Address:       Public Convenience, Duck Lane, Woburn, MK17 9PT

Redevelopment of a brownfield site within the infill boundary with a residential development of 1 new dwelling. Demolition of the existing public conveniences.

Applicant:     Goldcrest Developments (MK) Ltd

The Committee had before it a report regarding the redevelopment of a brownfield site within the infill boundary with a residential development of one new dwelling and demolition of the existing public conveniences at Duck Lane, Woburn, MK17 9PT.

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 the meeting of an error on line 1 of recommended condition 3.  The condition should be amended to read “All new doors and windows should be timber and detailed…”

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from Woburn Parish Council and the agent for the applicant under the public participation scheme.  In addition the Chairman advised Members that a person who had been registered to speak on behalf of Bedford Estates, which objected to the application, had been unable to attend the meeting because of the weather conditions.  It was noted that she lived some distance from the Council Offices.  The Chairman advised, however, that the registered speaker had prepared a statement and he read out a copy on her behalf.

A Member sought clarification regarding reference in the absent speaker’s statement that the public convenience was currently in use.  In response the Chairman stated that the most recent use was as a public convenience for which it had not been used for some time.

Another Member sought clarification from the agent for the application regarding her use of the phrase ‘pastiche design’, used to describe those newer buildings which attempted to replicate the Georgian style found in Woburn, as being inappropriate for the proposed dwelling.  He also referred to her comment that Duck Lane was built in the 19^th and 20^th centuries.  He asked if she regarded the half-timbered building (3 Duck Lane) adjacent to the development site as a pastiche design.  In response the applicant’s agent stated that she did not know the age of the half-timbered building but she had assumed it was older than some of the others.  However, Duck Lane was possibly a service lane and the development which had taken place on the west side of the road was newer than other parts of Woburn.  There was a mock Georgian building (1 Duck Lane) on the corner with Leighton Street and the design was subjective with some believing the design fitted in whilst others would feel the attempt to replicate Georgian buildings failed because of the modern form and its execution.  Equally, on the southern side of the timber framed buildings was a row of four 1970’s buildings which were of a design which could be found anywhere.  Those buildings had not been designed specifically for Duck Lane.  The proposed dwelling represented an evolution in design terms in the local area and that it was not necessary to simply replicate what had been done before.  Further, whatever was done, it was important that it would be of a high standard and this was her client’s intention.

The ward Member stated that he had supported a new building on the site since the public convenience had closed in March, 2006.  However, he felt that residents should expect a structure that had some sympathy with the village scene given as it would be they who would see it in the future.  The ward Member stated that he had examined some of the policies which he felt could be relevant including CS14 (High Quality Development), CS15 (Heritage) and  DM3 (High Quality Development) and challenged how the proposed development could meet the requirements set out within those policies.  Finally, he stated that that it was thought that the building represented an overdevelopment of the site.  He was aware of two buildings occupying the site since he had moved to Duck Lane in 1987 - the old public convenience, which had been demolished in 1995, and its replacement.  He stated that it was a compressed site and the residents living behind it and to the right would almost certainly be overlooked.  Further, the proposed frontage would be totally out of keeping with the existing form.  With regard to the evolution of design mentioned by the applicant’s agent he stated that no one could object to the improvement of the visual aspect of any village but he was suggesting to the Committee that the application had moved too far away from the Georgian design found in Woburn and was too modern in its appearance.

The planning officer responded to the points raised as follows:

·         With regard to the impact on the Conservation Area and the design of the dwelling in terms of where it was sited he stated that the conservation officer was in support of the application and had set out the reasons why in the officer report.

·         A proposed condition would control the building materials used and the applicant would be required to submit details of the final materials to be used for approval by the Council before development started on site.

·         In connection with possible overdevelopment, and whilst the site was relatively constrained in size, the planning officer stated that it was considered to be an infill plot.   As such only the rear garden area, in terms of private amenity space, only had to meet one of the requirements outlined in the Council’s Design Guide with regard to either the depth requirement or the overall area requirement.  The application met the overall area requirement though not the depth requirement.

·         Due to the siting of the dwelling off of the boundary to the front and to the north of the site to allow for the parking area there was sufficient private amenity space and general living space and so it did not represent overdevelopment.

