One-all draw leaves reluctant chairman with casting vote on Milton Keynes' Station House windows plan

Permitted Developments Investments No 13 Limited had successfully claimed permitted development rights to turn offices above the iconic Central Milton Keynes railway station into 200 flats.

But the glass-fronted five-storey building is so iconic as a landmark in Milton Keynes that having windows that open and close could fundamentally change its character, say council design gurus.

And that was certainly the view of Cllr Andrew Thomas, of Central MK Town Council who called the building an asset.

The planning permission the developer won at appeal meant that a “mechanical ventilation system” would be installed so the new residents would not need to have windows that open. It was also to protect them against noise from the railway station.

But now the developers want to give flat dwellers the choice of having either fresh air or mechanical air.

Two previous plans had been rejected behind the scenes.

But a third application appeared in the public realm on Thursday after the developers dropped their ambition to put windows on the rear facing elevation.

Council planners believed as a compromise it was good enough for them to be able to propose permission.

That decision created a real “pane” for councillors at the development control panel.

Developer’s agent Danielle St Pierre said the building was not listed, or in a conservation area. The windows would give residents fresh air if they wanted it.

And if the train noise was a problem, she proposed a devilishly simple answer – they could close the windows.

Ms St Pierre also said allowing rooms to be freshly ventilated would be good in this coronavirus dominated world.

The committee was told that the issue had been considered very carefully by conservation officers who felt that if the council refused the application, they would lose if the developers appealed to the Government.

Cllr Keith McLean (Cons, Olney) wondered if air conditioning could be considered sustainable.

Chairman Cllr Anthony Brown (Lab, Tattenhoe) was torn over the issue but concluded that “on balance this is acceptable because they already have permission for 200 flats.

“We are in a corner.”

The vote turned out to be unique in Cllr McLean’s 10 years of experience on the development control committee.

Three of the five councillors decided to abstain from voting, leaving Cllr McLean objecting, and Cllr Brown voting in favour.

At one-all, Cllr Brown had a chairman’s casting vote. He hesitated, asking what would happen if he did not vote.

Cllr McLean reminded his committee colleague that the council’s convention was to vote for the officers’ recommendation to give the green light.

Cllr Brown said he would follow convention and settled the issue with his tie-breaking vote in favour.