Minutes of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE held on THURSDAY 01 OCTOBER 2015 at 7.00 pm.

Transcription

1 ITEM 3(b) Minutes of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL held on THURSDAY 01 OCTOBER 2015 at 7.00 pm. Present: Officers: Apologies: Councillor A Geary (Chair) Councillors: Baume, Bint, Buckley, Green, Gowans, Lewis, Morla, White and P Williams. A Rose (Service Director - Planning and Transport), N Wheatcroft (Team Leader Strategic Applications Team), S Gee (Senior Planning Officer), K Lycett (Senior Planning Officer), S Agimal (Engineer - Development Management [Highways]), P Caves (Engineer - Development Management [Highways]), J Robinson (Senior Planning Obligations Officer), S Peart (Conservation and Archaeology Manager), A Coleman (Passenger Transport Manager), D Blandamer (Urban Designer), J Bartlam (Trainee Solicitor), J Cotton (Solicitor - Case Manager Planning) and D Imbimbo (Committee Manager). Councillor C Williams. Also Present: Councillor Bald and Mr D Coate (Viability Consultant) Number of Public Present: 70 DCC36 DCC37 DCC38 CHAIRMANS WELCOME The Chair welcomed Members of The Committee, Officers and Public to the meeting. MINUTES That the Minutes of the meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 3 September 2015 and the meeting of the Development Control Panel on 20 August 2015 be approved as accurate records and signed by the Chair as such. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS Councillor White asked that it be noted that he was a member of the Milton Keynes Development Board and would therefore stand down from the Committee during consideration of Item 7 Development Brief for C3.3S Central Milton Keynes Councillor A Geary asked that it be noted that in respect of DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 01 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 1

2 DCC39 Application 15/02071/TCA he would step down from the Committee during consideration of this application as the applicant was known to him. Councillor A Geary asked that it be noted that in respect of application 15/00913/FUL he had met with the applicant in his former capacity of Leader of the Council when a scheme was being considered for the site, however he had not discussed any detail at that stage or since discussed this application with the applicant. Councillor Morla asked that it be noted that in respect of applications15/00699/rem and 15/01492/FUL were in her Ward, however, she had not discussed the applications with anyone and maintained an open mind. REPRESENTATIONS ON APPLICATIONS Ms M Osbourne, Mr M Galloway and Mr A Francis spoke in objection to application 15/00913/FUL, Demolition of existing Agora building, re-instatement of Radcliffe Street, reconfiguration of existing car park (total car parking spaces 207) and construction of a new mixed-use development including 100 residential units, 8 x ground floor retail units with retail storage (GIA sqm), associated hardstanding and landscaping work at Land at The Agora Centre, Church Street, Wolverton. Mr N Hollingsworth, Mr N Weeks and Mr A Ross exercised the right of reply. Ms D Shephard (Deputy Town Clerk) spoke on behalf of Wolverton and Greenleys Town Council in objection to application 15/01302/MKCOD3 Single-storey classroom teaching block, new car park and new vehicle and pedestrian access from McConnell Drive; extensions and alterations to play areas to include new fenced play and games courts at Bushfield School, Moon Street, Wolverton. Mr R Ferrington (MKC Project Leader (Capital)) exercised the right of reply. Mr D Kayondo and Councillor Bald (MKC) spoke in objection to application 15/00825/FUL Residential development of 131 units (amended description) at Land at Site 4A And 5, Holden Avenue, Oxley Park The Applicant Mr B Maynard and his agent Mr A Clarke exercised the right of reply. Councillor Rook (Ravenstone Parish Council) spoke in objection to application 15/02071/TCA Notification of intention to remove wispy branches to two Willow Fronds at Bluebell Cottage, Bay Lane, Ravenstone. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 01 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 2