·         The site would be visible from points within the centre of Woburn but was set back and the design of the flat roofed garages adjacent to the site it would not have a materially significant impact on the Conservation Area or view from that area.

·         With regard to the loss of a community facility, the public convenience had been closed in March 2006 according to the ward Member so had not been in use for a number of years, hence the continued public use of the site had not been considered.  Further, Central Bedfordshire Council  had sold the land to a private developer.

·         With regard to scale the proposed dwelling was significantly lower in height than the ridgeline of the neighbouring properties so there was no issue with the scale of the proposed building in that regard.

·         The Chairman referred to the policies and other points raised by the ward Member and sought comment from the planning officer.

·         Policy CS14 (respect the local character).  In response the planning officer stated that this issue, in relation to Duck Lane, had been considered within the report and in the conservation officer’s comments.  Whilst Woburn centre itself had a specific design character there had been a number of more modern, contemporary developments especially along Duck Lane, in particular with regard to the 1970’s and 80’s front gable facing properties which provided a mix in character.

·         CS15 (conserve and enhance the built environment).  This issue had been considered within the conservation officer’s comments in the report.  The conservation officer had relied on paragraph 137 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and to the revealing of the timber framed building (3 Duck Lane) to the south of the site.  The officers did not feel that the existing public conveniences enhanced the Conservation Area or the character and appearance of the area in general.  However, due to the setting back of the proposed building, the side timber gable of 3 Duck Lane would be revealed and would enhance character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

·         Policy DM3 (appropriate in design and scale).  With regard to the scale the overall height of the proposed building was well below the ridgeline of the neighbouring property.  Whilst a contemporary design it took cues from the flat roofed garages immediately next to it to the north so it acted as a natural progression.

·         Overdevelopment leading to overlooking and loss of light to neighbouring properties.  The planning officer stated that both points had been considered in the officer report and, with regard to overdevelopment, he referred to his previous comments regarding private amenity space.  As regards the impact on the neighbour the applicant had submitted photographs showing the position of the neighbouring dwellings to the rear of the site.  These were some distance behind the proposed property and the back to back distance met with the design guide requirements.  He added that the properties were not fully back to back but were off set slightly.  Turning to the immediate neighbours he stated that the rear garden of 1 Duck Lane which faced the side aspect of the proposed dwelling and 3 Duck Lane had a number of windows that faced the site.  The latter were either secondary windows with supporting windows to the front and rear or non-habitable rooms such as toilets.  There was not considered to be a detrimental loss of light or privacy to that neighbour.  With regard to the impact on 1 Duck Lane the planning officer advised that there was a window almost centrally in the side elevation of the proposed dwelling but this had been conditioned to be obscure glazed to prevent direct overlooking.  Another window to the front corner of the proposed dwelling but this would also not lead to the direct overlooking of the rear garden of 1 Duck Lane.

The Committee considered the application.  A Member referred to the viewpoint of the organisation once known as English Heritage (now Historic England) which had made clear its dislike of pastiche and a clear preference for buildings to be authentic in their design so the difference between old and new was clear to observers.  He also felt the way the proposed building was set in the street scene complied with the wishes of English Heritage in that it would not detract from the genuine older property. The Member believed that some local residents were seeking a more traditionally styled house with a pitched roof as could be seen to the south of the timber framed building.  However, he commented that the architect had allowed light into the proposed building using large front windows and if these were removed, and a pitched roof added, the building would have to be significantly larger in keeping with the buildings to the north.  The Member felt that the architect had attempted to deal with the privacy issues by placing windows to the front of the proposed dwelling where they would cause the least harm.  A traditional style would require more windows and this could lead to privacy issues.  The Member stated that the proposed building was a modern style with large windows and a flat roof and he felt it did successfully reflected the flat roofed garage design to the north.  He also felt that everything hung on the quality of finish.  If done to a high quality, professional standard then the building could look quite smart.  The Member stated that it would stand apart from its neighbour to the south which he thought was the underlying purpose.  He indicated his support for the application.

Another Member indicated his support for the views expressed above.

On being put to the vote 10 Members voted for approval, 2 voted against and 1 abstained.

RESOLVED

that Planning Application No. CB/17/04638/FULL relating to the public convenience, Duck Lane, Woburn, MK17 9PT be approved as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes.