House extensions and garage conversion at 8 Cloudberry, Walnut Tree, Milton Keynes

What was proposed

The application sought rear, side and front extensions, a garage conversion, two extra bedrooms, more living space and additional windows.

“Proposal: Proposed single storey and two storey rear extensions, single storey side and front porch infill extensions, conversion of double garage to bedroom and utility and additional windows to front and side elevations at 8 Cloudberry, Walnut Tree, Milton Keynes, MK7 7DL”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a large detached five-bedroom home with an enclosed rear garden, an integral garage, three parking spaces and neighbouring homes on three sides.

“The site comprises a large detached 5-bedroom L-shaped dwelling. The rear garden is enclosed and there is an integral garage to the front. Parking for up to three cars is provided to the front of the garage and dwelling.”

“The site is bordered by neighbouring dwellings to three sides and public open space to the southwest. The application dwelling is a two storey L-shaped property constructed of brick, with a tiled gable roof to each side and timber clad gables above two of the first-floor windows to the principal elevation. There is also a timber balcony to this elevation.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An earlier application for part conversion of the double garage and a garage was approved in April 1993.

“MK/243/93 Part conversion of existing double garage to living accommodation and erection of garage Approved April 1993”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal would fit the dwelling and surroundings, protect neighbouring amenity, retain sufficient garden space and provide adequate parking.

“The remaining garden space would be approximately 8 metres deep by 18 metres wide with additional space to the side of the dwelling. Being a wide plot, the amount of private amenity space would be adequate for a family dwelling and in accordance with the recommendations within the New Residential Design Guide SPD.”

“This property is already a five-bed dwelling, and the proposal would add an additional two bedrooms. The maximum requirement in this location is two allocated parking spaces and 0.5 unallocated, as set out within the Parking Standards SPD. There are three spaces available within the site, therefore, the proposal would exceed parking requirements in this respect, but would also facilitate the increase in occupancy of the dwelling.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

The community council objected over character, overdevelopment, parking, bin storage and pressure on street infrastructure, while residents raised further design, traffic and amenity concerns.

“it is out of character with the surrounding area; ▪ it is an overdevelopment of the site; ▪ the parking provision is inadequate; ▪ there is inadequate provision of bin storage; and ▪ the size and intensity of the development exceeds what the street infrastructure can support.”

“Parking insufficient for a 7 bed property; ▪ Street parking obstructing the highway impacting highway safety; ▪ Excessive scale; ▪ Design does not respect the established pattern of development in Walnut Tree; ▪ Out of character due to the disproportionate scale of the enlarged property; ▪ Two storey element would be overbearing on adjacent properties due to scale and location; ▪ Loss of outlook for neighbouring properties; ▪ Loss of privacy and light; and ▪…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A councillor and a community council representative spoke against the application, citing overdevelopment, local network capacity, character, bin storage, parking, traffic and emergency access.

Members’ discussion

Officers explained the parking standard, bathroom provision, bin storage approach, householder application limits and the expected effect on neighbours’ privacy and boundaries.

“Lack of bin storage. • Parking pressures, an increase in traffic and negative impacts on emergency access. • Internal layout, including a lack of bathroom provision. • Concerns that the property could be used as an HMO or children’s home in future. Officers clarified that: • The application was strictly for householder development and not an HMO and speculation about future use was not a material planning consideration. • Adequate bathroom provision was shown on the plans.”

“Additionally, in response to a comment from members, officers reaffirmed that the future use of the property as a potential HMO could not be considered. The Chair, seconded by Councillor Ahmad proposed the recommendation for debate that: Permission be granted subject to the conditions set out the main report.”

Minutes