STATEMENT OF CASE

STATEMENT OF CASE By Rule 6 Party: Willen Residents Group

Linked enforcement and planning appeals under Sections 78 and 174(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) Site: 42 Portland Drive, Willen, Milton Keynes, MK15 9JP Appeal Start Date: 21 November 2019 Document Date: December 2019

PINS Refs: APP/Y0435/C/19/3228594 APP/Y0435/W/19/3236883 LPA Refs: 18/00283/COMPCH 19/00124/FUL

Contents

1. Introduction ………………..………………………………………………….…..………… 3

2. The Appeal Site ..………………………………………………....………………………… 4

3. Relevant Planning History………………………………………………................... 6

4. Enforcement History……………..……………………………………….................... 6

5. Deviations from the Approved Scheme …….…..………………………………. 7

6. Drawings and Plans.…………………………………………………....………………… 9

7. Ground (a) Appeal and the Planning Appeal (Section 78)……………….. 9

8. Relevant Planning Policies……………………………………………...………....….. 10

9. Principle of Development……..………………………………..……………………… 12

10. Character and Appearance……..……………………………………………..………. 13

11. Residential Amenity……..……………………………………………..…………………. 14

12. Other Material Considerations……..……………………………………………….. 16

13. Ground (f) Appeal……..……………………………………………..……………………. 22

14. Ground (g) Appeal……..……………………………………………..………………….. 22

15. Summary and Conclusions……..……………………………………………..………. 23

16. Case Law List……..………………………………………………..………………………… 24

17. List of Documents and Other Information……..………………………………. 25

Statement of Case 42 Portland Drive, Willen

Rule 6 Party - Willen Residents Group 3

1. Introduction

1.1 This Statement of Case is submitted by the Willen Residents Group (“WRG”) pursuant to Rule 6(6) of The Town and Country Planning (Enforcement) (Determination by Inspectors) (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2002 for two linked appeals for 42 Portland Drive in Willen, Milton Keynes (“the appeal site”).

1.2 The lead case is an enforcement appeal under grounds (a), (f) and (g) of Section 174(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (PINS Ref: APP/Y0435/C/19/3228594) against an enforcement notice served on the appellant on 25 April 2019 (“the enforcement appeal”).

1.3 The linked case is a planning appeal under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (PINS Ref: APP/Y0435/W/19/3236883) against the LPA’s refusal of a part retrospective, part proposed planning application (“the planning appeal”).

1.4 WRG was formed specifically for the purpose of providing a collective response to these appeals by a large number of residents who live in Willen, including residents who live adjacent to the appeal site.

1.5 WRG support Milton Keynes Council’s (“the LPA”) position that the dwelling as currently constructed represents an unacceptable breach of planning control that causes significant planning harm. WRG also support the LPA’s refusal of the planning application which forms the current planning appeal.

1.6 However, there is substantial disagreement between the LPA and the WRG over the enforcement notice. Firstly, it is contended that the enforcement notice has not been worded with accuracy and acumen. Secondly, it is contended that the requirements of the enforcement notice do not remedy the planning harm. Thirdly, it is contended that there is material conflict with the requirements of the enforcement notice and the refusal of the application which forms the planning appeal.

1.7 The issues with the wording of the enforcement notice, as well as additional procedural points in relation to the appeals, will be addressed separately in a statement on preliminary matters to be dealt with at the inquiry.



2. The Appeal Site

2.1 The appeal site is located in Willen, a village located in the north east of the urban area of Milton Keynes.

Figure 1 - Aerial photograph of the site location

2.2 The original Willen Village can be identified as early as 1086 in the Domesday Survey under Caldecote, which was part of the neighbouring parish of Newport Pagnell.

2.3 As a small farming village, Willen was one of the ancient villages of Buckinghamshire to be designated in 1967 as part of the new city of Milton Keynes.



2.4 The modern Willen was formed largely in the mid to late 1980s by the Milton Keynes Development Corporation (“MKDC”) creating a new village around the original village.

2.5 Elements of the original village of Willen still remain today and they are protected within the conservation area. There are a number of sites of special interest in the original village. The most noticeable is the church of St Mary Magdalene which was built in the 1680s by Robert Hooke.

2.6 The appeal site is at a prominent location, visible from the large roundabout on Millington Gate which is one of the main entrances to Willen and continues towards the original village and the start of the conservation area.

2.7 On the northern side of Portland Drive, opposite the appeal site, there are a large number of semi-detached dwellings. Most of these dwellings have been constructed with two different brick colours to create a distinct identity and visual interest.

2.8 On the southern side of Portland Drive adjacent to the appeal site, there are number of high-quality dwellings that were constructed in the late 1980s under the MKDC’s self-build scheme for Willen.

2.9 There are five adjoining dwellings to the appeal site; one on Portland Drive, three on Linford Lane and one on Millington Gate.

2.10 On Portland Drive, the adjoining dwelling is a single-storey bungalow. On Linford Lane, there are two chalet bungalows and one single-storey bungalow adjoining the appeal site. On Millington Gate, there is a two-storey dwelling that adjoins the appeal site.

2.11 The MKDC original design guide also highlighted that the plot was in a sensitive location:

Plots 18-25 are in a sensitive area adjacent to Willen Village, between the priory and the playing fields. Extra care will be required at design stage to ensure the buildings are compatible with the high quality of the area as a whole and are suitable for a village location.1

1 Paragraph 2 of the MKDC’s Building Plots for Sale - Design Requirements



3. Relevant Planning History

3.1 The planning history of the appeal site primarily consists of applications submitted by the appellant since it was purchased in September 2017.

3.2 The appeal site was originally sold as a freehold plot of land on 27 October 1988 by the MKDC as part of their self-build scheme for Willen.

3.3 The original specification of the MKDC was that the appeal site was one of four adjoining plots (known as plots 20-23 in the prospectus) that were designated single storey developments. Planning permission was subsequently granted for a single storey bungalow by the MKDC under the New Towns Act 1981.

3.4 The appellant’s agent submitted a householder planning application (LPA Ref: 17/01502/FUL) on 1 June 2017 extend and redevelop the existing bungalow, with a description proposal of ‘Bungalow extension and redevelopment including new upper floor’. This application was withdrawn on 24 July 2017 as the appellant’s agent stated that it “it is looking like a refusal”.

3.5 A new full application (LPA Ref: 17/02142/FUL) was submitted by the appellant’s agent on 7 August 2017 with a description proposal of the ‘Demolition of existing bungalow and construction of two storey dwelling’. Planning permission was subsequently granted on 13 November 2017 (“the extant permission”).

3.6 On 5 January 2018, the appellant’s agents submitted an application for approval of details reserved by condition (LPA Ref: 18/00031/DISCON). This application related to Condition 3 of the extant permission (LPA Ref: 17/02142/FUL) for the external materials and this application was approved on 26 January 2018.

3.7 On 18 January 2019, the appellant’s agents submitted a retrospective application (LPA Ref: 19/00124/FUL). This application was unanimously refused by the LPA’s Development Control Committee on 4 July 2019 and the decision notice for refusal was issued on 29 July 2019.

4. Enforcement History

4.1 During the early stages of construction of the dwelling in March 2018, there were complaints by residents that they believed the development was not in accordance with the approved plans. These concerns were also shared by the



LPA’s Building Control Officers and it is understood that a complaint was raised with Planning Enforcement.

4.2 As the construction progressed in the summer of 2018, it became increasingly apparent that there were material deviations from the approved plans. There was a substantial amount of steelwork being used in the construction of the dwelling up to roof level and it was quite clear the height and pitch of the roof were not in accordance with the approved plans.

4.3 The LPA formally confirmed a breach of control at the dwelling in early December 2018 and on 24 December 2018, they requested that the appellant submit a retrospective application to regularise the entire works.

4.4 The appellant’s agent submitted a retrospective application on 18 January 2019 and it was validated on 25 January 2019. The application was then invalidated by the LPA due to inaccurate drawings on or around 31 January 2019.

4.5 After the invalidation of the retrospective application, the LPA stated that they would proceed with enforcement action to require the main roof and rear single-storey element to be built in accordance with the approved plans.

4.6 The LPA served an enforcement notice with the above requirements on the appellant on 25 April 2019. This notice, which is subject to this appeal, was appealed with the Planning Inspectorate on 13 May 2019.

4.7 After the enforcement notice was served, the appellant continued to undertake further unauthorised development to the dwelling. This included the completion of the front balcony not in accordance with the approved plans and the installation of solar panels on the right-hand elevation.

4.8 At the time of submitting this Statement of Case, it is understood that the LPA have issued a second enforcement notice for the same breach of planning control with additional requirements, as well as for new breaches of planning control.

5. Deviations from the approved scheme

5.1 It is contended that the consequence of the material departure from the approved scheme is that the entire dwelling has been unlawfully erected and is in breach of planning control. This position is supported by the judgement in Sage



v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and others and Others [2003] UKHL 22

5.2 The following list sets the main deviations from the approved scheme based on a comparison with the extant permission and the dwelling as currently built:

Structural Changes

1) The dwelling has been erected in the wrong position (further back); 2) The finished floor levels of the entire dwelling have been substantially

raised; 3) The single-storey rear element has been increased in depth and height; 4) The ridge height of the main dwelling has been substantially increased; 5) The roof pitch has been substantially increased (the current roof

resembles a mansard-style roof as opposed to the approved hipped roof); 6) The garage has been increased in height, width and depth; 7) The footprint of the two-storey dwelling has changed on the rear, rear-left

elevations; 8) The front balcony has been increased in height and depth.

