Address:       Land north-east of Walnut Close, Blunham, MK44 3NB

Reserved Matter: of Outline Application CB/16/4657/OUT, for the residential development of 0.49 hectares of land to form 9 bungalow/chalet dwellings with associated garaging, parking and other associated works, to include the discharge of conditions no's 2 8 9 12 & 14.

Applicant:     Signature Homes MK LLP

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application CB/17/05230/RM, a reserved matter of outline application CB/16/04657/OUT for the residential development of 0.49 hectares of land to form 9 bungalow/chalet dwellings with associated garaging, parking and other associated works, to include the discharge of conditions nos. 2, 8, 9, 12 and 14 on land north east of Walnut Close, Blunham, MK44 3NB.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional consultation/publicity responses and additional/amended conditions as set out in the Late Sheet.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from Blunham Parish Council, an objector to the application and the agent for the applicant under the public participation scheme.

In response to a query made by the Blunham Parish Council representative during his representation the Chairman explained that, arising from a ministerial statement, any development of less than 10 dwellings was unable to attract s106 contributions or be required to provide affordable housing.

Given the size of the site and the resulting density a Member sought clarification from the Parish Councillor as to why he thought the application represented overdevelopment.  In response the Parish Councillor stated that the application was larger than the approved outline application and Members had said at that time that anything larger would be unacceptable.  The Chairman intervened at this point and stated that he believed the reference was to the height of those properties (which lay to the rear of the northern boundary) which had originally been conditioned to be single storey but which now included dwellings of one and a half storeys (with rooms in the roof space).  Further, those properties that were single storey were as high as the one and a half storey.  The Member acknowledged that it had not been a reference to the ground area.

A Member sought clarification from the objector regarding the latter’s claim that a turning area had been blocked.  In response the objector explained that two parking spaces at the southern end of The Barns (an extension to the original Close) had already been removed to provide a turning area.  In view of the absence of any alternative parking provision visitors parked on the turning area.  This prevented residents from reversing out of their properties, turning and then driving forward out of Walnut Close.  Instead they had to reverse out of The Barns and Walnut Close.

Following earlier expressions of concern regarding egress from the properties in The Barns the agent for the applicant stated that the Council’s highways officer had assessed the application and had raised no issue with regard to the blocking of access to the objector’s property. 

A ward Member indicated his support for the residents’ objections.  He stated that he drove into Walnut Close on a regular basis and could confirm that drivers had to reverse out of The Barns and turn to drive out of Walnut Close.  Reversing back into Walnut Close was particularly dangerous because of the parking on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 137