3 DCC40 PLANNING APPLICATIONS 15/00913/FUL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING AGORA BUILDING, RE-INSTATEMENT OF RADCLIFFE STREET, RECONFIGURATION OF EXISTING CAR PARK (TOTAL CAR PARKING SPACES 207) AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING 100 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 8 X GROUND FLOOR RETAIL UNITS WITH RETAIL STORAGE (GIA SQM), ASSOCIATED HARD-STANDING AND LANDSCAPING WORK AT LAND AT THE AGORA CENTRE, CHURCH STREET, WOLVERTON FOR BRICKHILL PROPERTIES (MK) LTD The Panel heard from objectors who emphasised and re-iterated points of objection made during the consultation process and in the subsequent representations to the reports. In particular concern was expressed in respect of the compatibility of the proposals with the Neighborhood Plan, Parking provision and related congestion, the incongruity of the design and scale in the locality and the downgrading of bus shelters and routes. The Objectors also told the Committee that the scheme failed to deliver the correct mix of affordable housing or make the full 1.6m S106 contribution due to having paid in excess of the market value for the site, which was not seen as justification. The applicant and his agents told the Committee that in respect of parking whilst there was a very small reduction in the number of spaces, the number of spaces remaining was consistent with that required by the Milton Keynes Parking Standards for the proposed development. The developer also confirmed that in respect of the bus stops they would be subject to agreement and legal contract in terms of design and size, and that the proposed scheme would not result in a material impact on traffic compared to the present arrangement. The Committee was told that the scheme was designed to deliver accommodation, retail units and employment for local people. The Committee heard from the representative of the Town Council that the scheme was supported by the Town Council and in its view the scheme was in accord with the requirements of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 01 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 3

4 Neighbourhood Plan. It was confirmed that the Developer had worked closely with the Town Council to design an acceptable scheme. Members of the Committee expressed disappointment that the scheme proposed to deliver 25% affordable housing rather than the 30% required by policy, the Team Leader Strategic Applications Team, told the Committee that viability of the scheme had been thoroughly tested both by Officers and an external consultant and based on that evidence the 25% affordable housing element was deemed acceptable. It was also confirmed that whilst the highways engineers and transport officers had raised concerns no formal objections to the scheme had been made. It was noted that a significant number of representations had been submitted since the publication of the agenda however no new issues were raised within those documents. The Officer told the Committee that there was an additional condition proposed in respect of the highway works, Prior to commencement of development and notwithstanding the details on the submitted drawings (Full details), (including Engineering details) of the required highways and traffic works not required by other conditions of this permission shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be provided in full in accordance with the approved details prior to first occupation of any part of the development. Reason: In order to minimise the danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and the development Councillor A Geary proposed that the officer recommendation to approve the application subject to the conditions as detailed in the Committee report, a s106 Obligation as referred to in the report, and together with the additional condition be agreed, this was seconded by Councillor White. Members of the Committee noted that many of the objections were based on the hope that a better scheme than that proposed could be developed on the site but that this was not a consideration in this instance. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 01 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 4

5 The Committee heard from the Viability Consultant that the purchase price of the land had not been taken account of in the viability study as that would not be a material consideration, instead a benchmark value had been used. It was confirmed that the viability assessment had been conducted in line with the requirements of the NPPF and other industry standard methodology. The Team Leader Strategic Applications Team, confirmed that it was the Officers view that the scheme on balance was seen to conform with the Neighbourhood Plan as it provided for a development that would see regeneration, this had been confirmed by the Town Council. It was noted that in respect of paragraph W1 of the Neighbourhood plan there were a large number of aspirations detailed therein, the scheme was considered to meet a number of them and that in respect of how a planning application was assessed it was rare for a scheme to meet all elements of a policy, again on balance the scheme was considered to be broadly compliant with the Neighbourhood Plan. Councillor White proposed that condition 26 be amended so that the reason reflected the need to ensure that the viability and vitality of Wolverton Town Centre was supported. He also proposed that condition 45 be amended to ensure that bus stop locations and design be controlled such that Wolverton was not downgraded as a transport exchange. It was proposed that the responsibility to reword the conditions to reflect these changes be delegated to the Service Director - Planning and Transport, to be done in consultation with the Chair, and Vice Chairs, this was seconded by Councillor Bint. The Committee heard that the development was designed to be sustainable and the application had an accompanying sustainability statement which demonstrated that the criteria were met, a Carbon Offset payment was also proposed. It was also noted that in respect of pepper potting of the affordable housing the scheme was considered acceptable as the proposal was compliant with what was found to be the preferred option in many developments from affordable housing providers. It was confirmed that the affordable units would be of a similar design and quality as other units DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 01 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 5