Exterior Design Changes

1) The stone string course (brick banding) has been removed; 2) A brick quoin detail has been added on all corners.

Interior Design Changes

1) The internal layout has changed, particularly in the attic area (larger footprint due to the pitch change).

Fenestration

1) A large number of windows on the second storey have been increased in width (hard to quantify exactly due to scaling issues);

2) There are larger windows installed on left elevation of single-storey rear element;

3) Larger bi-folding patio doors have been installed on the right-hand elevation;



4) Two sets of larger patio windows (possibly bi-folding doors) have been installed on the single-storey rear extension serving the swimming pool area;

5) On the principal elevation, one of the rooflights has been installed in the incorrect position.

6. Drawings and Plans

6.1 There have been multiple issues with the submission of accurate drawings and plans following the confirmed breach of planning control in December 2018.

6.2 One of the main deviations relates to the finished floor levels being constructed higher than shown on the elevation drawings for the approved scheme. The appellant subsequently raised the exterior ground level around the entire dwelling in February 2019 through the importation and fill of hardcore and soil. This has created problems in providing a detailed assessment with measurements of the approved scheme compared to the current dwelling as constructed.

6.3 The LPA commissioned their own topographical survey in November 2019 and it is understood the appellant has done the same, including a full building survey, as part of these appeals. It is regrettable that those surveys are being produced at such a late stage, especially as they could have been undertaken prior to the exterior ground level being raised.

6.4 Until those surveys have been submitted as evidence, comments about a detailed comparison of the approved scheme with the dwelling as currently built are reserved.

7. Ground (a) Appeal and Planning Appeal (Section 78 Appeal)

7.1 There are currently two linked appeals seeking planning permission for the dwelling; the deemed application under ground (a) and the planning appeal.

7.2 The ground (a) appeal is seeking planning permission for the dwelling as built, whereas the planning appeal is seeking permission for the dwelling as built but with proposed modifications to the main roof.

7.3 The planning application was refused on the basis of:



The development, by reason of its excessive bulk and scale, would result in an unacceptably harmful impact on the character and appearance of the neighbouring street scene, contrary to policies D1, D2 and D3 of the adopted Plan: MK (2019).

7.4 The reasons for issuing the enforcement notice are:

The unauthorised development demonstrates poor quality of design that fails to meet national planning policy standards contained within Plan MK 2016-2031. The development with its current roof relates poorly to its surroundings, offering an overbearing and oversized presence in the street scene incongruous with its

surroundings. The development is therefore contrary to the following Policies D1 Designing a High Quality Place, D2 Creating a Positive Character, D3 Design of Buildings, D5 Amenity and Street Scene, National Planning Policy Framework 2019 Para 124 – Achieving well designed places.

8. Relevant Planning Policies

8.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (“the PCPA”) requires that planning applications are determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

8.2 Section 38(3) of the PCPA also defines the development plan as both the “adopted development plan documents (taken as a whole)” and “neighbourhood development plans”.

8.3 For the purposes of these appeals, the current development plan comprises of the Plan:MK 2016 - 2031 (adopted on 20 March 2019) and Campbell Park Neighbourhood Plan 2016 - 2026 (adopted 28 November 2018).

Plan:MK

8.4 Although the development plan should be considered as a whole, the following sections are submitted as the most relevant to these appeals.

8.5 Policy D1 (Designing a High Quality Place) sets out that all development proposals as a whole should respond appropriately to the site and surrounding context. There should be continuity of street frontage with the location of fronts of buildings to face the street or public space.



8.6 Policy D2 (Creating a Positive Character) specifies that the layout, massing/scale, boundary treatments and appearance of buildings exhibit a positive character or sense of place for a development. The policy also states that the character of new development should be locally inspired where appropriate.

8.7 Policy D3 (Design of Buildings) specifies that all new buildings should be well-designed, relate well to their surrounding area and contribute to the character of the area. The policy sets out that new buildings are of an appropriate scale in relation to other buildings in the area.

8.8 Policy D5 (Amenity and Street Scene) requires all proposals to create and protect a good standard of amenity for buildings and surrounding areas. The policy highlights the important of ensuring adequate privacy, sun lighting and daylighting. It also sets out that new developments must not be overbearing upon existing buildings and open spaces.

8.9 Policy HN9 (Loss and Conversion of Existing Residential Properties) seeks to prevent the loss of single storey dwellings (typically bungalows) through demolition and rebuild to two storey dwellings.

Campbell Park Neighbourhood Plan

8.10 The following sections of the neighbourhood plan are submitted as most relevant to these appeals.

8.11 Design Policy 1 (Paragraph 7.32) requires that all new development should have regard to the surroundings in relation to the scale, density and design including landscaping. It also sets out that all new development should respect the character of the area and meet the local housing needs.

8.12 Heritage Policy 1 – (Paragraph 7.34) specifies out that new developments must demonstrate that the proposal has paid due regard to the need to conserve and enhance their setting as well as any special architectural, archaeological or other historic features.

National Planning Policy Framework

8.13 The National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”) is also a material consideration as it sets out the Government’s national planning policies for England and how



these should be applied. The latest version of the NPPF for these appeals is of 19 February 2019.

8.14 It is considered that Section 12 (Achieving well-designed places) of the NPPF is relevant for these appeals.

New Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)

8.15 The New Residential Design Guide SPD (adopted 10 April 2012) outlines the detailed design guidance that new residential developments should meet to comply with the design policies of the development plan.

8.16 As these appeals seek planning permission for a new residential development, it is considered that the New Residential Design Guide SPD is relevant in its entirety.

9. Principle of Development

9.1 The principle of residential development at the appeal site is considered acceptable, however it is a clear matter of dispute as to what type of residential of development is appropriate.

9.2 The site was originally designated by the MKDC as one of four adjacent plots of land that should only be of single-storey development. There was clear logic in the approach of the MKDC to meet the housing needs of the new city, but also to allow for high-quality dwellings in close proximity to one another whilst retaining a good standard of amenity for the occupiers.

9.3 It is contended that a large two or three-storey dwelling is entirely inappropriate in the location given the close proximity to the adjoining dwellings which are primarily bungalows.

9.4 Since the extant permission was granted in November 2017, there has been a change on policy in Milton Keynes with the adoption of the new development and neighbourhood plans. Policy HN9 of the development plan seeks to prevent the loss of single-storey dwellings through demolition and rebuild.

9.5 Whilst it is acknowledged that the demolition of the existing bungalow occurred prior to the adoption of the development plan, it is submitted that this operation was undertaken without the benefit of planning permission and therefore Policy



HN9 should be afforded material weight in the planning appeal. This is addressed in further detail below under material considerations.

10. Character and Appearance

10.1 It is contended that because of its mass, height and design, the development as built has a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the local area.

Figure 2 - Photograph of the dwelling from Portland Drive

10.2 The scheme is within a prominent area of architectural importance in the modern development of Milton Keynes as a new town. The MKDC’s architects sought to create a positive, modern character through the careful design of high-quality, self-build dwellings.

10.3 The dwelling is completely out of proportion with all other dwellings on Portland Drive, Millington Gate and Linford Lane. The adjoining dwellings on all three sides of the Property are low-rise bungalows that were specifically designed to fit in harmoniously with one another as part of the MKDC self-build scheme for Willen.

10.4 The unsympathetically blockish form and excessive massing of the dwelling provides a visual appearance of a commercial building due to the poor quality of design, the choice of materials and large windows.



10.5 The excessive bulk of the dwelling represents an incongruous addition to the streetscape and it is of insufficient quality to justify the current height, which far exceeds that of any other dwelling in the vicinity.

10.6 It is acknowledged that the views of the front of the dwelling are partially screened due to the presence of overgrown hedging, however there is very little screening of the sides of the property when viewed from Portland Drive, Millington Gate and Aldrich Drive. The dwelling is visually prominent at a significant distance from Portland Drive and Aldrich Drive.

10.7 There are a number of mature trees on Portland Drive, Millington Gate and Aldrich Drive which do provide a degree of screening, but these are deciduous trees and they have little to no screening impact between November and March.

10.8 The materials used in the scheme are inappropriate with the consequence that the development is an incongruous addition to its surroundings. The colour, style and texture of the bricks and tiles are out of character relative to all other dwellings on Portland Drive.

11. Residential Amenity

11.1 Policy D5 of Plan:MK outlines that developments should ensure a reasonable degree of privacy to new and existing private living space and the main private garden area, with overlooking limited to an acceptable degree. The same policy also specifies that new development should not be overbearing on existing buildings and open spaces. There is additional guidance provided in the LPA’s New Residential Development Design Guide SPD.

11.2 The current dwelling falls significantly short of the minimum guidelines set out in Section 4.10 of Residential Amenity in the Residential Development Design Guide SPD. The back-to-back distance at first floor level with the dwelling of 2 Linford Lane is estimated between 17 metres and 18 metres, whereas the minimum guideline is 22 metres. The rear to flank distance with the dwelling 1 Linford Lane is approximately 13 metres, whereas it should be a minimum of 13.7 metres.

11.3 The dwelling is extremely overbearing on the adjoining properties, especially with 1 Linford Lane. Although it is contended that the approved scheme would also have been overbearing, the consequence of the raised finished floor levels is that the current dwelling is significantly more harmful.



Figure 3 - Photograph of the dwelling from the garden of 1 Linford Lane

11.4 During the determination of the extant permission, emails show that Planning Officers deemed a back-to-back distance at first floor level of less than 20 metres as unacceptable. The appellant’s agent was asked to submit new drawings moving the entire dwelling forward by 4 metres which would provide the back-to-back distance of 20 metres. Whilst new drawings were submitted by the appellant’s agents, it appears that the LPA did not check these drawings properly because these showed a back-to-back distance of approximately 18.5 metres.

11.5 There is a large leylandii hedge currently separating the appealed dwelling with 2 Linford Lane and the appellant has previously contended that this mitigates the overbearing impact of the dwelling. However, as noted in the original Case Officer report, this hedge is not protected and it could be removed at any point.

11.6 It is also clear that Planning Officers were sufficiently concerned with the impact on residential amenity of adjoining occupiers because a large number of windows at first floor level were conditioned to be fixed shut below 1.7 metres and obscurely glazed. Unfortunately, there is further element of conflict between this condition on the decision notice and the approved drawings in relation to the rear, rear-right bedrooms and en-suites.



11.7 Within the third storey, there are two roof windows that look directly into the gardens and properties of 20 Millington Gate and 1 Linford Lane. There was no assessment of the impact of residential amenity with these windows in the approved scheme because this element of the roof was labelled as an attic storage on the plans.

11.8 At the time of the submission of the enforcement appeal, records from the LPA’s Building Control show that the appellant had constructed a three-storey dwelling with habitable accommodation in the loft area.

11.9 The balcony at the front of the dwelling is likely to result in a loss of privacy to the adjoining occupiers of 40 Portland Drive and 20 Millington Gate. It is also contrary to Paragraph 4.11.39 of the Residential Development Design Guide SPD.

12. Other Material Considerations

12.1 The following section sets out the material considerations which are relevant to these appeals.

Previous Planning Decisions

12.2 It is acknowledged that previous planning decisions are capable of being material considerations in the determination of subsequent planning applications to ensure public confidence in the planning system.

12.3 In relation to these appeals, it is important to note that the extant permission was very controversially granted by Planning Officers under delegated powers, despite strong objections from neighbouring residents. This is evidenced from emails under a Freedom of Information request after permission was granted, which will be presented for the inquiry, showing that Officers had issues with the design, the bulk and massing and residential amenity during the determination of the application.

12.4 It is not disputed that the extant permission is a valid permission and that remains capable of implementation, however it is submitted that this has not been lawfully commenced and it will lapse on 13 November 2020.

12.5 There has been a degree of dispute with the LPA as to whether the original design requirements of the MKDC’s self-build plot scheme should have been afforded



any weight in the original decision to grant permission for the demolition of the bungalow and the erection of a two-storey dwelling.

12.6 As noted above, previous planning decisions are capable of being material considerations the determination of subsequent planning applications. It is therefore submitted that the original decision of the MKDC to grant permission for a single-storey bungalow and the reasons for this should be afforded material weight.

12.7 It is also submitted that the original MKDC design guide should be afforded some weight because it forms part of a previous planning decision and it helps provide guidance to the design and character of all adjoining properties.

Demolition of the bungalow

12.8 It is relevant in this appeal to consider whether the demolition of the bungalow lawfully commenced the extant permission despite the subsequent erection of an unauthorised dwelling. This is an important question because it will establish whether the extant permission will expire on 13 November 2020 and if material weight can be afforded to Policy HN9 of Plan:MK.

12.9 The courts have previously held that decision-makers must consider the whole of the works undertaken and exercise a planning judgement to determine, as a matter of fact and degree, whether those works were so different from the permitted scheme that they do not constitute lawful commencement of that scheme.

12.10 In the judgement of Commercial Land Ltd v SSTLGR [2002] EWHC 1264 (Admin), Ouseley J stated at paragraph 35:

I consider that the question of whether the operations done were comprised within the development involves looking at what has been done as a whole and reaching a judgment as a matter of fact and degree upon that whole. It does not entail any artificial process of ignoring part of what has been done. I reach that view even where it is not contended that the works are different functionally from the planning permission which has been granted, or are ambivalent in nature and so not unequivocally referable to the planning permission in question.

12.11 In Green v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 3980 (Admin), Cranston J adopted the approach of Ouseley J in Commercial Land



when considering how an inspector should proceed in circumstances where there had been demolition followed by deviation at an early stage from the approved plans. Cranston J stated at paragraph 30:

[The Inspector] considered the appellant’s contention that the implementation of planning permission was achieved through the demolition of the existing structure on the site, the removal of the tanks and equipment, and the evacuation of trenches and that all this amounted to the commencement of the development. However, assessing the matter objectively, in accordance with Commercial Land, he concluded, at paragraph 25 of the decision letter, that the works undertaken were so different from the permitted development that they did not constitute the commencement of the 2006 permission. That, in my judgment, was a perfectly permissible exercise of planning judgment.

12.12 The judgements in Commercial Land and Green were further applied in Silver v

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWHC 2729 (Admin).

12.13 It is submitted that the demolition of the existing bungalow was an equivocal act and this was necessary to construct the current unlawful dwelling. The appellant never intended to commence or implement the approved scheme and this is evidenced from the drawings submitted with the discharge of conditions application and the fact that there were numerous deviations from the approved scheme at an early stage. There were further deviations even after the appellant was told that there was a breach of planning control, as well as after the LPA served the enforcement notice that is subject to this appeal.

12.14 Whilst it is accepted that the bungalow was demolished prior to the adoption of the development plan, the contention in this appeal is that operation was unlawful. As the planning appeal seeks to regularise that operation, it is argued that material weight should be afforded to Policy HN9 of Plan:MK which states there “will be a presumption against proposals that would result in the loss of a bungalow(s) (or single storey dwelling) via demolition or its conversion to two or more storey”.



Fall-back Position

12.15 It is contended that the extant permission does not represent a realistic fall-back position for the appellant.

12.16 The principles of a fall-back position are outlined by Mr George Bartlett QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, in the case of Simpson v the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2011] EWHC 283 at Paragraph 10:

The essence of any fall-back contention is that, although the proposed development might have an adverse effect, nevertheless if planning permission were to be refused other uses or operations also with adverse effects but not requiring planning permission would or might be carried on or carried out; so that in the final evaluation the proposed development ought to judged to be acceptable in view of what would or might occur if permission for it was refused: see Snowden v Secretary of State for the Environment [1980] JPL 749. A fall-back position clearly has two elements that need to be established before it can be brought into the evaluation. The first is the nature and content of the alternative uses or operations. These need to be identified with sufficient particularity to enable the comparison that the fall-back contention involves to be made. The second element is the likelihood of the alternative use or operations being carried on or carried out. This has to be established for two reasons: see South Buckinghamshire District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment CO/184/98, 22 June 1998. Firstly, unless the alternative uses or operations are a realistic possibility, it would be Wednesbury unreasonable to treat the harm that would result from them as a reason for granting planning permission for the proposed development. Secondly the degree of likelihood of the alternative uses or operations being carried on or carried out will, or at least may be, a material consideration, to be weighed along with the harm that they would cause and the other pros and cons of the development proposed. If the harm that would result from the fall-back uses or operations would be very serious, it may well be that a lower degree of probability of their realisation would be sufficient to justify the grant of permission than in the case of less serious harm.

12.17 In order for the appellant to implement the extant permission, it would be necessary to demolish the current dwelling in its entirety, remove all resultant materials, excavate the footings to the correct depth and in the correct position and then re-construct the dwelling wholly in accordance with the approved plans. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, there is no possibility this would occur.



12.18 Even if the extant permission represented a realistic fall-back position and the appellant provided evidence it would be implemented, it would be a less harmful development than has been currently constructed. On this basis, the fall-back position should not be afforded any material weight.

Permitted development rights

12.19 It is acknowledged that permitted development rights under the GPDO are capable of being a material consideration (Burge v Secretary of State for the Environment and Chelmsford Borough Council [1987] JPL 497).

12.20 The entire dwelling is in breach of planning control and it does not benefit from permitted development rights. These rights would only become relevant at the point in which the current dwelling becomes lawful through the grant of planning permission and implementation of that scheme.

12.21 Notwithstanding the above points, permitted development rights would not have allowed the most harmful deviations from the approved scheme in relation to the increased ridge height, the change in roof pitch and the positioning of the dwelling.

Intentional Unauthorised Development

12.22 On 31 August 2015, the Government’s Chief Planner for England introduced a new national planning policy to make intentional unauthorised development a material consideration in the determination of planning applications and all appeals.

12.23 The plans and drawings submitted with the discharge application for condition 3 (LPA Ref: 18/00031/DISCON) were substantially different to the approved scheme. This included changes to the roof pitch on the right-hand elevation, the increased depth of the single-storey rear element, changes to the fenestration and design changes to the dwelling with the addition of a quoin detail and removal of a stone string-coursing.

12.24 The appellant has also conceded verbally that he intended to deviate from the approved plans at an early stage. During the right of response at the Development Control Committee meeting on 4 July 2019, the appellant stated that the approved plans were only “outline plans” with no measurements and that he



instructed his contractors to construct the dwelling to a depth of 20 metres. The appellant’s agent stated that the dwelling was constructed further back than approved due to a drain being located at the front of the property.

