURE AT LAND OFF TONGWELL STREET, ATTERBURY, BROUGHTON, MILTON KEYNES FOR MORRIS HOMES LTD. Councillor Legg was not present for this Item. The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application it was commented that conditions 2 and 11 within the report were duplicates and it was therefore recommended that condition 11 be deleted and condition 2 amended to read; Prior to the occupation of any relevant plot / dwellings hereby permitted, the allocated car parking and cycle parking areas shown on the approved drawings shall be constructed, surfaced and permanently marked out for that relevant plot, and the unallocated parking shall be provide before completion of the development. The car parking areas shall be used for no other purpose thereafter. Reason: To ensure adequate car and cycle parking provision at all times so that the development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or safety on the neighbouring highway.

5 The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that his recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions as detailed in the Committee report with condition 2 amended as above and condition 11 deleted and a s106 agreement. Councillor McLean proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed, this was seconded by Councillor Exon. The Committee heard that it was now proposed that an existing leisure route that ran through the development site was proposed to be upgraded to a Red-Way to link the two red-ways that feed into the site, this was reflected in the s106 agreement. Members of the Committee expressed concern that that there were various elements of the proposed development which did not comply with policy, in particular the proposal did not meet the Council s parking standards, the living environment in respect of noise was not acceptable and the layout was such that minimum separation distances were not adequate. Members of the Committee commented that they were supportive of the principle of development but believed there was scope for improvement to the scheme to make it policy compliant. Councillor Bint proposed that the determination of the application be deferred to allow for revisions to be made to the scheme to ensure the proposal is policy compliant, this was seconded by Councillor A Geary. On being put to the vote the proposal to defer the application was carried. RESOLVED - That determination of the planning application be deferred to allow revisions to the scheme to ensure that the application was compliant with the Council s policies.

6 17/03385/REM APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS OF APPEARANCE, LANDSCAPING, LAYOUT AND SCALE FOR THE ERECTION OF 150 DWELLINGS, INCLUDING ASSOCIATED WORKS. ALL MATTERS RESERVED EXCEPT ACCESS, PURSUANT TO OUTLINE PERMISSION 16/02106/OUT AT LAND OFF CASTLETHORPE ROAD, HANSLOPE FOR BLOOR HOMES LTD. The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application. The Committee heard that whilst the school expansion area was covered and required by the s106 arrangement, this did not apply to the school drop-off facility which was to be provided over and above the s106 as a Community Benefit. It was further noted that whilst the Hanslope Neighbourhood Plan was yet to be confirmed the plan was in the development stage and included within it the site. The Committee heard that tracking diagrams of the roads through the proposed development demonstrated that the roads were not suitable for use by the school bus, and therefore the proposal was that the bus drop off arrangements would remain as at present. It was anticipated that the impact of the school drop off by the bus would be significantly lessened by virtue of the new car drop off site to be provided. The Committee was reminded that the developers obligation was to mitigate any harm done by the development, as it was likely that any children living on the site would travel by foot to the school there was no justifiable requirement for the developer to provide for a school drop off and anything provided was beyond the scope of the s106 agreement. The Committee heard that the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions as detailed in the Committee report together with a s106 agreement. The Committee heard from objectors who raised the following concerns; There are properties on the boundary that have small rear gardens and the impact of the development, where once there would have been open fields, is immense and a

7 greater buffer zone should be provided where this is the case, otherwise it will result in overshadowing and loss of amenity for residents. There appears to be an error in the plan that indicates an access to the proposed buffer zone from the rear garden of No. 8 Cuckoo Hill Rise. There is a need to resolve parking issues in respect of the school otherwise there will be on street parking in the local area causing congestion. Initial plans indicated a direct access to the proposed school drop off zone, this is no longer proposed and an alternative route through the build-up area is proposed instead. This limits access for the school bus. The applicants agent confirmed that the s106 agreement had been signed providing significant investment for the village. Also amendments had been made to the proposals to provide landscaping and a buffer zone from existing developments. It was further confirmed that it was the developers view that the proposed roads through the development were suitable for use by the school bus although this was disputed by the Council s Highways Officer. The applicants agent told the Committee that the application was policy compliant in all respects. Councillor McLean proposed that the Officer recommendation be agreed, this was seconded by Councillor Legg. Councillor A Geary told the Committee that he believed there was scope to revise the separation distances between the new developments and those already existing in Cuckoo Hill Rise, despite them being policy compliant. He further stated that he recognised that the applicants had indicated willingness at Outline Planning stage to correct some of the problems that existed in the village, despite there being no obligation on them to do so. It was further acknowledged that some proposals had been made to do this but that there remained an issue in respect of the school bus drop off which due to a difference of opinion between the Developers Highways engineer and the Council s