6 The Conservation Officer confirmed that he was satisfied that the style of the proposed development would work within the context of the locality but did hold concerns about the scale of parts of the scheme in that there was too much four story development. The Committee asked whether the inclusion of an overage clause in the s106 could be added. Councillor Bint also proposed that an additional condition be applied to ensure that each unit had a dedicated parking space allocated and marked, this was seconded by Councillor Exon. The Chair adjourned the meeting to allow the Solicitor - Case Manager Planning to consider and advise the Committee on the inclusion of an overage clause. On resuming the meeting the Solicitor - Case Manager Planning, told the Committee that a review clause (not an overage clause ) could be used in s106 agreements for large scale developments, planned to be completed over a number of years in phases and where the applicant has agreed to its inclusion, however, this was a smaller development that was not proposed to be completed in phases and it would therefore not be appropriate to apply, also the applicant has indicated that he was not prepared to include such a clause, and therefore it was advised that a clause should not be included in this instance. The Viability Consultant concurred with the advice based on experience of Inspectors ruling against review mechanisms unless there is a phased development. The Committee accepted the advice. The proposal to approve the application subject to a s106 Obligation the conditions as detailed in the Committee report, together with the amended condition as detailed above and to include the amendments to conditions 26 and 45, and the additional condition to be delegated to the Service Director - Planning and Transport, in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chairs, was carried, and it was; RESOLVED That planning permission be granted subject to a s106 Obligation the conditions as detailed in the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 01 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 6

7 Committee report, together with the amended condition as detailed above and to include the amendments to conditions 26 and 45, and the additional condition to be delegated to the Service Director - Planning and Transport, in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chairs 15/01302/MKCOD3 SINGLE-STOREY CLASSROOM TEACHING BLOCK, NEW CAR PARK AND NEW VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS FROM MCCONNELL DRIVE; EXTENSIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO PLAY AREAS TO INCLUDE NEW FENCED PLAY AND GAMES COURTS AT BUSHFIELD SCHOOL, MOON STREET, WOLVERTON FOR MILTON KEYNES COUNCIL The Committee heard from the representative of Wolverton and Greenleys Town Council that the Town Council held strong reservations and concerns in respect of Roads Safety due to the entrance arrangements and difficulties with visibility, the Town Council recognised the need for the additional school places and supported the application in principle. It was recommended that should the Committee agree to approve the application consideration be given to an informative recommending that the speed limit on McConnell Drive be reduced from 60mph to 40 mph to make exiting the site safer. The applicant confirmed that a 3 stage Road Safety Assessment was to be carried out and the scheme amended as required as it was completed. The Officer reported that since writing the report objections had been formally withdrawn in writing by Sport England and that it had been confirmed by the Countryside Officer that the submitted Biodiversity Assessment was acceptable. The Officer further reported that an updated report from the Highways Engineer had been published which confirmed that the proposal had been thoroughly assessed in terms of highway safety, access and parking. It was summarised that it would be unreasonable to expect the modest increase in traffic from these works would result in an increase in the occurrence of road traffic accidents. On this basis, in terms of highway issues, it was confirmed that the application could be supported, and that the Officer recommendation remained to grant the application subject to the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 01 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 7

8 15/00825/FUL conditions as detailed in the report. Councillor Morla had to leave the meeting for short while and did not take part in the debate or vote. Councillor A Geary proposed that the Officer recommendation be agreed, this was seconded by Councillor White. The Committee sought clarification on how many additional pupils there would be year on year and how many additional vehicle movements this would generate, the Officer confirmed that there was a top limit of an additional 120 pupils. Councillor Exon proposed that should the committee approve the application, it be agreed to add an informative to request that the relevant officer initiate the necessary procedure to seek a reduction in the speed limit from 60mph to 40 mph on McConnell Drive, from the junction of the H2 Millers Way to the 30mph signs, this was seconded by Councillor Bint. On being put to the vote the proposal to approve the officer recommendation and to add the informative was carried unanimously, and it was; RESOLVED 1. That the application be approved subject to the conditions as detailed in the Committee report, and; 2. That an informative be added to ask officers to initiate the necessary arrangements to introduce a reduced speed limit of 40mph on McConnell Drive. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 131 UNITS (AMENDED DESCRIPTION) AT LAND AT SITE 4A AND 5, HOLDEN AVENUE, OXLEY PARK FOR LINDEN HOMES The Committee heard representations from an objector and the Ward Councillor who expressed concern that the proposed development would put additional strain on health facilities and the lack of primary school places, it was noted that there was no planning permission in place to develop a school on Oxley Park. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 01 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 8

9 The Committee also heard that there remained a need for a further community centre building. The Ward Councillor expressed concern that whilst land could be made available for the construction of an additional community centre and money was to be set apart within the S106 agreement to fund a facility there remained a 12 month limitation on the offer of land in Oxley Park from the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) which was not a realistic timescale. Objectors also commented that the density was too high and that parking provision was inadequate as tandem parking featured in the plans and there was a lack of street parking provision. The Developer told the Committee that provision had been made within the S106 agreement for financial contributions towards education and health facilities and a Community Centre. The Committee heard that the scheme had been revised to ensure that it complied with all policies, and that whilst it was recognised that Tandem Parking was not an option favoured by the Committee the parking provision complied fully with the Milton Keynes Council Parking standards. It was noted that the revised plans significantly reduced the amount of tandem parking in respect of what had originally been proposed. The Officer reported that the scheme was fully compliant with policy and that parking exceeded the required provision as set out in the Milton Keynes Parking Standards. It was likewise confirmed that the S106 contributions that were proposed were in accordance with Council policy. The Officer reported that he had been engaged in negotiation with the HCA to extend the period that the HCA would make available plots of land to facilitate the provision of a Community Centre, however, this was not possible as the sites proposed were identified to be delivered as part of the Government s Custom Build initiative. The Officer told the Committee that his recommendation had been revised to take account of the amendments to the S106 agreement as detailed in the published update report and that the recommendation was that the application be granted subject to the completion of a S106 legal agreement to include the s106 matters set out in the main report as updated by the published DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 01 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 9

10 update report to include the provision of 43 x affordable housing units consisting of a tenure mix of 25% Affordable Rent (including 5% at a level broadly equivalent to Social Rent) and 5% Shared Ownership and financial contributions towards social infrastructure, leisure, recreation and sport, education, public transport and Redway and footways as set out in para 1.1 of the update paper. And subject to the conditions set out in Section 6 of the main report. Councillor A Geary proposed that the Officer recommendation be agreed, this was seconded by Councillor White. The Committee was advised that the HCA could not be required to extend the period that was agreed for the provision of details of the Community facilities, however this did not prevent the Committee making a request in this respect. The Chair undertook to write to the HCA in this respect. Likewise the Committee was concerned that there had been a number of S106 contributions from various schemes for Health facilities yet NHS England had thus far not made adequate provision for the expansion of Westcroft and Oxley Park, the Chair undertook to write to the relevant body to make the concerns known. It was also confirmed that there remained 48% of the units with Tandem Parking, whilst not in keeping with the wishes of the Committee it was a significant reduction on the original proposals and was nevertheless compliant with the existing Parking Standards. The Committee commented that the applicant had met and exceeded the requirements for affordable homes, and fully met the aspirations for S106 contributions, that the various representative bodies design aspirations had been taken account of following good communications, and the mix of house types was impressive, and that this should be commended. RESOLVED 1. That planning permission be granted subject to the completion of a s106 matters set out in the main report as updated by the published update report to include the provision of 43 x affordable housing units consisting of a tenure mix of 25% Affordable Rent (including 5% at a level broadly DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 01 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 10

11 equivalent to Social Rent) and 5% Shared Ownership and financial contributions towards social infrastructure, leisure, recreation and sport, education, public transport and Redway and footways as set out in para 1.1 of the update paper. And subject to the conditions set out in Section 6 of the main report, and 2. That the Chair write to the HCA to seek an extension of the period the land will be made available for a Community Hall, and; 3. That the Chair write to the relevant body to seek to have Health facilities prioritised in the Westcroft and Oxley Park area. The Committee agreed to extend the meeting to consider the business on the agenda. 15/00699/REM RESERVED MATTERS PURSUANT TO OUTLINE PERMISSION 12/01851/MKPCO FOR APPROVAL OF ACCESS, APPEARANCE, LANDSCAPING, LAYOUT AND SCALE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 206 DWELLINGS AND 360SQM OF COMMERCIAL FLOORSPACE (USE CLASS A1, A2, A3, A5, B1 AND D1) AT KINGSMEAD SOUTH SITES 1 AND 2, WHADDON ROAD, KINGSMEAD FOR TAYLOR WIMPEY The Officer reported that since the publication of the report the applicant had responded to the Highways Officers request for clarification on a number of points, the Highways Officer had therefore confirmed that he had no objections to the scheme, and therefore the recommendation remains to approve the application subject to the conditions as detailed in the committee report. Councillor A Geary proposed that the Officer recommendation be agreed this was seconded by Councillor White. It was noted that the parking allocation exceeded the requirement under the Parking Standards by over 100 spaces, although there remained a number of Tandem spaces. On being put to the vote the proposal to grant the application subject to the conditions as set out in the committee report was carried unanimously, and it was; RESOLVED DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 01 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 11

