DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 22 MARCH 2018 COUNCILLORS ADDITIONAL PAPERS - INDEX OF DOCUMENTS CIRCULATED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA 1. Speaking Commitment (Page 2) 2. Application 01-18/00007/FUL Sofia Cottage, 25 Swimbridge Lane, Furzton, Milton Keynes i. Officer Update (Pages 3 to 6) 3. Application 05-18/00095/FUL Forest Lodge, Forest Road, Hanslope, Milton Keynes i. Officer Update (Page 7) (1)

RIGHT OF REPLY OR SPEAKERS IN FAVOUR To be confirmed 9 Mins TIME ALLOCATED SPEAKING LIST DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 22 MARCH 2018 APPLICATION NO. ADDRESS REQUESTS TO SPEAK IN OBJECTION TIME ALLOCATED 01-18/00007/FUL Sofia Cottage, 25 Swimbridge Lane, Furzton, Milton Keynes Mr L Stromboli Mr A Cornall Mr D Vine 2 Mins 2 Mins 2 Mins Mr T Skelton 3 Mins (2)

Application Number: 18/00007/FUL Description Second storey side and two storey rear extensions AT Sofia Cottage, 25 Swimbridge Lane, Furzton, Milton Keynes, MK4 1JT FOR C/O Agent Target: 26 February 2018 Extension of Time: Yes. Ward: Shenley Brook End Report Author/Case Officer: Parish: Shenley Brook End & Tattenhoe PC Katy Lycett Senior Planning Officer East Team Contact Details: 01908 252313 katy.lycett@milton-keynes.gov.uk Panel Site Inspection A site inspection took place on Monday 19 of March. Cllr. C Williams and Kevin Geaney, Vice Chairman of Shenley Brook End and Tattenhoe Parish Council were in attendance. Several local residents viewed proceedings. The application site was viewed from number 27 Swimbridge Lane and photographs taken which are included within the Officer presentation. Additional Representations Additional representation received from 24 Swimbridge Lane, Furzton comments as follows: 1. There has been movement in the ground over the last couple of years. Both myself and number 25 have had to re-lay our gas pipes through our garages at significant cost because the original ones that run under our houses ruptured causing a gas leak. The heave and strain from this big two story development will add massive weight to the land around my house and I don't think the land could take it. Officer Response Utilities and related issues are not considered to be relevant planning issues in this instance. 2. Car parking is being made as a 2.5 provision which is way too little for a 5 bed house which all should have provision for 4 cars. (3)

Officer Response Parking issues have been addressed in the report under section 5.3 and Condition 4. 3. My objections, although aired to the appropriate people at the appropriate time appear to have been completely over looked in the application committee report published 8/3/18. Numbers 26, 27 and 89 Lynmouth received explanation to the Panel s findings but as the nearest neighbour to the proposed site I was not mentioned and feel that it is my property that will be impacted most by the size of the building. Officer Response The impact of the development upon the occupiers of 24 Swimbridge Lane is assessed in terms of the scale of the proposed extension and the impact upon the outlook from number 24. The closest part of this property to the application site is the garage at ground floor with bedroom above (which has no windows at first floor along the rear roof slope). As a result the extension would therefore not infringe the 45 degree outlook from the nearest fenestration to the shared boundary with number 25. With regards to overshadowing, due to the orientation of numbers 25 and 24 Swimbridge Lane, any overshadowing is likely to be early in the morning only. As a result the Officer recommendation remains that the application is considered to be acceptable. 4. What has recently come to light is the scale of the proposed building and how far it will project out the back. Just over 3 metres was mentioned yesterday in the meeting with Katy Lycett and I thank her for finally clarifying this. This was not at all clear on the designs posted on the planning portal for the neighbours to see. There was no indication of scale so difficult to tell. The day light in our back garden will be servilely reduced by a brick wall that will project a further 3 metres from the existing property wall and will be the full height of the house around 8 metres high. (See photo). Officer Response The proposed rear projection of 3.4 metres is stated on Page 6 of the DC Panel report. The submitted photograph has been attached to the Officer s presentation. The occupiers of 27 Swimbridge Lane have provided x2 photographs which are also contained within the Officer presentation. (4)

