Transcript

I've got to start from the beginning of the roads. Good afternoon, Councillors, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to this meeting of Buckingham shire Council's central Buckinghamshire area planning committee. I'm Michael Rand, chairman of the committee. note that the meeting will be well cast and the president.

Transcript

Good afternoon, Councillors, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to this meeting of Buckingham shire Council's Central Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee. I'm Michael Rand, Chairman of the Committee. Please note that the meeting will be webcast and the present public can see and hear the meeting through the webcast, if they so wish. In the unlikely event that there is a technical issue with the webcast, the meeting will be paused to see if the issue can be resolved. Agenda papers have been published in accordance with the usual practice. Please note some housekeeping points. Please turn off your mobile phones or keep them on silent during the meeting. Laptops and tablets should be used only to access the agenda and report packs for today's meeting. You should refrain from using them for general internet access. Please raise your hands at the appropriate time if you so wish to speak. I will make a note of the hands as they are raised and take in that order when I invite you to speak. Please remember to turn your microphones on before you speak and off while you are finished. In the unlikely event of the far alarm, please use the nearest fire exit and assemble in the car park outside the front of the main entrance of the exit. Right, agenda item 1. Do we have any apologies? No apologies for the seat. Do we agree the minutes of the last meeting held on the 6th March of this year as a correct record? Thank you. Agenda item

1. Do any members present wish to declare an interest to the committee before we begin considering the application? No, thank you. We are now considered the office as reports and I will first clarify the way in which each application is considered. Firstly, the planning officer will introduce the application with any relevant updates. Members will then hear any public speaking statements in the following order. Councillor, stroke local member, parish, town council representatives, objectors, supporters, agent or applicants. After the public speaking statements have been heard, members are able to ask speaks of a clarification of what matters raised in their statement and these must be addressed through myself as a chairman. I will then ask members if they have any technical questions of officers. Following this, the entire committee will then discuss the application. Members may ask further clarification from officers on points regarding the application, points raised by speakers in the main debate. Officers will respond to the issues and questions raised by the members. The committee will then make a decision by vote. Members will need to propose a seconder recommendation. We now move on to item 4. We will now consider a general item 4, direction of five residential units on the site of the former 112 High Street Owlsby Buckinghamshire on this. This is on page 7 of your agenda pack. I will now call on the case officer, Kirstie Elliott, to introduce the application. Thank you, Kirstie. Thank you, chair and afternoon, everybody. As referred, this is an application for five new dwellings on the site of what was 112 High Street. The site was previously occupied until around 2018, 2019 by a three-story end of terrace building. I have some street view images here from 2011 showing the building as was. First image here showing the three-story frontage building. There is an access to the side, east side of the building that then wraps around. The following images here show the extent of the built form around the back. Essentially, the whole plot was covered with built form, albeit as part of the rear was a mix of single. Two-story at this point here. Previous building was demolished by reason of safety due to being considered a dangerous structure. The application proposes the construction of a replacement three-story end of terrace building, which would house two flats and a two-story detached building to the rear, which is to the south, which would comprise three dwelling houses as a terrace. The application is referred to the committee by reason of the council's interest in the site. Following demolition of the previous building, the scaffolding had to be erected to properly adjoining building to the west. Just points that out here, number 110, to prevent its collapse. This was done at expense to the council as the owner/developer had declared bankruptcy. The land is currently owned by the crown as a result of that process. The proposed development accords with policies of the development plan, and it is therefore recommended that it is approved subject to conditions. The application site is located within the Altsby Town Centre on the south side of High Street and is roughly 80 metres from the junction with Exchange Street. The proposal as stated is for a three-story frontage building here, and with part-single part two-story rear projections and would adjoin on to number 110 to the west. This, as I stated, would have two flats within it, a one-bed flat on the ground floor and a two-bed flat on floors one and two. So the rear is the terrace of three houses. They would be two-bedroom properties. The five residential units would have access to a shared external immunity space, which is located in between the two built elements there. The site would have on-site waste and recycling storage and cycle storage