Meeting documents

2001/20/TC

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     22/03/01     Decide by Date:     03/05/01

Parish:     Chesham Bois     Ward:     Chesham Bois & Weedon

App Type:     Work to unpreserved trees in Conservation Area

Applicant:      H B MCKENNA

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Chesham Bois Conservation Area

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

00/0016/TC     Removal of a western red cedar and a cherry and crown reduction of two western red cedars. No TPO made.

THE APPLICATION

Removal of two western red cedars to ground level.

REPRESENTATIONS

Agent:     Reason for work is proximity to building is felt to be too close – no replanting proposed as adjacent purple plum should be sufficient – although if Council require, would replace with a rowan.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Property on slope dropping down to rear from Bois Lane - two western red cedars at rear – about 6m from house – reduced from about 20m to about 10m under 2000/0016/TC – now propose removal – trees visible from road but not considered important.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy CA5 

ISSUES

1.     The two western red cedars are in the rear garden close to the house and can be seen from the road.

2.     It is considered that the trees do not make a significant contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. A Tree Preservation Order would therefore not be appropriate.

3.     There are several trees in the vicinity of the two western red cedars so it is considered that it would not be appropriate to request replacement planting.

4.     The following recommendation is made having regard to the above and also to the content of the Human Rights Act 1998.

RECOMMENDATION: That a TPO shall not be made; no replacements requested

2001/21/TC

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     22/03/01     Decide by Date:     03/05/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Austenwood

App Type:     Work to unpreserved trees in Conservation Area

Applicant:      MR ROBERTSON

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Ch St P - North Park/Kingsway Conservation Area

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Unclassified road

Northolt Airfield safeguarding zone

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

00/0057/TC     Height reduction of a line of seven cypresses and pruning of an ash and a laurel. No TPO made.

THE APPLICATION

Ash (2) – reduce and reshape by 40%.

Yew (group) – reduce and reshape by 25%.

Yew – reduce and reshape by 50%.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

REPRESENTATIONS

Agent:     Reason for work is to manage the trees i.e. the view over the valley.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Group of ash trees on side boundary of rear garden – not important trees – quite heavy reduction proposed.

Group of yew trees near rear boundary – large old trees – proposed reduction reasonable.

Yew on front boundary beside drive – previous trimming, particularly near base and where affecting vehicles on drive – proposed reduction heavy but yew responds well to reduction and tree currently unbalanced – would allow development of more even crown.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy CA5 

ISSUES

1.     The groups of ash and yew trees are situated in the rear garden of the property with limited visibility from surrounding public viewpoints. The other yew is in a prominent position on the front boundary beside the access drive.

2.     It is considered that the ash trees do not make a significant contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. The yews at the rear are better trees but the proposed work is considered to be reasonable management. The yew at the front has developed a poor shape and the proposed work, although heavy, would improve the appearance of the tree in the longer term. A Tree Preservation Order would therefore not be appropriate.

3.     The following recommendation is made having regard to the above and also to the content of the Human Rights Act 1998.

RECOMMENDATION: That a TPO shall not be made; no replacements requested

2001/379/CH

Case Officer:      Neil Higson

Date Received:     08/03/01     Decide by Date:     02/05/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Giles-Little Chalfont     Ward:     Chalfont St Giles

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MISS J CLARKE

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

87/3566/CH     Demolition of existing property and erection of 2 detached houses. Permission Refused. Subsequent Appeal Dismissed.

00/1797/CH     Two-storey side extension on north west elevation and detached double garage. Withdrawn.

00/2087/CH     Two-storey extension on north west elevation and detached double garage. Permitted.

THE APPLICATION

It is proposed to demolish an existing single storey projection comprising pantry, store and garage to be replaced with a two-storey side and rear extension at the north eastern end of the dwelling. The application seeks amendments to the previously approved scheme. The proposed extension would be 12.4m in depth with a balcony projecting 1.2m from the garden elevation (south east) at first floor level. It would be 6.55m wide with a further two-storey projection approximately central to the north east elevation 1.3m deep and 4.7m wide. The extension would have a ridged roof at the height of the main ridge of the dwelling hipped to all elevations. The two storey extension has been amended to reduce the amount of projection by 1.6m to the rear of the property (south east) but would now project forward of the front elevation (north west) by this amount.    