12 That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the committee report. 15/01492/FUL ERECTION OF 34 X DWELLINGS WITH RELOCATED SITE ACCESS AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE AND LANDSCAPING WORKS AT LAND AT THE GABLES, LOWER END ROAD, WAVENDON FOR LEA VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD 15/02071/TCA The Officer reported that Highways Officer had now received the updated tracking information that had been requested, this had been deemed acceptable. It was also reported that the Transport Statement had been amended to take account of a 40mph zone in Lower End Road, Road Safety Officers had confirmed that they did not object to a 30mph limit, the Highways Officer had therefore agreed that this should be included as recommended in condition 9 of the report. The Officer confirmed that the recommendation remained that the applications be approved subject to the conditions as detailed in the committee report. Councillor A Geary proposed that the Officer recommendation be agreed, this was seconded by Councillor White. On being put to the vote the proposal to grant the application subject to the conditions as set out in the committee report was carried unanimously, and it was; RESOLVED That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the committee report. NOTIFICATION OF INTENTION TO REMOVE WISPY BRANCHES TO TWO WILLOW FRONDS AT BLUEBELL COTTAGE, BAY LANE, RAVENSTONE FOR MR JOHN CAPLIN Councillor A Geary stood down from the Committee during consideration of this application and took no part in the proceedings. Councillor Exon (Vice Chair took the Chair) The Committee heard from the Chair of Lavendon Parish Council that the Parish Council Objected to the application as it held concerns that the applicant would not adhere to the limitation of any DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 01 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 12

13 DCC41 works agreed and that the tree was at risk. The Committee was reminded that the tree was situated in a conservation area and was a prominent feature. It was requested that should the Committee be minded to grant the application any work was conditioned to be done under supervision of a Council Officer. Alternatively the Parish Council would request that a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) was put on the tree. The Officer told the Committee that the application was for permission to carry out maintenance works on the tree and specified wispy branches to be pruned. The Committee was advised that it would be unreasonable to condition that any work be carried out under supervision. Councillor Exon proposed that the officer recommendation be agreed, this was seconded by Councillor White. Members of the Committee considered the benefits of making a TPO in respect of the tree. The Committee was advised by the Solicitor - Case Manager Planning, that a TPO would offer no additional protection to the tree as it was situated in a conservation area and therefore already benefitted from the same level of protection that a TPO would offer. On being put to the vote the proposal to agree the officer recommendation was carried, and it was; RESOLVED That no objections be raised to the works. C3.3S CMK DRAFT DEVELOPMENT BRIEF Councillor White stepped down from the Committee for this Item and left the room. The Committee considered a report in respect of the C3.3S Central Milton Keynes (CMK) Development Brief, The Urban Designer reminded the Committee that Land at C3.3S in CMK was one of the sites that transferred from the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) to the Milton Keynes Development Partnership (MKDP). MKDP was required to initiate the preparation of a Development Brief prior to marketing or disposing of any of its larger sites. The Council has adopted a protocol for the preparation of development briefs, which sets out a process for stakeholder engagement. The protocol included the Development Control Committee as a consultee DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 01 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 13

14 at the formal consultation stage and the report was before the Committee for that purpose. Members of the Committee were invited to comment on the Development Brief. Members were reminded that they could still respond to the consultation on an individual basis. Members of the Committee commented that the site was prominent and overlooked adjacent estates therefore creating a landmark development ought to be a priority, ideally visible from a reasonable distance. It was also commented that the pedestrian route depicted on the plans was not the actual route used as pedestrians tended to favour a more direct route across the carparks on the site. The Committee expressed concern about the process in developing the briefs. It was recognised that the Service Director and the Cabinet member were meeting to discuss this issue however it was asked that the following points be considered; The Document was produced by officers acting under contract to the landowner and did not necessarily reflect what was wanted by the Council. There was no independent input from a planning officer (other than as described above) The Officer report detailed options which were not reflected in the document, and example being a reference to the use of the site for a hotel in the report but not the brief. An early draft of the document referred to the site as being in the primary shopping area, this had been taken out following representations at the delegated decision stage, however, the report had not been amended to acknowledge the difference. The Brief does not give adequate weight to the recently made Neighbourhood plan. These failings represent a fundamental process flaw. The Service Director - Planning and Transport, confirmed that the Cabinet member had undertaken to consider the process issues and address these with the Leader of the Council, however, in respect of the assertion that the neighbourhood plan had not been given adequate weight responded by stating that in her view the document dealt with policy accurately and that the ordering presented within the document was legally correct. It was confirmed that the policy context was correct in how it was set out. The Committee heard from Councillor Thomas, of Central Milton Keynes Town Council, during consideration of this item. RESOLVED 1. That the report and Development Brief be noted DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 01 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 14

15 2. That the Comments passed by the Committee be considered when a final decision is made to approve the Development Brief. THE CHAIR CLOSED THE MEETING AT 10:34PM DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 01 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 15