within this area. No on-site motor vehicle parking is proposed. What follows on the next few slides are the floor plans on this slide. This is the front and rear elevations of the end of terrace frontage building here. This is the front and rear elevations of the three terraces at the rear. Here we have the east elevation. If you were walking along the access road up the side, so we've got the east elevation of what would be House One and then ground floor, frontage flat, and then the first floor flat over two floors here. Then have some photographs of the site as it exists. I'm sure you're familiar with it. We've got the scaffolding up against number 1-1-0 here, side view showing the extent of it. As you can see, it's in quite a sorry state at the moment. This area shows where the east elevation of the two storey block of three houses would go here and the rear elevation of where the frontage building would be. This view shows the rear of the access lane so that the terrace of three would follow this line here. This is the side elevation of number 10, Brookside terrace. The application follows a refusal for six units on the site in
2. The application before you fully overcomes the previous concerns that were raised with that scheme. The proposal would provide five residential dwellings in the town centre in the most sustainable settlement of the White Bellsbury area and where in most development is encouraged to ensure the vitality and viability of the settlement. The principal is therefore considered acceptable. The applicant has demonstrated a sequential test his past and has submitted a detailed flood risk assessment and surface water drainage strategy. This is to be secured by a condition as well as adherence to the resistance and resilience measures contained in the flood risk assessments and standing advice guidance from the Environment Agency. The site is currently devoid of development as you saw as all buildings have been demolished and in its current state the site is detrimental to the character and appearance of the streets in the wider area particularly as it is so visible and as well as that it's also an impediment to users of the footway on the high street. The development has been designed to reflect the character and appearance of the existing terrace dwellings to the south and east which are on hybrid walk, Brookside terrace and Albion Street. The construction materials proposed would be red brick and natural slate which would be in keeping with the frontage building as well as neighbouring development. The application site is in proximity to residential and commercial uses on either side and to the rear and whilst it's acknowledged that the closed dwellings would be taller than the former structures that's the block at the rear given the relationship between the proposed houses and that they would face onto the side and of Brookside terrace. It's not considered that the development would result in significant harm to immunity by reason of outlook or as being an overbearing form of development. It's acknowledged that there may be some of you's over the rear gardens of Brookside terrace but this would not be significantly different from the ablic achieved over the rear gardens from the existing relationship of the dwellings that are in that area. It's also noted that the two-story building a previously occupied area of the site had windows at first and ground floor levels in this south facing elevation. Number 24 Albion Street is located approximately 16 metres east of the proposed terrace of three houses and is separated by a bare brick. Proposed house one would have bedroom windows on its east side at first floor level however this relationship is not considered materially different that between number 24 and its neighbours to the east on Albion Street and also on Highbridge Walk. It's also not considered there being an acceptable level of overlooking future occupiers of the development or that the dwellings would have and satisfactorily levels of daylight or sunlight or substandard outlook. As mentioned there's a shared amenity space which it is small but given the site's proximity to the public open space of Fail Park this is not considered problematic and the development proposed is car-free and but given the town centre location and the proximity of nearby public car parks the on-site cycle storage and walking distance of goods and services no objections are raised in this respect and the proposal is recommended for approval thank you. Thank you Kirsty thank you. There are no registered speakers for this application so do members have any technical questions of the officers? Councillor OWEN. On the whole I think it's all fine really good but my concern would be the park in wooded it's nice to think that people might go and park a car park and pay looking at that back street that's the area stuff like that but didn't you think that they might not cause problems for other local people that they might park or all over the place because there's no because they don't want to pay for a car park and that would be my concern. Sorry. Um, do you wish to answer that Kirsty or Councillor? Sorry my microphone is working. No I think in about to you there's a kind of a town centre location site I think the red line boundaries the access drive wouldn't be in the ownership of the houses that access or they would have access rights over it so I don't think parking would be a problem there. I think the other high street is controlled so parking enforcement could kind of jump into action there as well so I don't think parking would be an issue. Councillor CUNY. Yeah I'm also on the parking and traffic movements. I'm easy with the fact that there's no parking because it is policy compliant etc however the road or track that comes from the high street to the back of the buildings and turns right 90 degrees right. I think that's access to other properties so are we happy with the fact that there's going to be traffic passing the front of the new terraces which will be directly onto that track so is that safe and is that compliant? I think the reality is that the traffic speeds down there would be extremely slow it is a fairly narrow track will be safe with and I think people who would live in there would know what they're walking out onto. I think that kind of a while there are a smaller I believe it's just a one or two properties that have access to that track so it is not a heavily trafficked access so I don't think an issue of safety would be sustainable if we had an objection on it. And can I ask if it is actually a right-of-way for other people? I'm honestly not sure now I suspect it probably is because there are back gates and things to it so while they might not have vehicle access rights over it I suspect there's a little bit of pedestrian access. Yeah so it couldn't be blocked off for instance. No. Thank you. Councillor Chappell. Remember this from the old back in the day when you were walking you used to have a shot there. I would say only Roblin used to be a well-known businessman back in the late 70s. Mine and my points are two about in transition between where we are now and when that is built. I think 110 is still occupied but when the building collapsed I think there was some damage and so are we always the applicant going to work with 110 to make sure it's not going to make any further damage and make good anything that is caused. The other one is about no notice someone in the report, no parking is allowed outside. Five houses don't appear overnight by themselves so we'll be always delivering various things. How will they, I wouldn't be administered for the building because it's not a copious area to park licorice and then there will be things like burdens etc that need to be dropped off. I'm just wanting to know how that's going to be managed because I don't think there's any parking at any time outside. Does that allow for dropping off of building materials? Don't take five minutes. Overall I think if anything is done to that area will be a tremendous idea. I've got a problem with the rest of it. I'm just worried about the transition. Thank you. Cool, thanks Bill. Yes so the first points of the damage to 110 yes historically there was some as part of this the development would have to enter into a party war agreement so that's going to require kind of how it's repaired and how it's done so that element outside of planning but that would be covered by setting the party war agreement. In terms of the parking and deliveries if you look at the condition 23 the developers required to submit a construction traffic management plan and in there there's a requirement as to how they will secure parking for vehicle operatives visitors and deliveries so providing they submitted enough details in order to do that we would sign that off in conjunction with our highway colleagues to make sure it's safe and suitable. Alright thank you. Councillor interjecting. Councillor Collins. Yeah thank you Chair. Like Bill I can remember using that facility that metal storage supply business for many many years and it was I think it was a loss to the community for whatever it had to when they moved and of course I was very aware of the collapse rather than anything else it did physically collapse like remembering discussions with the business next door and their businesses suffer as a result of that. I travelled that route at least once a day day and night so I'm very aware of the situation. There is particularly when the delivery lines are there taking Indian take my food out and we've got literally cars parked everywhere along that stretch of road. My concern, it's interesting that the issue that everybody seems to be raising is parking because that's the major concern. I would be glad to see a construction there to finish that awful side off but I do think we've got to consider the consequences of that build and I think it's yeah we have parking facilities which I assume that if they wish to park they're going to have to pay so within a couple hundred yards we've got one in family street we've got one at park that I've got to be walked to. I do believe that for sheer convenience they are going to be blocking local roads so my concern and I don't I don't share your view on that. I think the consequences as far as partners are going to be quite dramatic. Thank you. Yes I hear what you say Councillor I mean not kind of kicking the situation or kicking the problem down into the long grass I mean anybody that parks in an irregular or an unacceptable fashion obviously that's a separate matter to planning and that would be picked up by the police so I think that's something to bear in mind there. Yes we're aware of the fact that that end of the high street it's not just the couple of Indians sort of takeaways there's other sort of food that's in and around there as well and there does to tend to be a proliferation of parking around there. I think I think though that you know this is probably one of the most sustainable sites that you will find in the town and in that respect we we sorry in that respect we feel that the scheme does comply with policy in terms of the sustainable location and the proximity to adjacent car parks. I think the one thing the additional benefit that this scheme will bring ultimately is as you've alluded to is the removal of the scaffolding and the framework which is basically just becoming a dumping ground in terms of refuse bins and another detritus that's gathering around there so I mean that doesn't have an impact on the dissemination of this planning application but it's a subsequent consequence that you know hopefully the applicant if they do if they are an anti-planning permission and then they proceed on that basis ultimately we would get you know unencumbered access down the high street. James Smith. Thank you thank you chair and I must say it is a commendable scheme I think we'd all be really pleased to see this area tied it up and certain new houses built but really following on from Councillor Chappell I couldn't quite understand in the in the papers that we've been given about the the traffic management plan and whether there is likely to be a road closure at any point it's pretty much a major development isn't there and and in addition to that if the pavement along that stretch of road is likely to be closed at any point and if there's any mitigation that can be put in place for all hands to to make sure that we can deal with that. Yeah thank thank you I mean I think we're kind of second-guessing what the CTMP is going to say I would imagine I wonder if we can put that that side plan back up on the overhead. Is it kicking? Okay until it kicks in if I can possibly explain if you can look at the plan. So you'll see the building that's going to replace the one that was demolished on the front and then you've got the amenity area in the middle and then the three the three dwellings bearing in mind that it won't be us mere planners that would sign off the TMCTMP we would be liaising with client with colleagues in the highways department so they will ultimately have the say service to whether what is submitted is acceptable or not but I would imagine that from a construction point of view they would probably seek to do the three dwellings at the rear first making use of the middle ground the area in the middle as their compound because they don't have any other land outside of that which is etched in red so I would imagine they would do the three dwellings first use the land in the middle as their compound and then proceed to do the dwelling on the frontage and then the last part of that would be laying over the the amenity land and what have you in the middle but I am guessing but to me that would seem to be the logical way given the number of constraints that we've got here i.e. there are there are yellow lines in the high street and as council colleagues has already alluded to particularly of a night time it's an absolute bonfire down there in terms of cars being parked but ultimately you know highways will sign off on the CTMP but it will have to be practical and realistic. Thank you that's that's really reassuring I mean obviously what's in my mind is that it's a really important transport route if it gets blocked at any time there's going to be major problems around all the way around the area but my place is a very important walking route people will turn from the park there's a big residential area so blocking the pavement there could cause some significant problems and it'd be nice to know that there is a bit of advanced planning to to be able to manage that thanks I think I would just add that anything that's done to kind of whether it's storage or whether it's closures would be done through the high authority under license so they would have to apply before they did it so we would not have to say on it wouldn't be particularly different to how the big glock of flats in the corner was built that was similar to the situation phase development and there'll be very controlled periods in terms of when they can and come operate within the public highway. Council Chair. So I try to understand as I've gone into a proper map looking down on one of the Google maps we have and I can see that there are half a dozen houses around the back of this area that have I can see one van there and a couple of carriages so there's there is vehicles going to be using that entrance to that site to get to the back of their houses so that that's rude we'll have to be maintained and kept open while the building is being done and just I'm not saying is that nothing there to stop it I'm just saying we need to make sure that other people on they denied their access to their houses we will need to keep a close eye on the applicant when it's being built. I wouldn't disagree with that I mean it isn't dissimilar to anyone else who builds off a road with a private access attached to it that serves a number of properties the developer wouldn't have kind of any right to block off that clearly other houses we should use that access have a legal wanted passage over it that will certainly be aware to any future developer so yep that's absolutely yeah but that is in one way it isn't in that way yes thank you no further questions I'd just like to add that the three four houses on the hybrid road are back on to that access have got garages or car parking spaces and they do keep the cars there right no further question oh councilors yes thank you chair for indulgence really and it is just to go back over something that you explained earlier just to try and get my head round it as I understand it the door for the flats that are at the front on the front edge is at the side at that very narrow tech pinch point and you talked about cars going very slowly and that's that's great that's to be understood but there looks to be maybe 10 cars would be part around the back going past a really narrow area and I was just trying to understand how that can be compliant and and what can be built into the design to make it safe for somebody in a hurry rushing out of their front door straight into a delivery van I think there is there is no space as far as I can see Kansas Smith I think those cars that you'll see in park are parked from the arc the new development no I'm thinking of the ones that are in the little mini car park before you get to the houses at the back plus a few cars that are parked around the back of the houses that are just adjacent to this private private road rather than the major park car park as part of the flat development so so there is there is a number of parking spaces dotted around there which means that their likelihood of somebody going out to their front door at the side entrance when a car is coming past is quite high and I just wondered is there a design principle that can be put in place that would allow that half a second worth of breathing breathing space it's the difference between an A&E you know kind of a you know emergency or somebody just being a bit shocked at a close near me I'm saying I mean I think the the point type if I can find the right plan it's not immediately obvious but there there's only one door on this side of the nation which serves the units at the front so it's kind of a communal front door so that there isn't a plethora of doors down there yes it is a in a slight pitch point but I could be this is where the traffic will be the slowest and there is actually a slight kind of building relief better way of kind of describing it the elevation there's a tiny amount of land between the door and the actual carriage way enough to poke your head out and have a look I think the reality is traffic will be very slow there it is at the right end if you like for the cars will be coming to a halt pull out onto high street or indeed coming in off high street down the road where arguably you wouldn't have necessary the speed that you might be at the end for example so I get your points I'm not sure there is necessarily a guideline to to meet the reality is there isn't any other space to put any other methods of mitigation down there and we couldn't put things like mirrors and things on third party properties opposite the doors so no I guess what I had in mind is the speed of delivery you know vehicles small and large vehicles and a design principle that would have a recess at the front door that would just give a I think if you play the point yeah but I think the difficulty of the recess given given though their quality that would probably just end up to be a bit of a litter trap I can see why you wouldn't necessarily want to recess down there but as I say it's been signed off by highway so they have looked at this sort of thing so I can't really give a different answer. Councillor Kupa. Yeah apologies for your attention at the same point the point that Councillor Smith is making is the same point I made earlier but I think it's it's worth just remembering that could we go back to the overhead photograph of that area because it I think it's important to know where cars are coming from too you can see if you come from the high street and turn right and right at the end of that track there's access to houses in hybrid walk I think now and people parked there traditionally I don't know whether it's still the case but there were deliveries to some of the takeaways deliveries that would come around the back because they've got storage around the round the back so that is possibly heavier used than we might imagine it certainly used to be I used to go around there for various reasons I would go into quite a lot one time a few years ago and it was quite heavily used by vehicles I suspect that's still the case that's why I brought up the point and it's not so much about the the door at the side that single door but the front doors of the terraces because that's where people will be stepping straight into the the path of vehicles are going around the back so I have the same fear as Councillor Smith and I wonder for instance whether it would be possible to put a ball on either side of each front door or something like that just to give people a bit of space otherwise I can see vehicles either hitting the front of the houses if you get small bands and things going around there or people simply not being able to see what's coming when they step out their front doors so that's my only concern about this whole proposal I think I can lay your face with regards to the houses at the back if you look at the drawings it's not immediately obvious but the front doors are recessed in so they've got the bay windows that come out these are the doors you do have that area of relief whereby you can stand and lock your door or not standing in the road for example so they do have the recess accesses so you wouldn't be stepping out into the traffic in those doors Councillor Collin. Just one very quick point in the old St Mary's area of the Alspread School it is common that you've got doors that come quite out onto the road but what they have is about a 0.7 metre stretch of pavement same height step so therefore they can step out onto a digital narrow pavement which is a deterrent cause I'm not going to drive on it but it's also safety zone for the resident. I wouldn't disagree again I'll just point out the fact that the doors of the back are recessed in there is that area of relief that people can stand out they're safely looking both directions before going on their journeys so I think again traffic speeds you'd be around the 90 degree corner here it's not going to be significant yes I accept there will be some traffic but I think the quantum will be low and actually because of their recessness I think it's safe. Thank you I'm just I can see the drawing I can see the drawings here and I think with the doors I've set back from the bay windows is significant. Yeah I can't I can't say it's about about me to back. So it's a definitely usable recess somewhere to put some problems. Right and no further questions of the officers we move on to oh that was a better view of it then. Well you're there. If you can just see the front doors there then there's a recess cap. Fair if I can zoom in further or shut down the app again. Okay we move in moving to debate now thank you. Who did I see your hand up actually? I'll go for you. Councilor Thomson. Thank you Chairman. I was pleased to see I think in section 8 that the applicant has actually consulted with the council to ensure that the scheme is good which is very pleased to see that. Just a question really is that we've got three two-bedroom houses was there any consideration of two three-bedroom houses because in section 617 it states under the heat head that three-bedroom houses of the highest need. It seems to me that that might be a good opportunity to have gone for two three-bedroom houses as opposed to three two-bedroom houses. That's a question of the officer really Rob. Not a debate. Would the officers care to answer that? I suspect it boils down to viability of the scheme. I think in its proposed form it's not a point that we could necessarily object to but my suspect is down to financials and viability. So we're going to move on to debate today. Councillor Cooper. Thank you Chairman. Thank you for the clarification on debate windows because that makes me much more comfortable with the whole thing. I think this this application we have to take it as it is but it's providing five units in a place where they're really needed in the town. It complies with all the policy. The fact that it hasn't got any parking normally would be a bit concerned about but I think in this circumstance bearing in mind where it is we should be entirely happy with that so I've got no problem with that. In terms of Bearbrook which we mustn't forget is quite close the flooding issue seems to have been sorted out. We've got I think it's 300 millimeters above the date and there's no something like that and I'm not aware of that area flooding any way at any time so that's the right thing to do. The construction phase is clearly going to be difficult but I think that's covered by the conditions so it's not really for us to actually control that the condition is there to make it clear what they can do and what they can't do so I think I'm happy with that aspect of it. So I am ready to support this application and I propose that we accept the recommendation. Councillor NUKEM. Thank you, Chairman. I'm willing to second Councillor Kupa's motion but just before I do so can I just say and the issue may stop me not to have noticed this point before going over to Councillor Thompson for raising it but paragraph 6.17 saying that the three bedroom houses of the highest need envelop but there is however as I understand it in the latest housing strategy of agreed only a few weeks ago by the cabinet a clear statistical requirement for one bedroom properties to be the highest need and I just wonder whether this means that we are for the next few years going to continually hear more and more about vault content. A document which was approved in 2017 I remember right not just out of 17 circulation that 2019 continually talking about the highest need being for three bedroom properties. We have a housing strategy for one bedroom properties to the highest need and we're therefore in terms of a planning committee we're actually going to be approving the right sort of housing mix because we're bound by the valve and not by the housing strategy. So I've really asked that question now I don't expect to reply because of course it's questions to officers and that's been passed and I don't need you to notice the point until Councillor Thompson raised it but in the meantime it seems to me that this is a this is a complete total I saw it's it was caused because of the collapse of the original property this isn't it this is something that's been developed before the scheme isn't itself very similar to what's been proposed before and received planning permission before and it's also an intensive use of a site which is Tang Centre and what's I appreciate all the points about car parking it is a Tang Centre site and in all the circumstances it seems to me this is the best solution possible and we'll take away the scaffolding and provide further support I hope for the adjoining property which must be a great comfort for those those householders. So I second the motion. Thank you for that. Any other speakers? Oh Councillor Collins. A three bedroom dwelling suggests it's going to be a family dwelling and I would vote against you in that case because I think the environment, the positioning of it, the parking, it's not suited for a family but it will be very suited for young people maybe a starter home who can afford to buy such a property as their first aid so yeah I would support the application. Thank you for that no further speakers so we can move to the vote those in favour please indicate. That's the unanimous chair and so the application passed is in accordance with the recommendations listed in the office's report. Thank you very much thank you please this evening's this afternoon's meeting. Thank you for all that are coming along supporting and entering into further debate. Thank you. [Applause]