The proposed detached double garage would still measure 7.3m by 7.3m with a ridge roof to a height of 5.1m. It is intended to be re-sited from its approved location to the north west 5m north east of the closest point of the dwelling as extended and 14m south west of the north east boundary. Additional landscape planting is proposed at various points along this north east boundary.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter from neighbouring resident objecting on grounds that;

a)     Alarmed to see that the size of the extension has increased by 1.6m making an even greater mass visible from our property;

b)     The relocated garage has now been relocated and will be directly in view from house and garden;

c)     Significant impact on outlook and views to trees will be interrupted by brickwork and roofing of extended property and garage depriving us of afternoon sun;

d)     There is no mention of screening the garage, which would help but not overcome the visual impact;

e)     As a retired couple we spend a large amount of time and derive a great deal of pleasure from our garden, these extensions would be more intrusive than the original application.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policies GC1, GC3, H4, H13, H14, H15, H16, H18, TR2, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1)     The application site is located within a residential area where there are no objections to the proposed development in principle, subject to compliance with the relevant local policies. The application seeks amendments to a previously improved scheme.

2)     The style and design of the proposed extension is largely similar to that previously approved and is still considered acceptable in terms of relating to the existing dwelling. It is maintained that there will be no adverse visual impact upon the dwellings to the north and east as the extension would be over 23m from this boundary at its closest point. This boundary is already quite well planted with hedgerows and mature trees which it is intended to add to a various points.

3)     The dwelling is surrounded by quite a large area of garden and it is considered that the proposal would not appear cramped or incongruous in the street scene. It is considered that the proposal therefore meets the requirements of GC1, GC3, H14, H15, H16 and H18.

4)     While the comments of the objector are noted it is contended that the extensions would respect the scale and proportions of the existing dwelling and neighbouring properties and would not be out of character with the surrounding area. The proposal would not appear obtrusive when viewed from the nearby properties or result in an unacceptable degree of overlooking to the neighbouring properties.

5)     The proposed detached garage while being closer to the northern boundary than previously approved it would be fairly well screened from this direction the other side of which is the access drive to other properties. It is therefore considered acceptable.  

6)     There is sufficient parking in accordance with the council’s standards. No objection under Policies TR11 and TR16.

7)     The following recommendation is made having regard to the above and also to the content of the Human Rights Act 1998.

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

(2) C432 Materials - As on Plan or Subsequently Specified

(3) C406 Landscaping Scheme to be Submitted

(4) C407 Landscaping Scheme to be Implemented

2001/382/CH

Case Officer:      James Chatfield

Date Received:     09/03/01     Decide by Date:     03/05/01

Parish:     Seer Green     Ward:     Seer Green & Jordans

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      BERKELEY HOMES (CHILTERN) LTD

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Adjoining Green Belt

Class C Road

Dwellings

Total New Dwellings - proposed:          2

Total Dwellings - displaced/demolished:     1

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

00/1205/CH     Redevelopment to provide two detached houses each with integral double garages served by new joint vehicular access. Approved but not implemented.

00/2052/CH     Redevelopment to provide two detached houses each with integral double garage served by new joint vehicular access (amendment to house designs previously approved by planning permission 00/1205/CH). Approved but not implemented.

THE APPLICATION

The scheme is an amendment to planning permission 00/2052/CH. The changes relate to the provision of an additional chimney on plot 1 and the inclusion of an inglenook fire place of plot 2 which involves the provision of an additional side extension of 1.2 x 2.8m.  

CONSULTATIONS

District Engineer (Highways): No objection subject to conditions.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997: Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, H4, H11, H12, TR2, TR11, and TR16.

ISSUES

1     The proposed amendments to the dwellings are small, involving the provision of a chimney and an enlarged single storey side section. These amendments would not have any further effect on neighbouring residents or the street scene.

2     The following recommendation is made having regard to the above and also to the content of the Human Rights Act 1998.

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

(2) C433 Materials - General Details

(3) Construction of the dwellings hereby permitted shall not be commenced until after drawings including a cross-section through the site showing the finished floor levels of the building in relation to the existing ground levels have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These plans shall show the Ordnance datum levels of the site as existing and as approved.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out at suitable levels in order to prevent the dwellings appearing overbearing to adjacent dwellings.

(4) C406 Landscaping Scheme to be Submitted

(5) C407 Landscaping Scheme to be Implemented

(6) C414 Landscaping - No Felling Except Specified Trees and Hedges

(7) C415 Landscaping - Tree Protection

(8) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order, with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows other than those expressly authorised by this permission, or as subsequently agreed in writing by the local planning authority, shall be inserted or constructed at any time at first floor level or above in the southern elevation of the dwelling hereby permitted on plot 2.

