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 pavements and verges throughout the Close. 

(Note: At this point in the proceedings the fire alarm sounded and the Committee adjourned at 11.20 a.m.  On being allowed to return to the Chamber the meeting reconvened at 11.36 a.m.)

The ward Member drew the Committee’s attention to the principle behind the original outline application and that behind the current application and the differences between the two.  He stated that the outline application was predominantly for a bungalow development.  The application before Members had gone through several revisions and whilst the number of bedrooms in plots 7, 8 and 9 on the north of the development had been reduced to two the  roof size provided occupants with the opportunity to apply for planning permission to install additional dormer windows and a third bedroom.  He felt that this measure had been taken in order to encourage sales.

The ward Member warned of potential problems arising in the future with regard to the development.

The ward Member then turned to the landscaped buffer which he felt was of particular concern because there was no detail provided of future maintenance.  He was aware that, depending on what was planted, the growth could be quite substantial and there was no indication that the borderline between plots 1, 2 and 3 in particular was provided.   Fencing was shown at the back of the gardens but he queried what would happen if the residents decided to remove the fence and try to take ownership of the land.  He asked for detail on how and for how long the landscaped buffer was going to be maintained as this was not set out in the report apart from in very general terms.

The ward Member referred to the access issue which he felt predominantly related to the curve that lead into the site and the impact on access and egress for The Barns.  He expressed concern if drivers had to reverse out of The Barns and Walnut Close and commented that the loss of the two unallocated parking spaces was significant in this context.  He next referred to displacement parking provision and how problems would arise if the two bedroom properties on plots 7, 8 and 9 did acquire third bedrooms.  Also, plots 3, 4, 5 and 6 were three bedroom properties which had the potential to acquire fourth bedrooms and therefore increase the number of 3-4 bedroom dwellings on a relatively small site.  Displacement parking could therefore become a major issue in the future and he asked that the Committee alleviate the problem. 

The ward Member noted that there were four unallocated parking spaces to the side of the access road into the site given the narrowness of the road.  However, discussion on the previous application (minute 136 refers) had referred to shared surfaces that cars could park on and he acknowledged that this approach could provide some alleviation.  However, he stated that he would also wish to see additional formal designated unallocated parking.  

The ward Member commented on the apparent uncertainty as to whether or not the Council, as the highways authority, or the owner of 15 Walnut Close owned the land which formed a border to the site and whether that land could continue to be a public footpath if an ownership dispute arose.

In conclusion the ward Member stated that full clarification was required from the developer regarding his intensions for plots 7, 8 and 9, the maintenance of the landscaped buffer, the turning area and the provision of visitor spaces.

The planning officer responded to the points raised as follows:

·         With regard to plots 7, 8 and 9 there had been a number of amendments to ensure they adhered to the parameters of the outline permission.  She stressed that whilst the relevant condition set out that particular plots could be one or one and a half stories it did not place a limit on height. 

·         Plots 7, 8 and 9 were single storey and there were no rooms in the roof space.  There was a recommended condition that would prevent the roof space being extended to allow additional bedrooms.

·         An attempt had been made to try and capture any potential concerns regarding additional bedroom space in the first floor that could have a visual impact or create a potential parking issue.

·         With regard to parking spaces she stated that there was an overprovision for each of the individual units.  In addition there were four unallocated parking spaces at the entrance although the development itself only required two visitors’ spaces to be provided.  There was also a further parking space to the northern edge of the site.  Whilst two unallocated parking spaces had been removed from The Barns the visitor parking spaces provided on the development could compensate for this.  Parking provision was therefore considered acceptable and seen as exceeding requirements.

·         The proposed double garage at the entrance to the site adjacent to the unallocated parking spaces had been reduced to a single garage.  Other garages had been removed in order to open out the views across to the field.

·         An outline condition required details of long term management of the landscaped buffer areas to be submitted by the applicant so had not formed part of the application before Members.  The acceptability of the details would therefore be considered by officers.

·         With regard to access and egress to The Barns she commented that the provision of car parking spaces in the development should prevent parking within The Barns turning area.  It should therefore be possible to reverse along The Barns to the turning point and then drive forward into Walnut Close from the point of access into the new development.

·         On the matter of footpath provision from the point of access into the new development to adjacent to 15 Walnut Close she stated that it had been confirmed that the allocated route was public highway.

·         The Barns was a private road.  The Chairman suggested that residents prepare a scheme which would nullify the problems which had been raised.

·         In response to comment by the objector the planning officer advised that Condition 8 in the outline application had dealt with the number of stories permitted for the dwellings but did not place limits on the actual height.  She confirmed the scheme before Members did not, therefore, contradict the outline application permission.

·         With regard to comment by the objector on Condition 12 in the outline application the planning officer confirmed that the land concerned was public highway and was able to be used as a public footpath.

·         With regard to a suggestion by the objector that the three metre landscaped buffer be in place before building works the planning officer stated that the landscape details (Condition 7 of the outline application) required a timetable for the implementation to be agreed.  The details had not yet been submitted but when they were the implementation issues could be captured at that point.

The highways officer responded to the points raised as follows:

·         With regard to the issue of public highway the freehold of the land could be registered and owned by individuals however, the top surface could still remain as appeared to be the case with the land owned by 15 Walnut Close.

The Committee considered the application.  A Member commented on his attempt to research the Committee’s previous debate on this development at the outline application stage but the minuting style in place at that time had not recorded the information he sought.   The Member stated that it appeared the Committee was bound by the comments and deliberations at that meeting and he felt uncomfortable with this.  However, given the proposed density of the development it could not be regarded as overdevelopment.  He also acknowledged that the Committee had agreed that the proposed properties were meant to be bungalows but, leaving aside queries regarding their height,  he regarded them as an opportunity to provide much needed housing.  The Member felt that to accept the arguments put forward against such developments would lead to the building of ever larger numbers of new dwellings on green land.  He also queried why the properties had been restricted to a single storey on the northern edge of the site when there was no overlooking.  On this matter he stated that if applications were submitted in the future to add a floor to these dwellings he felt that he probably would be minded to be open to such requests.  With regard to the access to The Barns he commented that the local residents were used to parking in an area which had not been formally allocated to them for this purpose but were now losing it.  In conclusion he stated that felt the development to be reasonable and indicated his support.

The Chairman pointed out that one of the Parish Council’s objections referred to a statement allegedly made by a Member of the Committee and asked if the Member was able to reply to this.  In response the Member stated that he was unable to remember in detail but the principle was that the view should not be restricted by the excessive height of the buildings.  The planning officer assisted by drawing the meeting’s attention to the lower height of the proposed dwellings in relation to those in The Barns and that opportunities had been taken to amend the layout to ensure views through.  She stated that all of the requirements of the outline application had been adhered to as far as was possible.

On being put to the vote 12 Members voted for approval, 0 voted against and 1 abstained.

RESOLVED

that Planning Application No. CB/17/05230/RM relating to land north east of Walnut Close, Blunham, MK44 3NB be approved as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes.