Landscaping details approval at Evans Halshaw Motors Ltd, Crownhill, Milton Keynes

What was proposed

The application sought approval of hard and soft landscaping details required by a planning condition for the approved development.

“The application seeks the approval of details required by Condition 7 (hard and soft landscaping) of permission ref. PLN/2025/1862.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a vacant car dealership near homes in Great Holm and Crownhill, beside businesses and with access from Watling Street.

“The application site contains a vacant car showroom/ dealership with an existing main access from Watling Street alongside a secondary access point to the north of the built form also from Watling Street. The application site is also located approximately 60 metres from residential development located on the opposite side of the highway within Great Holm and 220 m from the nearest properties within Crownhill.”

“The site is allocated as employment land within the policy maps of Plan:MK.”

Officer report

Planning history and works

The development was approved and later varied, works had started, and an enforcement case was opened because landscaping details had not been approved before works above slab level.

“The site already benefits from full planning permission (ref. 23/02799/OUT) and a subsequent variation of condition approval (ref. PLN/2025/1862) secured alterations to amend the external façade.”

“Works on the site have started, with the variation of condition approval being implemented. As works have begun, including the structure of the building along with the appearance of the external facade, without the approval of details related to condition 7 of planning permission PLN/2025/1862 prior to works above slab level. An enforcement case has been opened. This application has been submitted in response.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the submitted landscaping details were unacceptable and did not meet the condition’s requirements.

“The details submitted to discharge Condition 7 are considered unacceptable and do not meet the requirements set out in the relevant condition. MKCC Landscape Architect raise an objection to the discharge of condition. It is therefore recommended that the details be refused.”

Officer report

Why officers objected

The proposed frontage planting would not provide effective screening, while the scheme lacked stronger structural planting, suitable mixes and detailed hard-landscape specifications.

“The proposed landscaping along the Watling Street frontage is not considered appropriate to effectively soften the visual impact of the building or provide an appropriate degree of screening. The landscaping scheme should reflect the established character of the area and provide a more robust and layered planting scheme. This should include denser vegetation along the Watling Street boundary to strengthen screening and enhance visual amenity.”

“The MKCC Landscape Architect objects to the submitted details. In summary of the concerns raised in paragraph 4.6 of this report, the submitted hard and soft landscape scheme is insufficient to effectively screen the development from Watling Street and lacks key structural planting features previously illustrated on the full planning permission, including a greater amount of planting and inclusion of species such as Hornbeam hedge.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Both parish councils and the Landscape Architect objected, while Highways raised no objection and Ecology said the scheme could provide biodiversity net gains.

“Objection, commenting that the submitted landscape scheme remains unacceptable in its current form, including concerns with the effectiveness of screening to the Watling Street frontage and the omission of landscape structural planting features and long-term establishment success. Insufficient details have been provided for the hard landscaping details. The Landscape Architect raises a number of concerns with the submitted details as follows:”

Officer report

Who spoke

A councillor spoke for Great Holm residents, a parish council representative spoke for Loughton and Great Holm, and a resident supported refusal.

The vote

The committee voted unanimously to refuse the officer recommendation.

“The Chair, seconded by Councillor Khan proposed the recommendation for debate that: That permission/consent is refused for the reasons set out in section 10.0 of the main report. Members thanked the public speakers and acknowledged the concerns raised. It was observed by a Committee Member that the building had a significant visual impact and commented that the proposal did not appear to provide sufficient mitigation.”

“In reference to comments made by speakers, a Member agreed that the longer period for tree retention was more appropriate. Members expressed hope that further discussions between the applicant and Council officers could result in a more suitable solution but confirmed that he supported the officer recommendation for refusal.”

Minutes

The decision and reasons

Permission was refused because the landscaping lacked sufficient structural planting, appropriate tree planting, suitable seed mixtures and adequate hard-landscape details.

“The proposed planting fails to provide sufficient structural landscaping to soften the appearance of the development, particularly along the Watling Street frontage. The scheme also fails to demonstrate an appropriate level of tree planting, suitable grass and wildflower mixtures and adequate hard landscaping details necessary to assess the long- term establishment, management and effectiveness of the landscape proposals.”

Officer report