12.25 The appellant’s roofing contractors alerted neighbouring residents that the ridge height was approximately one metre higher than approved in September 2018. Evidence obtained from the roofing contractor’s social media page show that contractors were working from materially different plans to what had been approved.

12.26 The records released from the LPA’s Building Control Department also provide additional evidence to show that the appellant repeatedly made material changes to the approved scheme during the construction of the dwelling. There are multiple examples of requests from Building Control Officers for new structural calculations as a result of design changes.

12.27 It is understood that at no point during the construction phase did the appellant contact the LPA to discuss changes from the approved scheme. The appellant has stated that he had full approval from Building Control at the LPA for the changes, however this only relates to the requirements under Building Regulations. It is very clear on the Building Control approval notice that “it is not an approval under the Town and Country Planning Acts”.

12.28 It is also relevant to consider that the previously withdrawn householder application (LPA Ref: 17/01502/FUL), the appellant’s agent was told that the height and proximity of the dwelling to 1 Linford Lane were issues during the application stage. Despite this, the appellant built the current dwelling in full knowledge that the height and positioning were unacceptable on a previous application.

12.29 In view of the fact that the appellant has intentionally deviated from the approved scheme and continued to deviate even after being served with the enforcement notice, it is contended that significant material weight should be afforded to this national planning policy.



13. Ground (f) Appeal

13.1 The ground (f) appeal contends that “harm was only identified in respect of the height and pitch of the roof and not the single-storey rear element that is required to be demolished”.

13.2 Firstly, the enforcement notice requirements do not seek the demolition of the single-storey rear element. Whilst is it accepted there is some ambiguity in the wording of the notice with regards to this element of the dwelling, the intention is that it is constructed in accordance with the approved plans in respect of the depth and height.

13.3 Secondly, it is disputed that the enforcement notice fails to identify the planning harm of the single-storey rear element. The notice states that the “unauthorised development demonstrates poor quality of design that fails to meet the national planning standards contained within Plan MK 2016-2031”. Therefore, the notice clearly identifies that the LPA believes the dwelling in its entirety represents a poor quality of design that does not accord to the development plan.

13.4 The proposal under ground (f) is that the “reduction of the pitch and height of roof to that approved under planning permission 17/02142/FUL would remedy the harm alleged in the enforcement notice”. It would appear that this proposal is either identical, or highly similar, to the planning appeal which seeks to retain the dwelling as built with proposed modifications to the main roof.

13.5 The single-storey rear element has an overbearing impact on the occupiers of 1 and 2 Linford Lane due to the increased height and depth, the blockish design, and its proximity to the boundary. It is therefore requested that the appeal under ground (f) is refused.

14. Ground (g) appeal

14.1 The appellant has sought a period of compliance of 12 months under ground (g) on the basis that “it could take up to six months to appoint a builder and for them to start on site”.

14.2 Throughout the design and construction process, the appellant has employed the services of architects and structural engineers. He would have been fully aware of the risks associated with constructing a dwelling not in accordance with the



approved scheme. The appellant would also have been made aware by the LPA’s Enforcement Officers during their investigations that further building works would be carried at the appellant’s own risk.

14.3 In the last year, the appellant has had amble opportunity to obtain quotations and instruct contractors to undertake the necessary remedial work. There have been contractors constantly present at the dwelling and this is evidenced from both the records obtained by Building Control as well as the fact that the LPA have decided to take enforcement action for additional breaches of planning control.

14.4 When the LPA confirmed that it would seek compliance with the approved scheme for the main roof, the appellant’s agents gave assurances that a commencement date and work schedule for were in place. Despite these assurances, the appellant has failed to undertake any remedial work and, in fact, he has continued to further construct the dwelling not in accordance with the approved scheme.

14.5 At this stage in the appeal process, the appellant has produced no evidence to substantiate the claim that it could take up to six months to appoint a builder. On this basis and in view of the fact that six months is a reasonable time to undertake the specified requirements, it is requested that the appeal under ground (g) is refused.

15. Summary and Conclusions

15.1 It is submitted that the current dwelling represents inappropriate development, contrary to both the development plan and the NPPF. By virtue of its scale and design in relation to the surrounding development, the dwelling is incongruous and it fails to respect the character of Willen.

15.2 It is therefore contended that the development is contrary to policies with Plan:MK 2016 – 2031, Campbell Park Parish Council Neighbourhood Plan 2016 – 2026, the National Planning Policy Framework and the New Residential Development Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document.

15.3 Whilst the grant of extant permission has caused a significant amount of local controversy and it is argued that this does not represent a valid fall-back position, the extant permission should not be used to justify a more harmful development.

15.4 It is therefore respectfully requested that both appeals are refused.



16. Case Law List

16.1 There are a number of cases which will be referred to in the inquiry and full transcripts or journal summaries will be provided. These include:

Burge v Secretary of State for the Environment and Chelmsford Borough Council [1987] JPL 497

Sage v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and others and Others [2003] UKHL 22

Simpson v the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2011] EWHC 283

Commercial Land Limited v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea [2002] EWHC 1264 (Admin)

Green v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 3980 (Admin)

Silver v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWHC 2729 (Admin)



17. List of Documents and Other Information

17.1 The following documents and information will be presented to and referred to in the inquiry (WRG will work with the appellant and LPA to produce a core bundle):

The development plan (Plan:MK)

The neighbourhood plan (Campbell Park Parish Council Neighbourhood Plan)

New Residential Development Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document

The National Planning Policy Framework

The Milton Keynes Development Corporation’s ‘Building Plots for Sale’

Planning application for the ‘Bungalow extension and redevelopment including new upper floor’ (LPA Ref: 17/01502/FUL)

Planning application for the ‘Demolition of existing bungalow and construction of two storey dwelling’ (LPA Ref: 17/02142/FUL)

Application for the ‘Details submitted pursuant to discharge of condition 3 attached to planning permission 17/02142/FUL’ (LPA Ref: 18/00031/DISCON)

‘Retrospective application for the demolition of a bungalow and erection of a new dwelling with proposed alterations to existing roof form (reconsultation on Design and Access Statement, uploaded 10/06/2019)’ (LPA Ref: 19/00124/FUL)

Letter from the Government’s Chief Planning for England outlining a new national policy on intentional unauthorised development

Information obtained under two Freedom of Information requests from the LPA in relation to the extant permission and Building Control records

Minutes and agenda reports from the LPA’s Development Control Committee meetings in July and December 2019

Photographs of the appeal site

An audio recording of the Development Control Committee meeting in July 2019

Appellant’s Statement of Case

APPEAL AGAINST AN ENFORCEMENT NOTICE AT

42 PORTLAND DRIVE, WILLEN, MILTON KEYNES

APPELLANT – MANOJ STRIVASTAVA

PINS REF: APP/Y0435/C/19/3228594

LPA REFS: PE-OMS-019969 & ENF/18/00283/COMPCH

Prepared by:

G C Planning Partnership Ltd

Bedford I-Lab, Priory Business Park, Stannard Way,

Bedford MK44 3RZ

GC Planning Partnership Ltd Page 2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This statement of case expands upon the Grounds of Appeal

relating to an appeal against an Enforcement Notice issued by

Milton Keynes Council, which is now proceeding through the public

inquiry procedure.

1.2 This residential property, 42 Portland Drive, Willen, is located on

the south side of Portland Drive, which is a wide residential street

within a suburb of Milton Keynes.

1.3 Planning permission was granted for the replacement of a bungalow

with a two-storey dwelling house at this property on 13 November

2017 (Application No. 17/02142/FUL). Details of this application are

attached at Appendix GC1. The officer’s report and decision Notice

are attached at Appendix GC2. A replacement dwelling has been

constructed.

1.4 The Council have issued an Enforcement Notice (“The EN”) that

alleges that there appears to have been a breach of planning

control, within paragraph (a) of section 171A (1) of the Town and

Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by the Planning and

Compensation Act 1991) involving the erection of a dwelling house

not built in accordance with the approved plans contained within

17/02142.FUL. This appeal is against the decision of the Local

Planning Authority (“The LPA”) to issue the EN under Section 174

(2) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.

1.5 The Applicant was informed by officers of the LPA that he had not

built the dwelling house in accordance with the approved scheme.

An application was therefore submitted seeking retrospective

planning permission for what had been built on 18 January 2019

(Application No. 19/00124/FUL). The LPA raised concerns about

the roof in the form that it had been built and consequently the


retrospective application was amended to propose a different roof

design to that built. At that point therefore, the application no

longer sought retrospective planning permission.

1.6 During their consideration of that application the LPA issued the EN

on 25th April 2019 and subsequently refused the amended

application on 29th July 2019. An appeal has been lodged against

the refusal of that application for planning permission, which has

been conjoined with this appeal (Appeal Reference

APP/Y0435/W/19/3236883) and a separate statement of case has

been submitted on behalf of the Appellant for that appeal.

1.7 The EN is attached at Appendix GC3. There are three grounds of

appeal – (a), (f) and (g).

1.8 The decision to take enforcement action was made under delegated

powers, and the Officer’s Report dated 21st February 2019 confirms

that whilst there are several differences between the approved

scheme and that as built, most are identified as being acceptable at

paragraph 13.2 of the report. However, the report indicates that

the roof pitch and its height and the ground floor element “has been

deemed non-negotiable and that there is no further scope for

negotiation.” The report confirms at paragraph 13.3 that an

enforcement notice requiring a reduction in roof pitch and height

and reduction of the rear ground floor element would remedy the

harm that is being caused. However, it is understood that the

Council have resolved to undertake additional enforcement action

recently relating to matters that their Officers consider to be

acceptable.


2.0 THE ENFORCEMENT NOTICE:

2.1 As indicated in the introduction the EN alleges that there appears to

have been a breach of planning control involving the erection of a

dwelling house that has not been built in accordance with approved

plans for a dwelling house on this site. Planning permission was

granted for the demolition of an existing bungalow and the erection

of a two-storey dwelling house at the appeal site on 13 November

2017 (Ref. 17/02142/FUL). A two-storey dwelling house was

subsequently constructed.

2.2 The EN requires:

(a) Reduce the roof pitch and height of the main roof and the rear

ground floor element of the dwelling to the dimensions contained

within the approved plans submitted within planning application

17/02142/FUL.

2.2 The LPA require 6 months for compliance.


3.0 THE APPELLANT’S CASE

3.1 The grounds of appeal under section 174 (2) of the Act in relation

to this appeal are grounds (a), (f) and (g).

Ground (a) – that planning permission should be granted for

what is alleged in the notice

3.2 The starting point in considering this ground of appeal is that the

LPA granted planning permission for a large replacement dwelling in

this location having assessed that it was acceptable in planning

terms and that there were no planning reasons to refuse it.

3.3 Section 4 of the EN refers to “a multitude of breaches” whereby

details and dimensions of the dwelling were not in accordance with

the approved plans. It accepted that it has not been built in

accordance with the approved plans. However, this does not mean

that the dwelling as built results in planning harm, within the

context of the grant of planning permission for a large detached

dwelling house on the appeal site.

3.4 The LPA takes issue with two distinct elements that are the subject

of the EN. The first is the roof and the second is the ground floor

rear element, which it is alleged significantly exceed the dimensions

contained within the approved plans (Application No.

17/02142/FUL).

3.5 It is alleged by the LPA that the unauthorised development

demonstrates poor quality design that fails to meet national

planning policy standards contained within Plan MK 2016 -2031.

The LPA assert in the EN that the development with its current roof

relates poorly to its surroundings, offering an overbearing and

oversized presence in the street scene incongruous with its

surroundings. Therefore, the alleged harm is to the character and


appearance of the area from the ‘oversized’ roof and the single-

storey rear projection.

3.6 As planning permission has been granted for a dwelling of a similar

size and design it is necessary to ascertain the difference between

the size of the roof and rear projection of the approved scheme and

as built. There is a question relating to the accuracy of the scale bar

on the approved drawings. However, what is clear is that planning

permission was granted for a large detached dwelling house of a

similar scale and design to that the subject of the Enforcement

Notice. A topographical survey of the site and building as it

currently stands has been undertaken with the aim of seeking to

assist in identifying the differences between the approved scheme

and the development as built. This survey is attached as Appendix

GC4 to this statement.

3.7 The topographical survey at Appendix GC4 indicates that the top of

the eaves of the dwelling as built is about 5.5m high and the ridge

height is 9.12m. This compares with 5.7m high to the eaves and

8.8m to the ridge for the approved scheme (Ref: 17/02142/FUL).

The LPA allege that the land levels on the site have been raised, but

there is no evidence of this because land levels were not submitted

with the application and a condition was not imposed on the

application for planning permission requiring the submission of slab

levels. Therefore, based upon the available evidence, the dwelling

as built is about 20cm lower to the eaves and 30cm higher to the

ridge than the approved scheme. It is contended that these

differences are very modest and imperceptible compared to that

originally approved when viewed from the street and surrounding

properties.

3.8 Based upon the survey drawing, given the difference in height

between the ridge and eaves (3.57m) and distance to the ridge

(2.5m) of the crown roof, the roof pitch is calculated as being about

50 degrees. The approved dwelling (ref: 17/02142/FUL) had a roof


pitch of 28 degrees. There is therefore a difference of 22 degrees

between the roof pitch of the approved dwelling and that of the

dwelling as built. Whilst the difference is material, it is contended

that this is acceptable in the circumstances of this case. The

application (19/00124/FUL) that sought to address the Council’s

concerns, which is the subject of a separate conjoined appeal,

proposes an amended roof with a pitch of 33 degrees.

3.9 A typical roof pitch in the UK for a traditional house design is 40 to

50 degrees. Older houses that may have originally had a thatched

roof would have a steeper pitch so that water would run down the

thatch rather than through it. Many thatched roofs were replaced

by tile, but the original pitch remained. Dwellings designed later

also have a steeper pitch to reflect a traditional roof design rather

than the structural limits of the roof materials being used.

Therefore, many traditional style dwellings have a steeper pitch

than modern style dwellings. Dwellings with a crown roof with

accommodation in the roof space would typically have a roof pitch

of over 40 degrees.

3.10 Many of the dwellings in the vicinity have traditional detailing and

accommodation within the roof with front dormers. These dwellings

appear to have a roof pitch around 40 to 50 degrees. A steeper

roof pitch than that approved on the appeal site is typical of the

area. Therefore, it is contended that a 50-degree roof pitch on the

dwelling is acceptable in this location. The roof pitch of the

approved scheme was low compared to that of dwellings in the

immediate area.

3.11 Whilst the increase in roof pitch has increased the mass of the roof,

it is contended that this increase is acceptable. The roof pitch is not

overly steep in comparison to other dwellings in the vicinity. The

crown is larger than that of the approved scheme. However, it is

contended that the difference between the size of the roof crown

compared to that approved has not resulted in visual harm to its


surroundings. The dwelling does not have an overbearing and

oversized presence in the street scene that appears incongruous

with its surroundings, as alleged at Section 4 of the EN. This is

because there is space around the dwelling, wide grass verges to

highway, boundary landscaping and street trees. The appeal

dwelling is set back from the highway by about 10m. Given this

relatively large set back from the highway compared to some

dwellings in the vicinity, the increase in the roof mass compared to

the approved scheme has not resulted in the dwelling having an

overbearing impact upon the street scene or visual amenity of the

area and given the context of the site the dwelling does not appear

incongruous within its surroundings due to the steeper roof pitch

and larger crown.

3.12 It is the external wall and roof materials that have been used that,

if anything, sets the dwelling apart from others in the vicinity and

not those elements of the development that are subject to the EN.

These external materials were approved by the LPA for the

approved dwelling on this site (Application No. 18/00031/DISCON)

(See Appendices GC5, GC6 and GC7). It is noted that the approved

drawings removed the string course and included brick quoins. Grey

tile is approved for the roof. Whilst buff brick is used on the

dwelling the subject of the EN, and this colour brick can be found on

some dwellings on Portland Road, most dwellings in the immediate

area have a red brick finish, although buff brick is used on some

dwellings. Most dwellings in the vicinity have roofs that are clad

with a red/brown roof tile whereas the approved grey roof tile has

been used at the appeal site. The used of this roof tile was

approved under the application to discharge condition 3 of the

planning permission (Ref: 18/00031/DISCON).

3.13 The other requirement of the EN is that the rear single-storey

element to the dwelling should be reduced to the dimensions within

the approved plans submitted within planning application

17/02142/FUL.


3.14 The approved plans had a single storey element that would have

been 2m deep at its shallowest point 2.85m high to the top of the

flat roof. Based upon the topographical survey at Appendix GC4,

the single storey rear projecting element is 2.95m deep at the

shallowest point and 3m high. Therefore, the single-storey rear

projecting element is about 1m deeper and 15cm higher than

approved (Application No. 17/02142/FUL). It is the appellant’s case

that these differences in the size of the rear projecting element has

no material impact upon the character and appearance of the area.

It does not result in a dwelling that appears oversized in the street

scene or incongruous with its surroundings compared to the

approved scheme. The slightly larger rear projection does not have

a material impact upon the character and appearance of the area or

visual amenity from any public or private vantage points.

3.15 The LPA allege that the development is contrary to Policies D1, D2,

D3 and D5 of Plan MK 2016-2031, which was adopted in March

2019 and therefore some time after planning permission had been

granted for the dwelling on this site and just before EN was issued.

The approved dwelling on the site would have been considered

against policies of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2005.

3.16 However, this appeal under Ground A should be considered against

the policies of the recently adopted local plan. For the reasons set

out earlier, it is contended that the development does not conflict

with Policies D1, D2, D3 and D5.

Planning Policies

Plan MK (March 2019)

3.17 The EN refers to Policies D1, D2, D3 and D5.

3.18 Policy D1 – Designing a High Quality Space, indicates that

development proposals will be permitted if they meet nine identified

objectives/principles. These are:


(1) the development proposals as a whole respond appropriately to

the site and surrounding context;

(2) continuity of the street frontage and locating fronts of building

to face the street of public space;

(3) appropriate framing of space to define public and private areas,

with front gardens designed to be clearly private through

appropriate boundary treatments and use of hard surfaces that also

maintaining an active frontage and passive surveillance of the

street;

(4) the layout should maximise surveillance of the public realm,

prevention of crime and minimise the perception of crime;

(5) soft and hard landscaping that continues the verdant green

character of Milton Keynes, enhances the quality of the public

realm, is robust to the demands place on the public realm and is

appropriate to their context and can be maintained and managed

without significance while life costs. In particular, street trees and

planting are incorporated to soften the streescape and ensure the

public realm is not dominated by hardsurfaces and boundaries and

by parked cars;

(6) Landscape and boundary treatments integrate with and /or

enhance those of the surrounding area;

(7) ease of movement by creating places that are permeable an

well connected with a safe, attractive and convenient hierarchical

network of routes that balances the provision for walking, cycling

and public transport with that for private motor vehicles;

(8) legibility by providing recognisable streets, districts, nodes,

edges and landmarks to help people find their way around; and

(9) where applicable, variety of layouts, street types, building sizes

and forms, landscapes, uses and housing tenures across the

development.

