Subdivision of existing dwellinghouse to create 1x one bedroom flat and 1x two bedroom flat

Transcription

1 APP 12 Application Number: 16/00335/FUL Minor Subdivision of existing dwellinghouse to create 1x one bedroom flat and 1x two bedroom flat AT 67 Ashfield, Stantonbury, Milton Keynes FOR Mr Matthew Barnes Target: 4th April 2016 Extension of Time: 25 th April 2016 Ward: Stantonbury Parish: Stantonbury Parish Council Report Author/Case Officer: Danika Hird Contact Details: Team Leader: Debbie Kirk Development Management Core Business Unit Manager Contact Details: INTRODUCTION (A brief explanation of what the application is about) 1.1 The main body of the report set out below draws together the core issues in relation to the application including policy and other key material considerations. This is supplemented by an appendix which brings together planning history, additional matters and summaries of consultees responses and public representations. Full details of the application, including plans, supplementary documents, consultee responses and public representations are available on the Council s Public access system All matters have been taken into account in writing this report and recommendation. 1.2 This application is referred to the Development Control Panel for determination as the application has been submitted by a member of Milton Keynes Council. In addition to this, Stantonbury Parish Council has objected to the proposed development. In accordance with the Officer Delegation Scheme For Development Management Matters applications known to be made by or on behalf of employees of Milton Keynes Council who have dealings with the Planning Department are excluded from the scheme of Delegation. Officers have brought this application to the Development Control Panel for determination due to the Parish Council objection and in the interests of transparency, to enable any interested parties to address the panel at the meeting before a decision is made. 1.3 The Site The application site is located in the residential area of Stantonbury on

2 Ashfield. The site currently consists of a three-storey, end of terrace property with an existing, converted integral garage. The existing dwellinghouse comprises of a study, kitchen/ diner and a w/c at ground floor with a lounge and a bedroom at first floor. The second floor has a further two bedrooms and bathroom. Located towards the front of the property, to the north-west is the sites existing parking provisions which could accommodate one on-plot parking space. To the rear of the dwelling, to the south-west is the rear garden serving the property. Situated to the south-east of the application site is adjoining property No.66 Ashfield, Stantonbury. To the rear of the application site is a large grassed of amenity space which extends around the north-west side elevation of the property to front the highway of Ashfield. There is play located within the amenity land to the north-west of the application site. 1.3 The Proposal This application seeks to sub-divide the existing single family dwellinghouse into two self-contained flats. Flat 1 will be located on the ground floor and consist of an open-plan kitchen/ lounge with a w/c and one bedroom. With Flat 2 being located across the first and second floor. The first floor will consist of a kitchen, lounge and w/c with the second floor having two bedrooms and a bathroom. The proposal also includes removing a strip of landscaping to the front of the property to create an additional on-plot parking space, resulting in a parking area which extends across the entire width of the property. The application is accompanied by a Planning Statement. 2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application) 2.1 National Policy National Planning Policy Framework (2012) paragraphs: Paragraph 7 Requiring Good Design Paragraph 14 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Paragraph 17 High Quality Design Paragraph 49 Housing Land Supply Paragraph 50 Wide Choice of High Quality Homes Paragraph 64 Impact of Character and Appearance of the Area 2.2 Local Policy Core Strategy 2013 Policy CS13 - Ensuring High Quality Well Designed Places 2.3 Milton Keynes Local Plan (Saved Policies) Policy D1 - Impact of Development Proposals on Locality Policy H10 Subdivision of Dwellings and Houses in Multiple Occupation Policy T15 - Parking Provision

3 2.4 Supplementary Planning Documents Parking Standards, 2016 Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document, MAIN ISSUES (The issues which have the greatest bearing on the decision) 3.1 Whether or not this current application has addressed the previous reasons for refusal. 4.0 RECOMMENDATION (The decision that officers recommend to the Committee) 4.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in Section 6.0 of this report. 5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have led to the officer Recommendation) 5.1 Background This application site has had a number of applications in the past relating to the sub-division of this single family dwellinghouse. The initial application, for the subdivision of a residential dwelling into two flats in addition to the change of use of amenity land to residential to create an additional parking space, reference: 14/01905/FUL was withdrawn. This application was later resubmitted under planning reference 15/00038/FUL for the subdivision of a residential dwelling into two flats, a one bedroom flat and a two bedroom flat, in addition to the change of use of amenity land to residential to create an additional parking space. This proposal varied from the previous application as the car parking area sought to extend further into the area of amenity space to provide a walkway to the property between two of the parking spaces. Application 15/00038/FUL was deferred from the Development Control Panel on the 23 rd April 2015 for Members of the Development Control to carry out a site inspection. Following on from the site inspection which took place on 15 th June 2016 the applicant submitted an appeal for nondetermination to the Planning Inspectorate. The application returned to the Development Control Panel on 02 nd July 2016 where Members advised how they would have determined the application if they had the opportunity. 5.2 Members of the Development Control Panel advised that if they had the opportunity to determine application 15/00038/FUL they would have refused the application on the following grounds: 1. The proposed development would, by virtue of the construction of additional parking spaces, result in visual intrusion and the erosion of amenity open space causing harm to the character and appearance of the street scene in this section of Ashfield in Stantonbury, and thus being in conflict with policies D1 (iii) and L2 (and Appendix L2) of the