8 Highways engineer meant the estate roads could not be used, this had only come to light earlier in the week. He stated that he believed that with some minor adjustments there was the likelihood that these differences could be overcome and therefore proposed that the determination of the application be deferred until the next meeting of the Committee to allow for further discussion and revision of the scheme to address these points. This was Seconded by Councillor Bint. The Chief Planner advised the Committee that the whether the bus was or was not able to use the street did not amount to a planning consideration, it was acknowledged that the Highways Authority did have separate powers that may result in a restriction but this was a separate matter to planning. On being put to the vote the motion to defer determination of the planning permission until the next meeting of the Committee to allow further discussion and if appropriate amendments to the scheme to allow a greater buffer zone with existing properties in Cuckoo Hill Rise and adjustments to the roads to allow school bus access to the proposed drop off area. That determination of the application to grant planning permission be deferred until the next meeting of the Committee to allow further discussion and if appropriate amendments to the scheme to allow a greater buffer zone with existing properties in Cuckoo Hill Rise and adjustments to the roads to allow school bus access to the proposed drop off area.

9 17/03232/OUT OUTLINE APPLICATION (WITH ALL MATTERS RESERVED EXCEPT ACCESS) FOR THE ERECTION OF A RETAIL FOODSTORE WITHIN USE CLASS A1 WITH ACCESS, SERVICING, PARKING, BUS/TAXI STOP, SUB-STATION, SEWER PUMP, RECYCLING AND LANDSCAPING, AND UP TO 26 RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHIN USE CLASS C3, WITH ACCESS, PARKING, RECYCLING AND LANDSCAPING AND A NEW PEDESTRIAN/ CYCLE LINK ALONG LAVENDON ROAD AT LAND AT CORNER OF LAVENDON ROAD & WARRINGTON ROAD, OLNEY FOR ANGLE PROPERTY (OLNEY) LLP. The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application. The Committee heard that the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions as detailed in the Committee report together with a s106 agreement. The Committee heard representations from objectors who told the Committee that the application was in contravention of the recently made neighbourhood plan which designated the site for retail in its entirety. Following an adjournment the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the applicant had withdrawn the application and there remained nothing to determine. 18/00160/FUL FOURTH FLOOR EXTENSION AND ADDITIONAL FIFTH AND SIXTH FLOORS TO PROVIDE 24 ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS AT MEDINA HOUSE, SILBURY BOULEVARD, CENTRAL MILTON KEYNES, MILTON KEYNES FOR MR ITZCHAK RUBIN. The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application. The Committee heard that there was no update on the Committee report and update report and that the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions as detailed in the reports together with a s106 agreement. The Committee heard representations in objection to the scheme from a representative of the Town Council who raised the following concerns;

10 The Town Council supported the principle of residential use. The current proposal represented an insensitive and significant overdevelopment of the site. The availability of dedicated parking was insufficient. Waste disposal arrangements were inadequate for the development. The ongoing conversion of small office blocks to residential units was having a detrimental impact on the Town Centre and the ability to attract new commercial business. The Applicant s agent reminded the Committee that the building already had permission to convert to residential units and that the application related purely to the additional 24 units and parking provision needed to be assessed against that criteria rather than that of the building as a whole. As such the shortfall amounted to 2 spaces. It was further confirmed that a waste management company would be engaged to attend to waste disposal. Councillor McLean proposed that the Officer recommendation be agreed, this was seconded by Councillor Legg. Members expressed concern in respect of waste storage but recognised that conditions had been applied that were aimed at addressing the issues. In response to a question the Programme Tariff Manager confirmed that Central Milton Keynes had separate arrangements for s106 calculations, it was further noted that the Central Milton Keynes Alliance Plan made provision for a payment towards parking spaces within a multi-storey car park to compensate for an under provision of parking spaces on site.

11 The Senior Planning Officer told the Committee that in her view the impact of the lack of two spaces did not result in significant harm and therefore no contribution had been sought. She further stated that she did not believe it would be a reasonable requirement in light of the Highways Officers advice. Councillor Bint stated that he did believe any shortfall in parking provision represented significant harm in an area where there already existed problems and proposed that the s106 agreement be amended to seek the relevant contribution from the developer to provide two parking spaces within a multi-storey car park. This was seconded by Councillor P Williams, on being put to the vote the amendment was carried. On being put to the vote the proposal to grant planning permission subject to the conditions as detailed in the committee report together with a s106 agreement to be amended as above was carried unanimously. That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the committee report together with a s106 agreement to be amended to include payments for any shortfall in parking spaces in accordance with the provisions of the Central Milton Keynes Alliance Plan. 17/03224/FUL ERECTION OF 14 DWELLING HOUSES, DETACHED GARAGES, ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING. PART CHANGE OF USE AND PART RE-BUILD OF EXISTING OUTBUILDING AT GROUND-FLOOR FROM STABLES/GARAGE TO B1 OFFICE USE AT WAVENDON LODGE, LOWER END ROAD, WAVENDON, MILTON KEYNES, FOR MCCANN HOMES. The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application. The Committee heard that there was no further update on the Committee report and update report and that the recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the conditions as detailed in the reports together with a s106 agreement.

12 DCC90 Councillor McLean proposed that the Officer recommendations be agreed, this was seconded by Councillor Legg. Members of the Committee expressed disappointment that the application was for 14 dwellings and therefore one under the threshold for the requirement to provide affordable dwellings. On being put to the vote the motion was carried. That Planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed in the Committee reports together with a s106 agreement. DISCHARGE OF CONDITION - 18/00266/DISCON The Committee considered a report in respect of the discharge of a condition applied to application 13/01729/FUL in respect a condition to the provision of a Design code. The Senior Planning Officer told the Committee that the condition had included a requirement for consultation to include a minimum of one workshop. In the event 2 workshops had been undertaken. The Committee heard from a representative of the Town Council and 4 members of the public in considering the item. The Committee heard that although some consultation on the design code had been undertaken it had not been inclusive and workshops had been conducted at a time when many interested parties had been unavailable. Furthermore it was commented that the proposals did not amount to a Very High Standard of Design as required by the conditions. Councillor P Williams stated that he was the Ward Councillor and had not received invitations to the workshops. He expressed concern about the proposed designs in so far as the active frontages were not on all sides whereas the existing structure provides a 360 degree building on the site. Members of the Committee were concerned at the level of consultation and whilst recognising that the design code was not a binding document and the design could be further amended before the reserved matters application is approved Councillor A Geary proposed that a decision be deferred for a period of 3 months to allow additional and inclusive consultation to be undertaken, this was seconded by Councillor P Williams and on being put to the vote the motion was carried. That determination of the application to discharge the condition be deferred for a period of 3 months to allow for a further consultation

13 DCC91 exercise to be undertaken and revisions made to the design code to fully represent the aspirations of interested parties. DEVELOPMENT BRIEFS REPORTS The Committee received a report in respect of the purpose and weight to be given to Development Briefs. That the report be noted. DCC92 CALDECOTTE SITE C DRAFT DEVELOPMENT BRIEF The Committee received a report in respect of the Caldecotte Site C Development Brief and was reminded that it had been presented to the Committee as part of the ongoing consultation process which was due to end on 27 April Members of the Committee were invited to submit any comments or observations to the Head of Placemaking for consideration. 1. That the report be noted. 2. That members of the Committee pass any comments to the Head of Placemaking before the end of the consultation process. DCC93 WHITE HORSE DRIVE, EMERSON VALLEY DRAFT DEVELOPMENT BRIEF The Committee received a report in respect of the White Horse Drive, Emerson Valley Development Brief and was reminded that it had been presented to the Committee as part of the ongoing consultation process which was due to end on 4 June Members of the Committee were invited to submit any comments or observations to the Head of Placemaking for consideration. 1. That the report be noted. 2. That members of the Committee pass any comments to the Head of Placemaking before the end of the consultation process. THE CHAIR CLOSED THE MEETING AT 22:45 PM