3.19 Policy D2 – Creating a Positive Character permits development

proposals if they meet the following objectives/principles:


(1) the layout, massing/scale, boundary treatments an

landscaping of a development and appearance of the

buildings exhibit a positive character of sense of place for a

development;

(2) the character of the development is locally inspired where

appropriate (for example in or adjacent to conservation

areas, or in existing areas with a strong positive character);

(3) where there is no positive built form character on the site or

surrounding area, new development is designed to create its

own distinctive character or sense of place using existing site

features, the layout of the development and the appearance

of buildings;

(4) the design allows for visual interest through the careful use

of detailing, where this is appropriate to the character of the

area.

3.20 Policy D3 – Design of Buildings permits development proposals

that meet the following objectives and principles:

(1) the appearance of the building contributes to the

enhancement or creation of a positive character for the

development of a particular character area for larger

developments;

(2) Forward thinking and distinctive architecture is incorporated,

unless the existing context suggests an alternative approach

would be more appropriate;

(3) There development occurs on both sides of the street,

common character on terms of building appearance is

designed/created for both sides of street, with careful

transition between character areas along streets;

(4) Buildings are of appropriate scale in relation to other

buildings in the immediate vicinity in terms of their height

and massing. Buildings of a greater scale than the

surrounding context may be acceptable where it is

demonstrated that this is necessary to reflect the


development’s location and the siting, function and

importance of the building;

(5) The building’s dorm, massing, rhythm and façade elements

are carefully designed to create character and visual interest;

(6) Particular attention should be given to the design of buildings

along key streets in order to create a strong identifiable

character whilst ensuring careful transition in façade

treatment between character areas;

(7) Buildings are designed to an exemplary standard and employ

high quality and durable materials, and reflect the principles

set out Policy SC1;

(8) The proposed scale and design of extensions to existing

buildings relate well to the existing building plot, an do not

detract from the character of the existing building and the

surrounding area;

(9) Deals with tall buildings

3.21 Policy D5 – Amenity and Street Scene – confirms that all

proposals will be required to protect a good standard of amenity for

buildings and surrounding areas.

Ground F: Lesser Steps

3.22 The LPA require the following steps to be undertaken;

(a) Reduce the roof pitch and height of the main roof and the

rear ground floor element of the dwelling to the dimensions

contained within the approved plans submitted within

planning application 17/02142/FUL.

3.23 The LPA allege that the development would be harmful because the

roof relates poorly to its surroundings, offering an overbearing and

oversized presence in the street scene incongruous with its

surroundings. The harm arising from the slight increase in the size

of the rear projection is less clear. The alleged harm relates more to


the roof rather than the single-storey rear element to the building,

which is not visible within the street scene and does not have an

overbearing and oversized presence within the street scene.

3.24 The approved plans had a single storey element that would have

been 2m deep at its shallowest point and 2.85m high to the top of

the flat roof. Based upon the topographical survey at Appendix

GC4, the single storey rear projecting element is 2.95m deep at the

shallowest point and 3m high. Therefore, the single-storey rear

projecting element is about 1m deeper and 15cm higher than the

approved scheme (Application No. 17/02142/FUL). These

differences in the size of the rear projecting element has had no

material impact upon the character and appearance of the area. It

does not result in a dwelling that appears oversized in the street

scene or incongruous with its surroundings.

3.25 In addition, in considering application 17/02142/FUL the officer’s

report (Appendix GC2) the assessment of the impact of the

proposed dwelling upon the character of the area was based upon

the dwelling having a depth of 20m, which is the depth of the

dwelling as built. Moreover, the details approved under application

ref: 18/0031/DISCON) (Appendix GC6) show the removal of the

string course and the provision of brick quoins. It is noted that this

also shows the rear projection as built with slightly increased depth

and height.

3.26 The difference in the size of the rear projecting element to that

approved is very modest. The rear projecting element as built is

not visible from pubic vantage points and there is no material

impact compared to the size of the rear projecting element as built

from private vantage points. Therefore, the very modest difference

in size between the approved rear projection and that as built has

not resulted in the harm alleged by the LPA in the EN.


3.27 In reading the officer’s report (Appendix GC2) the LPA was not

concerned about the effect of the single storey element upon the

character and appearance of the area or the living conditions of

occupiers of neighbouring residential properties. Permitted

development rights to extend the dwelling to the rear were not

removed.

3.29 It is contended that if any planning harm to which a breach of

planning control gives rise to can be overcome by lesser measures

then it would be appropriate to require them and inappropriate to

require greater measures on the legal basis that enforcement action

should be remedial and not punitive.

3.28 In the circumstances, it is contended that the requirement to

reduce the size of the rear projection exceeds what is necessary to

address the alleged harm.

3.29 Therefore, in requiring a reduction in the size of a single-storey

element to the rear of the dwelling the EN exceeds what is

necessary to remedy any injury to amenity. The Court of Appeal

has found (Ahmed v Secretary of State for Communities and Local

Government [2014] EWCA Civ 566) that action that seeks to

remedy a breach of planning control rather than harm may be

punitive, and that consideration should be given to alternatives and

the ability to vary an enforcement notice to address any perceived

harm.

Ground G appeal: Time limits

3.30 The LPA require six months to comply. On the face of matters this

seems a reasonable period. However, the works may be

complicated, and it may take time to find and appoint a builder

willing to undertake the works.


3.31 Care will need to be taken in undertaking the works once a builder

has been found, appointed and becomes available to commence.

Therefore, a period of 12 months is required to comply with the EN.

APPENDICES

Appendix GC1 – Details of application – 17/02142/FUL

Appendix GC2 – Decision Notice and including officer’s report -

17/02142/FUL

Appendix GC3 – The Enforcement Notice

Appendix GC4 – Topographical Survey of the appeal site by

Kempston Surveys 7 November 2019. (1:200 @A2).

Appendix GC5 – Application for approval of external materials

Appendix GC6 – Details of external materials

Appendix GC7 – Approval of External Materials – Ref:

18/00031/DISCON

Planning Portal Reference : PP-06636770

Application for approval of details reserved by condition.Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

Publication of applications on planning authority websites.Please note that the information provided on this application form and in supporting documents may be published on the Authority’s website.If you require any further clarification, please contact the Authority’s planning department.

1. Applicant Name, Address and Contact Details

Title: Mr First Name: Manoj Surname: Srivastava

Company name:

Street address: 42, Portland Drive

Willen Telephone number:

Mobile number:

Town/City: MILTON KEYNES Fax number:

Country: Email address:

Postcode: MK15 9JP

Are you an agent acting on behalf of the applicant? Yes No

2. Agent Name, Address and Contact Details

Title: Mr First Name: Isaak Surname: Jackson

Company name: Method Studio London Ltd

Street address: Armours Farm

Telephone number: 02034098865

Good Easter Mobile number:

Town/City: CHELMSFORD Fax number:

Country: Email address:

Postcode: CM1 4RG [email protected]


3. Site Address Details

Full postal address of the site (including full postcode where available) Description:

House: 42 Suffix:

House name:

Street address: Portland Drive

Willen

Town/City: MILTON KEYNES

Postcode: MK15 9JP

Description of location or a grid reference(must be completed if postcode is not known):

Easting: 487617

Northing: 241346

4. Pre-application Advice

Has assistance or prior advice been sought from the local authority about this application? Yes No

5. Description of the Proposal

Please provide a description of the approved development as shown on the decision letter:

Demolition of existing bungalow and construction of two storey dwelling.

Application reference number: 17/02142/FUL Date of decision: 13/11/2017

Please state the condition number(s) to which this application relates:Condition number(s):

3.

Has the development already started? Yes No

6. Discharge of Condition(s)

Please provide a full description and/or list of the materials/details that are being submitted for approval:

Brick with offset Brick Quoin detail to replace original Stone Quoin detail.Brick Detail: DE1107 Buff Facings, as per attached drawings.Grey tiles to match existing. Marley Eternit Modern - Smooth GreyRef MA10428S

7. Part Discharge of Condition(s)

Are you seeking to discharge only part of a condition? Yes No

8. Site Visit

Can the site be seen from a public road, public footpath, bridleway or other public land? Yes No

If the planning authority needs to make an appointment to carry out a site visit, whom should they contact? (Please select only one)


8. Site Visit

The agent The applicant Other person

9. Declaration

I/we hereby apply for planning permission/consent as described in this form and the accompanying plans/drawings and additional information. I/we confirm that, to the best of my/our knowledge, any facts stated aretrue and accurate and any opinions given are the genuine opinions of the person(s) giving them.

