Author of a Milton Keynes town's development plan loses planning row

A Newport Pagnell town councillor who helped to draft a key development policy document found himself on the losing side of a planning argument.

The issue was whether a local resident could knock down a garage and build a two-storey detached house on a site in Shipley Road.

Shipley Road, Newport Pagnell

Shipley Road, Newport Pagnell

Speaking at Thursday’s meeting of the Milton Keynes Development Control Panel, Newport Pagnell Town Councillor, Phil Winsor, argued that building a three-bedroom house would ‘shoehorn’ something onto the site.

“I am totally against the ethos of this development in Newport Pagnell,” said Cllr Winsor, who was instrumental in the forming of the Newport Pagnell Neighbourhood Plan.

He put the new house in the context of 930 homes on the way at Tickford Fields, and the nearby Milton Keynes East expansion, which could add another 5,000. “It is not necessary in the locality or on the plot,” said Cllr Winsor.

Using her right of reply, the applicant, Ms J Parkes, said she had worked with MK Council to come up with an acceptable scheme after an earlier application had been rejected.

“Our neighbours have no issues with it,” she said. “There are many examples of two storey houses in the area and we have addressed the original issues.”

Planning officer Chris Walton said infill sites are permitted by the Newport Pagnell Neighbourhood Plan and he recommended that the four-man panel approve the application.

Cllr Paul Williams said: “I do not see anything detrimental and the applicant has worked hard to amend the application.”

But Cllr Andrew Geary said he found it a “difficult one” because one of the authors of the neighbourhood plan was at the committee, referring to policies in the document as a reason to object to an application.

However, Paul Keen, the MK Council’s deputy development management manager, said there was no conflict with the neighbourhood plan, which actually permits “small, well designed residential developments on brownfield sites.”

And the committee sided with the applicant by three votes to one in approving the planning application.