4 Milton Keynes Local Plan The applicant is not able to provide adequate space within the site for the parking of vehicles and manoeuvring clear of the highway. The development if permitted, would therefore be likely to lead to additional on-street parking and/or parking in inappropriate locations to the detriment of highway safety and convenience contrary to policy T15 (ii) of the Milton Keynes Local Plan , and Parking Standards For Milton Keynes Addendum 2009 and advice in the National Planning Policy Framework The Planning Inspectorates decision (Appeal reference: APP/Y0435/W/15/ ) was received on 30 th December 2015, whereby the appeal was dismissed for the following reason: The appellant refers to a recent appeal in which Milton Keynes Council has failed to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. Whilst this indicates the Council s housing supply policies are out of date this does not apply to the policies relevant to this decision. Whilst this proposal would make a very small contribution towards housing supply this benefit would not outweigh the harm I have identified in respect of the visual impact of the proposed parking spaces and the loss of open green space. For these reasons, and having taken into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed and planning permission refused. 5.4 Principle of Development In terms of the principle of the development, the previous application was not refused on these grounds but, on issues of visual impact and the loss of open green space. 5.5 Subsequent to the original decision being made, the Council now acknowledges that it does not have a 5 year housing land supply and, as such, regard must be had to the provisions of para 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework which states that At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. 5.6 It goes on to say that: For decision-taking this means: approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and; where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission unless:

5 o any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or o specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted. 5.7 Given that the principle of development for a similar proposal did not form any part of the previous refusal reason and the fact that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, as outlined above, the proposed development is considered to be acceptable in principle subject to it overcoming the previous reasons for refusal. 5.8 The material difference in the light of the lack of the 5 year housing land supply is that a refusal should only take place where the Council can demonstrate that the amended scheme has failed to overcome the previous concerns and that the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of creating additional housing. The assessment as to whether or not this has taken place is discussed later on within this report. 5.9 Previous Reason for Refusal The appellant refers to a recent appeal in which Milton Keynes Council has failed to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. Whilst this indicates the Council s housing supply policies are out of date this does not apply to the policies relevant to this decision. Whilst this proposal would make a very small contribution towards housing supply this benefit would not outweigh the harm I have identified in respect of the visual impact of the proposed parking spaces and the loss of open green space. For these reasons, and having taken into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed and planning permission refused The number of bedrooms proposed has been amended from a one onebedroom flat and a one three-bedroom flat to a one one-bedroom flat and a two-bedroom flat, resulting in a reduction of one bedroom in this current proposal. This reduction in bedrooms has led to a reduced requirement for on-plot parking spaces. This reduction in parking spaces in order to accommodate the proposed development has resulted in there no longer being a requirement to change the use of amenity land to residential as the required parking spaces can be accommodated within the existing plot. The proposed development, in particular the proposed parking space are not considered to have a harmful visual impact nor will the scheme result in a loss of open green space Overall the proposed development is considered to have addressed the previous reason for refusal Impact on Locality Saved Policy H10 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan states:

6 Within the limits of development settlements, planning permission will be granted for the sub division of existing dwelling into flats, or the creation of houses in multiple occupation, if all the criteria are satisfied: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) Effective measures are proposed to minimise the effects of noise and disturbance Off street parking and manoeuvring space is provided to meet the Council s standards or, if on-street parking is necessary, it would not result in unacceptable congestion in the surrounding area Adequate outdoor space is available for bin storage and a drying area The proposal would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding area or lead to an unacceptable concentration of flats or houses in multiple occupation Whilst is it noted that saved policy H10 (iv) is not considered to be up-to-date as the Local Planning Authority cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, the proposed development still remains compliant with this saved policy. Saved policy H10 (iv) of the Milton Keynes Local Plan requires there to be an acceptable concentration level of flats and housing in multiple occupation in order to ensure that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the character of the surrounding area As there has been a reduction in the number of bedrooms proposed within the development a material changes has occurred from the previously refused scheme (ref: 15/00038/FUL). When calculating the concentration of flats and houses in multiple occupation within a 50 metre radius, the calculation carried out is on the basis of the proposed one bedroom flat and one two bedroom flat in accordance with the guidance in the Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document, In addition to this, there is an existing one bedroom flat, one existing two bedroom flat, nine lettable rooms in surrounding houses of multiple occupation and twenty dwellings within the 50 metre radius To retain the character and appearance of the area, the Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document, 2012 requires the concentration of Houses in Multiple Occupation and flats in the area to not exceed 35%. The proposal for a one-bedroom flat and one two-bedroom flat would lead to a concentration of approximately 33%. As this is below the 35% given in the Supplementary Planning Document, it is considered that the proposed sub-division would not lead to an over-concentration of Houses in Multiple Occupation or Flats to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would accord with Saved Policy H10 (iv) of the Milton Keynes

7 Local Plan , and the Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document Impact on Parking Provisions Saved Policy T15 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan relates to ensuring development proposals meet vehicle parking requirements as laid out in the Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document 2016 (SPD). The policy states: Development proposals should meet the following vehicle parking requirements: ii) On-site parking should not be reduced below the maximum standard if it would be likely to result in off-site parking causing problems that cannot be resolved by on-street parking controls Due to the reduction in bedrooms in this current application there has been a material change in the requirement of on-plot parking spaces when compared to the previously refused application (ref: 15/00038/FUL). In accordance with the Parking Standards (SPD), 2016, the application site falls within parking zone 3 and therefore two on-plot parking spaces are required, one parking space for each property. In order to accord with this requirement one additional on-plot parking space is to be provided towards the front of the property. The Parking Standards (SPD), 2016 has the provision for just over half a space for unallocated parking to be provided. As advised by the Planning Inspectorate (Appeal reference: APP/Y0435/W/15/ ) for small infill plots and similar applications in existing streets, a category this proposal would fit, this provision may be determined on a site-by-site basis. Whilst it is noted that this unallocated parking space has not been provided, the impact is not deemed to be significant to justify the refusal of this planning application. Overall the proposed development is considered to have an acceptable impact on the sites parking provisions. The proposal would accord with saved policy T15 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan and the Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document Impact on Amenity Saved policy D1 (iv) of the Milton Keynes Local Plan states: Planning permission will be refused for development that would be harmful for any of the following reasons an unacceptable pollution by noise, smell, light or other emission to air, water or land. The proposal was assessed under application 15/00038/FUL in terms of saved policy D1 (iv) and H10 (i) of the Milton Keynes Local Plan regarding the noise impact to the neighbouring properties and the transference of noise between the proposed two flats. It was regarded that there would not be an unacceptable harm to the amenity of neighbouring

8 properties nor the future occupiers of the flats. As this current proposal results in a reduction in number of bedrooms from the previously refused application 15/00038/FUL were the noise impact was deemed to be acceptable, it is considered this reduction in bedrooms will further reduce any noise impact. It is therefore regarded that the proposal is acceptable in terms of the impact to amenity. The proposal would accord with saved policy D1 (iv) and H10 (i) of the Milton Keynes Local Plan Landscaping Paragraph of the Residential Development Design Guide, 2012 states: It is a fundamental urban design principle to clearly demarcate public and private space and hence appropriate boundary treatments are required. Given the proposal no longer seeks to encroach upon an area of open green amenity space; the open character of the local streetscene will be retained. Due to the site s relationship with the adjacent public amenity space/ play area it is considered that if planning permission were to be granted a dwarf boundary wall should be erected along this boundary in keeping with the existing boundary walls in the local area to define the public and private space. As it is recommended that a dwarf wall should be erected, low level boundary treatment of this nature would still allow for the open character and the wall would also reflect a number of similar walls in the local area. With this in mind it is recommended that if planning permission were to be granted a condition should be imposed on any planning permission requiring details of boundary treatment to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority to ensure the development complies with paragraph of the Residential Development Design Guide SPD, Bin Storage & Drying Area Adequate outside private space would be provided which would be sufficient to accommodate bin and cycle storage and clothes drying Other Matters Intentions of the Applicant Concerns have been raised by Stantonbury Parish Council regarding the trustworthiness of the applicant. The intentions of the applicant cannot be taken into consideration as an assessment can only be carried out in accordance with the submitted plans and the merits of the submitted scheme Publicity The Local Planning Authority has a duty to place a site notice within close proximity to the application site for this type of application. Given the notice is placed within a public area; the notice could have been taken down by any

9 member of the public. Providing the notice has been placed in the local area, the duty of the Local Planning Authority in this instance has been fulfilled Submitted Evidence (Parking) In accordance with Planning Inspectorate s decision (ref: APP/Y0435/W/15/ ), the appellant has provided a large amount of observational evidence of on-street parking usage in the vicinity of this appeal to demonstrate the under-utilised capacity of the parking bay opposite the appeal property. There is no requirement regarding the amount or type of information submitted by the applicant as supporting information, it is down to their discretion. Whilst the submitted parking evidence may not have as many representations for the late evenings as during the day, there is no requirement to submit any additional information. From carrying out an officer s site inspection on a number of occasions at different times, the proposed development is not considered to lead to significant increase in offstreet parking problems Conclusion The proposed development is considered to have addressed the previous reasons for refusal and would now adhere to the provision of the local and national planning policies. It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in Section 6.0 of this report. 6.0 CONDITIONS (The conditions that need to be imposed on any planning permission for this development to ensure that the development is satisfactory. To meet legal requirements all conditions must be Necessary, Relevant, Enforceable, Precise and Reasonable ) 1. The approved development shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings/details: 15/001/PL REV:1 as electronically registered on The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To prevent the accumulation of planning permissions; to enable the Local Planning Authority to review the suitability of the development in the light of altered circumstances; and to comply with section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (D11) 3. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until the parking area has been laid out and surfaced in accordance with the plans hereby approved. Thereafter the parking area shall only be used for the parking of vehicles in connection with the development the subject of this permission. Reason: To ensure safe access to the site in accordance with the provisions of Saved Policy T15 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan Adopted

10 4. Prior to the initial occupation of the development the means of access shall be altered in accordance with the approved drawing and constructed in accordance with Milton Keynes Council's guide note " Residential Vehicle Crossing Details" and shall be retained as altered thereafter. Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and of access, and accord with Saved Policies D1 (vi) and T15 (iii) Milton Keynes Local Plan Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the proposed bicycle parking shown in the approved drawings shall be provided and be retained thereafter. Reason: To ensure that adequate parking facilities are provided to serve the development and accord with Saved Policy T4 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted details of boundary treatment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall show at an appropriate scale the materials, height, style, and colour and its location with dimensions in relation to proposed buildings, roads, footpaths, hard surfacing and services. All works in accordance with the scheme shall be carried out within twelve months of commencement of development. All boundary treatment shown in the approved scheme shall be laid out prior to the occupation of the development and be retained thereafter. Reason: To ensure that public and private space is clearly defined and accord with Saved Policy D2 (v) of the Milton Keynes Local Plan

11

12 Current Application: 16/00335/FUL

13 Current Application: 16/00335/FUL Officer s Concentration Map & Calculation

14 Previously Refused Application: 15/00038/FUL

15 Appendix to 16/00335/FUL A1.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY (A brief outline of previous planning decisions affecting the site this may not include every planning application relating to this site, only those that have a bearing on this particular case) A1.1 14/01905/FUL Change of use from residential dwelling to 2 x flats; change of use of amenity land to residential to create a parking space WITHDRAWN /00038/FUL Change of use from residential dwelling to 2 x flats; change of use of amenity land to residential to create two additional car parking spaces (resubmission of 14/01905/FUL) REFUSED The appellant refers to a recent appeal in which Milton Keynes Council has failed to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. Whilst this indicates the Council s housing supply policies are out of date this does not apply to the policies relevant to this decision. Whilst this proposal would make a very small contribution towards housing supply this benefit would not outweigh the harm I have identified in respect of the visual impact of the proposed parking spaces and the loss of open green space. For these reasons, and having taken into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed and planning permission refused. A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS A2.1 None (Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation)

16 A3.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS (Who has been consulted on the application and the responses received. The following are a brief description of the comments made. The full comments can be read via the Council s web site) Comments A3.1 Highways Development Control Under the council s car parking standards the allocated requirement between the existing and the proposed is the same at a total of 2 spaces for the site: Officer Response Noted. The recommended conditions have been attached under Section 6.0 of the report. Existing: 1 x 3 (or 4) bedroom unit 2 Proposed 1 x 1 bedroom unit 1 1 x 2 bedroom unit 1 Total 2 The unallocated parking requirement is just over half a space higher with the proposals but this is not significant that an objection could be justified: Existing: 1 x 3 bedroom unit 0.5 Proposed 1 x 1 bedroom unit x 2 bedroom unit 0.75 Total 1.08

17 The proposals include 2 on plot parking spaces. This is as per the existing arrangement although at present the access does not extend across the full width of the parking area. This will be extended across the access in accordance with standard highway requirements. In terms of layout the parking spaces meet the parking space dimensions of 2.5m x 5m but lack circulation space as per the council s residential development design guide. As the parking area is existing and cars can park within the area without overhanging the footway I conclude that the parking area is acceptable to serve the site. I have no objections to planning permission being granted subject to the following conditions: parking, access and bicycle parking A3.2 Environmental Health Manager Noted. Raised no objection A3.3 Landscape Architect Boundary Treatment: The proposal would require the removal of the planting bed which would have contained a tree forming part of the structure planting along the building frontage of the original housing scheme and has since been removed on this plot. A number of these trees along the frontage of the other plots remain today. Noted. The recommended condition has been attached under Section 6.0 of the report. The area for proposed parking is adjacent to the local

18 greenspace and the proposal does not include boundary treatment along the parking area edge to clearly demarcate public and private space, and to protect the greenspace edge from encroachment and hence an appropriate boundary treatment should be required. The Residential Development Design Guide states: It is a fundamental urban design principle to clearly demarcate public and private space and hence appropriate boundary treatments are required. All planning applications should be accompanied by details of treatments for all boundaries - front, side and rear. The nature or type of front boundary treatment in particular can add considerably to the character and identity for a development and a street in particular. Boundaries (particularly front boundaries) should be clearly defined, using appropriate boundary markers; in this case a well-designed low wall to protect the adjacent greenspace should be a condition of any planning consent. A3.4 Parish - Stantonbury Stantonbury Parish Council maintains its objection to the recurrent proposals to convert this property into multiple occupation. This is due to concerns over a number of issues, primarily centred on the parking provision and the nature of evidence supplied with the application with regard to parking. Noted. Although this application no longer requires the requisition

19 of amenity land as previous proposals did, the parish council is concerned by the lack of a clear boundary treatment between the parking area and the adjacent public open space. Given the prior attempts to annex this land for parking the parish council is concerned this may lead to vehicles cross onto this land. A3.5 The Milton Keynes Council Parking Standards SPF requires 0.33 spaces per 1 bedroom unit and 0.75 spaces per 2 bedroom unit of unallocated parking in addition to the one allocated space per unit the proposal provides. This is more significant than it may appear, as the unallocated parking requirement is there to ensure additional vehicles or visitors do not obstruct and congest the highway. A3.6 It is the view of the parish council that this area is already suffering from an overcrowding of parked cars, and it is therefore not acceptable for this application to propose increasing the number of dwellings without meeting the required parking standards. The parish council disputes the applicant s claim that sufficient capacity already exists, as outlined below, and in the appraisals of the supplied evidence attached in the appendix to this submission. A3.7 The parish council has serious concerns about the reliability of the photographic evidence submitted by the applicant. A breakdown is provided in the attached appendix detailing these issues. Many of the photographs are taken at unusual time intervals, from large distances and are framed to only show parts of the scene. The parish council is aware of ongoing parking and traffic issues at Ashfield and this evidence does not correlate without experience or that of Discussed in paragraph Discussed in paragraph 5.16 to 5.17 and 5.23 Discussed in paragraph 5.16 to 5.17 and 5.23 Discussed in paragraph 5.23

20 local residents. A3.8 In light of the unreliable nature of this evidence and the past history of application at this address, the parish council does not believe the applicant can be trusted to keep within the constraints of this application. The parish council is also concerned that the notice placed on a nearby lamp standard notifying of the application was removed after 12 hours. A3.9 Ward - Stantonbury - Cllr Burke Discussed in paragraph 5.21 & 5.22 Noted No comments received. A3.10 Ward - Stantonbury - Cllr White Noted Member of the Development Control Panel. A3.11 Ward - Stantonbury - Cllr Walker Noted No comments received. Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application: 34, 35, 37, 41, 47, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65 & 66 Ashfield Stantonbury Milton Keynes Noted. No Third Party representations were received.