Date

04/01/2018

1:50

PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION

2550

4838

5475

8670

ROOFLIGHT ROOFLIGHT

GREY TILES TO MATCH EXISTING PROPERTY

Ref MA10428S

Marley Eternit Modern - Smooth Grey

BRICK WITH OFFSET BRICK QUOIN DETAIL

Ref DE1107 Buff Stock

H Butterfield Ltd

White stone effect fibre glass columns

White fascia board with Glass

balustrade above

White UPVC window frames

Grey framed rooflights to match roof tile

REV DESCRIPTION DATE

DRAWING NO

ADDRESS

REVSCALE @ A1 FIRST ISSUED

DRAWING NAME

42 Portland Drive, Willen, Milton Keynes, MK15 9JP

NOTE:

Method Studio London Ltd retain copyright of this design, scheme and ownership of all drawings.

Reproduction is permitted only with written authority.

These drawings are subject to Planning and Building Regulations Approval and all other permissions required

by the Local Authority prior to commencing building work. Works started without these consents are at your

own risk.

All drawings should be read in conjunction with any third party consultants drawings and specification.

Do not scale from this drawing. All dimensions, levels and existing structure must be verified on site prior to

commencement. Any omissions or inaccuracies are to be reported and clarified with Method Studio and the

client immediately for rectification. These drawings are intended as graphic information only. Due to the age of

the premises, non-exposure of the structure, occupancy, building methods & materials used, some

assumptions have been made necessary

Before building work commences it is the responsibility of the builder or owner to serve the relevant Party Wall

Notices to all neighbors affected.

0071BR

PROP. FRONT ELEVATION

210

1:50 05/17

D

A Updated following planning approval 01.12.17

B Annotation added 06.12.17

C Material samples added 04.01.18

D Notes added for materials 11/01/18

0 21:50 1 m0.5 3 4 5

1:50

PROPOSED LEFT ELEVATION

79

10

O

B

S

C

U

R

E

D

F

I

X

E

D

T

O

1

.

7

m

ROOF-

LIGHT

ROOFLIGHTROOFLIGHT

O

B

S

C

U

R

E

D

F

I

X

E

D

T

O

1

.

7

m

O

B

S

C

U

R

E

D

F

I

X

E

D

T

O

1

.

7

m

3

0

°

2

5

°

O

B

S

C

U

R

E

D

F

I

X

E

D

T

O

1

.

7

m

O

B

S

C

U

R

E

D

F

I

X

E

D

T

O

1

.

7

m


Ref MA10428S




H Butterfield Ltd





balustrade above


DRAWING NO

ADDRESS


DRAWING NAME


NOTE:





own risk.









0071BR

PROP. LEFT ELEVATION

211

1:50 05/17

C



C Notes added for materials 11/01/18

0 21:50 1 m0.5 3 4 5

1:50

PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION

O

B

S

C

U

R

E

D

F

I

X

E

D

T

O

1

.

7

m

ROOFLIGHT

O

B

S

C

U

R

E

D

F

I

X

E

D

T

O

1

.

7

m

O

B

S

C

U

R

E

D

F

I

X

E

D

T

O

1

.

7

m

O

B

S

C

U

R

E

D

F

I

X

E

D

T

O

1

.

7

m

O

B

S

C

U

R

E

D

F

I

X

E

D

T

O

1

.

7

m

O

B

S

C

U

R

E

D

F

I

X

E

D

T

O

1

.

7

m


Ref MA10428S




H Butterfield Ltd




DRAWING NO

ADDRESS


DRAWING NAME


NOTE:





own risk.









0071BR

PROP. REAR ELEVATION

212

1:50 05/17

C




0 21:50 1 m0.5 3 4 5

1:50

PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATION

O

B

S

C

U

R

E

D

F

I

X

E

D

T

O

1

.

7

m

O

B

S

C

U

R

E

D

F

I

X

E

D

T

O

1

.

7

m


Ref MA10428S




H Butterfield Ltd




balustrade above


DRAWING NO

ADDRESS


DRAWING NAME


NOTE:





own risk.









0071BR

PROP. RIGHT ELEVATION

213

1:50 05/17

C

B Updated following planning approval 01.12.17



0 21:50 1 m0.5 3 4 5

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (AS AMENDED) TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2015

Development Management,Civic Offices, 1 Saxon Gate East, Central Milton Keynes MK9 3EJ

Planning Enquiries Direct Line (01908) 252358 MK Council Tel: (01908) 691691

www.milton-keynes.gov.uk

CONDITION DETAILS - APPROVED

Application no: 18/00031/DISCONTo: Method Studio London Ltd

Mr Isaak JacksonArmours Farm Good EasterCHELMSFORDCM1 4RG

Applicant: Mr Manoj Srivastava42 Portland DriveWillenMILTON KEYNESMK15 9JP

Milton Keynes Council, under their powers provided by the above legislation, approve the

Details submitted pursuant to discharge of condition 3 attached to planning permission 17/02142/FUL.

At: 42 Portland Drive Willen Milton Keynes MK15 9JP

in accordance with your application, valid on 5th January 2018.

Details Approved:

( 1) Condition 3 (materials)

Drawing No. 0071BR 210 REV D received on 11th January 2018.Drawing No. 0071BR 211 REV C received on 11th January 2018.Drawing No. 0071BR 212 REV C received on 11th January 2018.Drawing No. 0071BR 213 REV C received on 11th January 2018.

Building Regulations Please note that this is a planning permission only and you may also require approval under the Building Regulations. If you are in any doubt about this you can get further

http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/





information via http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/building_control or the Building Control Helpline Tel. (01908) 252721.

Your attention is drawn to the attached notes

26th January 2018 Head of Development ManagementFor and on behalf of the Council


http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/building_control





Appeals to the Secretary of StateIf you are aggrieved by the decision of your local planning authority to refuse permission for the proposed development or to grant it subject to conditions, them you can appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

If you want to appeal, then you must do so within six months of the date of this notice. The Secretary of State can allow a longer period for giving notice of an appeal, but he will not normally be prepared to use this power unless there are special circumstances which excuse the delay in giving notice of appeal.

You can appeal using a form that you can get from The Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN. Customer Support Unit, Tel: 0117 372 6372. Appeal forms and guidance can also be downloaded from the Planning Inspectorate’s website www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk.

Alternatively, the Planning Inspectorate have introduced an online appeals service which you can use to make your appeal online. You can find the service through the Appeals area of the Planning Portal – www.planningportal.gov.uk/pcs. The Inspectorate will publish details of your appeal on the internet (on the Appeals area of the Planning Portal). This may include a copy of the original planning application form and relevant supporting documents supplied to the local planning authority by you or your agent, together with the completed appeal form and information you submit to the Planning Inspectorate. Please ensure that you only provide information, including personal information, that you are happy will be made available to others in this way. If you supply personal information belonging to a third party please ensure have their permission to do so. More detailed information about data protection and privacy matters is available on the Planning Portal.

The Secretary of State need not consider an appeal if it seems to him that the local planning authority could not have granted planning permission for the proposed development or could not have granted it without the conditions they imposed, having regard to the statutory requirements, to the provisions of any development order and to any directions given under a development order.

In practice, the Secretary of State does not refuse to consider appeals solely because the local planning authority based their decision on a direction given by him.

Purchase Notices If either the local planning authority or the Secretary of State for the Environment refuses permission to develop land or grants it subject to conditions, the owner may


http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/pcs





claim that they can neither put the land to a reasonably beneficial use in its existing state nor render the land capable of a reasonably beneficial use by carrying out of any development which has been or would be permitted.

In these circumstances, the owner may serve a purchase notice on the Council (District Council, London Borough Council, or Common Council of the City of London) in whose area the land is situated. This notice will require the Council to purchase their interest in the land in accordance with the provision of Part VI of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Compensation In certain circumstances compensation may be claimed from the local planning authority if permission is refused or granted subject to conditions by the Secretary of State appeal or reference of the application to him.

These circumstances are set out in section 114 and related provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

The Party Wall etc. Act 1996 Anyone intending to carry out work described in the Act MUST give adjoining owners at least 2 months notice in writing of their intentions. The Act covers:- (i) work to be carried out directly to an existing party wall or structure (ii) new building at or astride the boundary line between properties (iii) excavation within 3 or 6 metres of a neighbouring building or structure, depending on the depth of the hole or foundations If you are not sure whether the Act applies to work that you are planning, you should seek professional advice. A free explanatory booklet is available from ODPM Free Literature, PO Box 236, Wetherby, West Yorkshire, LS23 7BN. Tel 0870 1226236 e-mail [email protected]


TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (AS AMENDED)TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2015




FULL PLANNING PERMISSION REFUSED

Application no: 19/00124/FULTo: Method Studio Ltd

Mr Isaak JacksonUnit 6 Marks Hall Marks Hall LaneCM6 1QT

Applicant: Mr Manoj Srivastava42 Portland DriveWillenMilton KeynesMK15 9JP

Milton Keynes Council, under their powers provided by the above legislation, Refuse Permission for

Retrospective application for the demolition of a bungalow and erection of a new dwelling with proposed alterations to existing roof form (reconsultation on Design and Access Statement, uploaded 10/06/2019)At: 42 Portland Drive Willen Milton Keynes MK15 9JP

in accordance with your application, valid on 4th March 2019 and the following drawings:

Received on 20.03.2019

0071PL001/L (Location Plan)


0071PL110/E0071PL111/F0071PL112/G0071PL113/G


0071PL210/I0071PL211/H0071PL212/H0071PL213/I






The reason(s) for refusing your application are:

( 1) The development, by reason of its excessive bulk and scale, would result in an unacceptably harmful impact on the character and appearance of the neighbouring street scene, contrary to policies D1, D2 and D3 of the adopted Plan: MK (2019).

Working With the Applicant

In accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework Milton Keynes Council takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. Milton Keynes Council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by: offering a pre-application advice service; as appropriate updating applicants/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application; where possible suggesting solutions to secure a successful outcome; informing applicants/agents of any likely recommendation of refusal prior to a decision; and by adhering to the requirements of the Milton Keynes Council Corporate Plan and the Planning and Transport Service Plan.

Your attention is drawn to the attached notes

29th July 2019 Jon Palmer MRTPI – Head of PlanningFor and on behalf of the Council






Appeals to the Secretary of StateIf you are aggrieved by the decision of your local planning authority to refuse permission for the proposed development or to grant it subject to conditions, them you can appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

If you want to appeal, then you must do so within six months of the date of this notice. The Secretary of State can allow a longer period for giving notice of an appeal, but he will not normally be prepared to use this power unless there are special circumstances which excuse the delay in giving notice of appeal.

You can appeal using a form that you can get from The Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN. Customer Support Unit, Tel: 0117 372 6372. Appeal forms and guidance can also be downloaded from the Planning Inspectorate’s website www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk.

Alternatively, the Planning Inspectorate have introduced an online appeals service which you can use to make your appeal online. You can find the service through the Appeals area of the Planning Portal – https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200207/appeals. The Inspectorate will publish details of your appeal on the internet (on the Appeals area of the Planning Portal). This may include a copy of the original planning application form and relevant supporting documents supplied to the local planning authority by you or your agent, together with the completed appeal form and information you submit to the Planning Inspectorate. Please ensure that you only provide information, including personal information, that you are happy will be made available to others in this way. If you supply personal information belonging to a third party please ensure have their permission to do so. More detailed information about data protection and privacy matters is available on the Planning Portal.

The Secretary of State need not consider an appeal if it seems to him that the local planning authority could not have granted planning permission for the proposed development or could not have granted it without the conditions they imposed, having regard to the statutory requirements, to the provisions of any development order and to any directions given under a development order.

In practice, the Secretary of State does not refuse to consider appeals solely because the local planning authority based their decision on a direction given by him.

Purchase Notices If either the local planning authority or the Secretary of State for the Environment


http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/

https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200207/appeals





refuses permission to develop land or grants it subject to conditions, the owner may claim that they can neither put the land to a reasonably beneficial use in its existing state nor render the land capable of a reasonably beneficial use by carrying out of any development which has been or would be permitted.

In these circumstances, the owner may serve a purchase notice on the Council (District Council, London Borough Council, or Common Council of the City of London) in whose area the land is situated. This notice will require the Council to purchase their interest in the land in accordance with the provision of Part VI of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Compensation In certain circumstances compensation may be claimed from the local planning authority if permission is refused or granted subject to conditions by the Secretary of State appeal or reference of the application to him.

These circumstances are set out in section 114 and related provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).


Written Representations Statement: APP/Y0435/C/19/3228594 APP/Y0435/W/19/3236883

Milton Keynes Council

1

Statement of Case – Milton Keynes Council

Planning Inspectorate Appeal Reference: APP/Y0435/C/19/3228594 APP/Y0435/W/19/3236883 Milton Keynes Council Application Reference: 18/00283/COMPCH 19/00124/FUL Proposal: ‘Retrospective application for the demolition of a bungalow and erection of a new dwelling

with proposed alterations to existing roof form’



2

Contents

This statement is set out in the following order:

1. Introduction

2. The Original Decision

3. National Planning Policy and The Development Plan

4. Planning Analysis and Conclusions

Appendix

A. Decision Notice dated 29th July 2019 (19/00124/FUL)

B. Enforcement Notice dated 27th May 2019

C. Enforcement Notice dated 20th December 2019

1 Introduction

1.1 The Council understands that, as per the letter received on the 21st November 2019,

the Planning Inspectorate has confirmed that an inquiry regarding the proposed



3

development will be commenced on Wednesday 11th March 2020. This will comprise

both the refused planning application and enforcement notice.

1.2 In light of this, the following statement of case shall outline the reasons why the

application was originally refused and the reasons for the issuing of the enforcement

notice.

2 The Council’s Original Decision

Enforcement Notice reference 18/00283/COMPCH and PINS reference

APP/Y0435/C/19/3228594

2.1 A planning enforcement notice was issued on the 25th April 2019 and the property

owner subsequently appealed against the issue of the notice on grounds A, F, G. The

council considered formal enforcement action necessary on the following grounds:

2.2 The building has not been built in accordance with the approved plans, and following

our confirmation of the divergence from the approved plans an assessment of each

individual breach of control was made.

2.3 Further to assessing the identified breaches of control Officers concluded that the roof

height and dimension and the ground floor rear extension would need to be addressed

through formal enforcement action.

2.4 On assessing the various breaches of control at the site, consideration was given to

what had been approved and what could have been added to that which was

approved under permitted development rights if it had been built in accordance with

the plans. On this basis Officers considered that the roof height and dimensions and

the scale of the rear extension were unacceptable departures from what had been

approved. could not have been secured under PD rights and that: (1) planning



4

permission would not be granted and (2) it was expedient to enforce given the

unacceptable planning impacts which are caused

2.5 After consideration Officers considered that the roof dimensions and rear extension,

because of their cumulative bulk would not be acceptable for a planning application.

This was conveyed to the property owner and the indications were that the property

owner would not carry out all works in their entirety to the Council’s satisfaction

without formal enforcement action.

2.6 On this basis the decision was made to pursue formal enforcement action regarding

the roof and rear ground floor element of the building.

2.7 The applicant was given six months to complete the works required by the

enforcement notice. It was considered that 6 months was a reasonable period of time

to complete the works.

Planning Application Ref. 19/00124/FUL and PINS Ref. APP/Y0435/W/19/3236883

2.8 Application 19/00124/FUL was refused by the Council on 4th July 2019. Planning

permission had previously been granted for ‘Demolition of existing bungalow and

construction of two storey dwelling’ at the application site under planning reference

17/02142/FUL on 13th November 2017.

2.9 The application was refused by the Council on the following grounds:

1. The development, by reason of its excessive bulk and scale, would result in an

unacceptably harmful impact on the character and appearance of the

neighbouring street scene, contrary to policies D1, D2 and D3 of the adopted Plan:

MK.

3 National Planning Policy and The Development Plan



5

National Planning Policy Framework (Published February, 2019)

3.1 Paragraph 2 of the NPPF states that planning law requires that applications for

planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless

material considerations indicate otherwise.

Plan: MK

3.2 The planning application was submitted in January 2019. However Plan:MK was

adopted in March of 2019, which superseded previous policy documents.

3.3 The policies within Plan:MK that are pertinent to this application and which will be

referred to by the Council are as follows;

Policy CT10 - Parking Provision

Policy FR1 - Managing Flood Risk

Policy FR2 - Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) and Integrated Flood Risk

Assessment

Policy D1 - Designing a High Quality Place

Policy D2 - Creating a Positive Character

Policy D3 - Design of Buildings

Policy D5 - Amenity and Street Scene

NPPF 2019 – Para 124 Achieving well designed places

3.4 Plan:MK, policy HN9 ‘Loss And Conversion Of Existing Residential Properties’ states

that there will be a presumption against proposals that would result in the loss of a

bungalow or single storey dwelling via demolition or its conversion to two or more

storeys. Planning permission had already been granted under planning reference

17/02142/FUL to replace the previous bungalow on site with a two storey house,

which at that time was compliant with the adopted policy and so this is not considered

to be a relevant policy.

3.5 The Council may rely other documentation including, but not limited to legal

judgments and appeal decision. The Council reserves the right to refer to further

documentation as part of preparing Proofs of Evidence.



6

4 Planning Analysis and Conclusions

4.1 The Council’s position is that a two storey house here of the scale approved is at the

upper limit of what is acceptable in this location, but that the building with its

increased height and pitch of roof and large rear extension is excessive in scale and

causes unacceptable planning impacts.

4.2 It is out of scale with nearby properties and whilst a larger building than the former

bungalow on this site is considered acceptable, the building as built is simply too large,

and intrusive by reasons of the breaches of the approved plans. It is therefore contrary

to policies D1, D2 and D3 of Plan: MK.

4.3 It is considered that the result of the increased scale of the property as built creates an

unacceptable impact on the street scene as a whole, creating an overly dominant

structure by virtue of the increased mass, bulk and scale. Furthermore a result of the

increased scale is considered to adversely impact on the amenity of the neighbouring

properties. It is therefore contrary to policies D1, D2 and D3 of Plan: MK

4.4 It is considered that the enforcement notice issued on the 25th April 2019 addresses

the planning harm caused by the unauthorised roof alterations and rear extension

contrary to Policies D1, D2, D3, D5 of Plan MK and National Planning Policy Framework

2019 Para 124.

4.5 The Council will show that the steps required in the enforcement notice are

appropriate to remedy the harm. The Council will demonstrate that the harm caused

by the excessive scale makes it expedient in the public interest to enforce.

4.6 The time allowed in the enforcement notice is ample.

4.7 The Council respectfully requests that the Inspector upholds the Council’s decision and

dismiss the appeal against the enforcement notice and the s.78 appeal.