Cllr C Williams provided the following additional representations: Planning Application 18/00007/FUL - Sofia Cottage, 25 Swimbridge Lane, Furzton. Please ensure that this submission is included for discussion by the Development Control Panel (DCP) members. Further to our telephone conversations and e-mail exchanges and particularly in the light of the recent Site Inspection, please see herewith my comments with regard to the above application: - My chief concerns (objections) with regard to this application can be outlined as follows: A) Milton Keynes Local Plan, page 31, Policy D1 Impact of Development Proposals on Locality Item (iii) An unacceptable visual intrusion or loss of privacy, sunlight and daylight B) Milton Keynes Local Plan, page 33, Policy D2 Design of Buildings Developments proposals for buildings will be refused unless they: i) Are in scale with other buildings in the immediate vicinity ii) Relate well to and enhance the surrounding environment iii) iv) Provide access for those with impaired mobility Allows for visual interest through the careful use of detailing, where this is appropriate to the character of the area. My main points of objection are, therefore, Policy Di, item iii) and Policy D2, items i) and ii), supported by item iv). I am entirely unconvinced that, due the bulk and size, that the granting of this application will do anything to enhance the area I also see nothing that would Allow for visual interest through the careful use of detailing...! The Site Inspection was, as they say, a real eye-opener!! If I had any doubts about the unsuitability of this application prior to the Site Inspection, they were completely dispelled by what we observed on the day! I am, quite frankly, surprised, in the light of the clear evidence of the Site Inspection, that this application is being recommended for approval by MK Council. If permitted, the extension to this property will completely dominate the three closest homes within Swimbridge Lane, causing, in my view, a blight on each of them. It will also overshadow other homes in Lynmouth Crescent. Both Mr Stromboli and Mr Cornall s properties will be severely overlooked, with the proposed extension coming forward a further 3.5 metres approximately, obscuring their view and dominating both gardens. Mr Stromboli will face the additional problem (5)

Regards, of windows that will give the applicant a clear view into Mr Stromboli s rear garden. Mr Vine and his partner will have to live cheek by jowl with a property that will overshadow their home to an unacceptable, in their view and mine, level of intrusion. Given also that both the application site and Mr Vine s home have already suffered from subsidence, causing all the gas pipework s in both properties to have to be professionally lifted from underground and attached to each property, any further site development can only add to the perceived risk of further subsidence. I have no doubt that the lives of the three families closet to the application site will be made the worse if this application is permitted in its present form. I also have no doubt that, if the application was withdrawn and the applicant discussed his ideas and proposals with his near-neighbours, a solution would be found that would provide the applicant with support from those who live at such close quarters with himself and one another. Cllr Chris Williams (6)

Application Number: 17/00484/MMAM Description Proposed new dwelling and detached quad garage following demolition of existing dwelling AT Forest Lodge, Forest Road, Hanslope, Milton Keynes, MK19 7DE FOR Mr Bhangal Ward: Newport Pagnell North and Hanslope Parish: Hanslope Report Author/Case Officer: Contact Details: Mike Davey Planning Officer Mike.Davey@milton-keynes.gov.uk Team Manager: Sarah Hine Sarah.Hine@Milton-Keynes.gov.uk 1.1 POINTS OF CLARIFICATION The applicant s agent provided additional clarification (07/03/2018) in response to concerns raised by Hanslope Parish Council. HMO Confirmation was provided that the house will not be turned into a House in Multiple Occupancy (HMO). The proposals are for a dwellinghouse and a separate planning application would be required for the dwelling to be used as a HMO. Foul Waste The submitted application form incorrectly stated that the proposed dwelling would be served by a connection to a mains sewer. There is an existing septic tank on the site which served the previous dwelling which these proposals would seek to replace or utilise. (7)