Issue - meetings

Issue - meetings

Planning Application No. CB/18/01210/FULL (Aspley & Woburn)

Meeting: 23/05/2018 - DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (Item 11)

11 Planning Application No. CB/18/01210/FULL (Aspley & Woburn) pdf icon PDF 267 KB

 

Address:       The Quarry House, San Remo Road, Aspley Guise, Milton Keynes, MK17 8JY

 

Replacement of existing tarmacadam tennis court with new dwelling.

 

Applicant:     Mr & Mrs Seamarks

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/18/01210/FULL for the replacement of an existing tarmacadam tennis court with a new dwelling at The Quarry House, San Remo Road, Aspley Guise, Milton Keynes, MK17 8JY.

 

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional consultation/publicity responses and additional comments as set out in the Late Sheet.  The planning officer also advised that since the publication of the Late Sheet an additional response had been received from the tree and landscape officer who had raised no objection to the application subject to the inclusion of relevant conditions.  In support of the recommended refusal of the application, the planning officer then referred Members to the content of the appeal decision arising from Wood v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Gravesham Borough Council (2015) and to the relevant part of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

 

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received a joint representation from the applicant and his agent under the public participation scheme.

 

The ward Member confirmed that the purpose of the infill boundary was to identify areas where the principle of development was acceptable in locations which were washed over by the Green Belt.  He stated that, as the application site sat within the identified infill boundary, the principle of development within the location should be acceptable without the need for debate.  Where the principle of development was acceptable and the proposal accorded with the three infill criteria as explained by the applicant (small scale, vacant plot of land, complimented the surrounding pattern of development) an infill development such as that before Members should be supported.  Where the principle of development was acceptable inside infill boundaries it would be contradictory to the purpose of the infill boundary for the development to be then considered harmful to the openness of the Green Belt.  The ward Member added that the applicant had confirmed that legal precedent was clear and supported the view that development inside infill boundaries would not be inappropriate or harmful to the openness of the Green Belt.  The ward Member then stated that there had been no objections to the application which suggested it had been carefully prepared and respected its neighbours and the surroundings.  There had been two registrations of support which suggested wider benefits such as the removal of the tennis court and its replacement with soft landscaping, and green roofs to the proposed dwelling, would provide visual improvement and provide additional permeable ground to aid surface water drainage.  The ward Member stated that he was present at Aspley Guise Parish Council when it had considered the application and made no objection.  Last, the ward Member referred to the already approved outbuilding on the application site.  He referred to images which he believed had been sent directly to Members of the Committee which showed how the proposed dwelling would sit within the same setting.  The images compared the consented outbuilding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11