Reason: To protect the amenities and privacy of the adjoining property.

(9) The windows in the southern elevation of the development hereby approved on plot 2 shall not be glazed other than with obscured glass at any time.

Reason: To protect the amenities and privacy of the adjoining property.

(10) The windows at first floor level in the northern elevation of the development hereby approved on plot 1 shall not be glazed other than with obscured glass, at any time.

Reason: In order to protect the amenities and privacy of adjoining property.

(11) C453 Garaging/Parking as specified on plan no. 605/100 A received on 9/3/01

(12) C503 Access Layout - Adopted Rd : Access to New Dev - Plan to be App.

(13) Before any other work on the construction of the development hereby permitted is commenced, visibility splays shall be provided on both sides of the access on a line between the following two points: (i)   A point 2.4 metres along the centre line of the access       measured from the continuation of the line of the nearer edge of the   running carriageway of the highway;

(ii)  A point on the nearer edge of the highway's running carriageway at a distance of 90 metres to the north and 65 metres to the south of the new access from its intersection with the centre line of the access. The area of land between these visibility splays and the nearer edge of the running carriageway shall be free of any obstruction exceeding one metre in height above the adjacent carriageway surface and shall be so maintained thereafter.

Reason: To improve and maintain visibility between the highway and the proposed access for the safety and convenience of pedestrians and vehicular traffic.

(14) The gradient of the new access and driveway shall not exceed 1:20 for the first 10 metres beyond the highway boundary and 1:10 over the remainder of the length.

Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the existing road and the access.

(15) C552 Closure of Access in 1 month; reinstate verge after consulting Div Survyr

(1) INFORMATIVE - I253 Need to obtain licence from Local Highway Authority to carry out work       

(2) INFORMATIVE  Any statutory undertakers apparatus such as water mains or telegraph poles in the vicinity of the new access may have to be lowered or relocated at the applicant's expense. Therefore early contact with the relevant utilities is advisable.

2001/387/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     09/03/01     Decide by Date:     03/05/01

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham Town

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR J ABBOTT

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Built-up area other than Local Plan Policy  H2 or H4

Unclassified road

Thames Water - groundwater protection zone

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/427/52     Garage constructed under permitted development.

THE APPLICATION

The single storey rear extension measures 6.55m by 3.5m, the eaves height is to be a maximum of 2.8m with a half hipped roof over to a height of approximately 3.9m (the heights are approximate due to the change in ground levels).

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approval.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997: Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, H11, H13, H14, H15, H17, TR11 and TR16.

Proposed Alterations to the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 - Deposit Copy - July 1998 (including Proposed Modifications- November 2000): Policy GC3.

ISSUES

1.     The design of the extension is considered acceptable, respecting the scale and proportions of the existing dwelling and would not have and adverse impact upon the street scene.

2.     The amenities of the neighbouring properties should not be affected.  The property at No.70 has a single storey extension that extends a similar amount and this property is also set at a higher level (1.1m).  The corner property, No.15, has rear windows that face the proposal and it is noted that the application site is located on higher ground exacerbating any impact.  However, it is not considered that the proposal would appear too overbearing and in this respect the amount of screening on the boundary, especially during the summer months, is noted.  No extra windows are proposed in the side elevation, this could also be controlled through a condition.

3.     The gross floorspace of the existing dwelling together with the proposed extension would be over 120m3 requiring three spaces.  Subject to a condition requiring three spaces no objections under TR11 and TR16.

4.     The following recommendation is made having regard to the above and also to the content of the Human Rights Act 1998.

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

(2) C431 Materials of Development to Match Those of Existing Building

(3) C174A No additional windows in E & W elevations of extension.

(4) C202 Garage/Parking Space for three vehicles (for extension) - Plans to be Approved

2001/392/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     12/03/01     Decide by Date:     06/05/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Chalfont St Peter Central

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR & MRS AUBREY

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Unclassified road

Northolt Airfield safeguarding zone

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/900/57     Bungalow and garage.

AM/2206/73     Car port approved.

THE APPLICATION

The proposed rear conservatory would have an overall width of 3.93m and a depth of 3.93m.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997: Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, H13, H14, H15, H17, TR11 and TR16.

Proposed Alterations to the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 - Deposit Copy - July 1998 (including Proposed Modifications- November 2000): Policy GC3.

ISSUES

1.     No objections are raised to the design of the conservatory in terms of both its relationship to the existing dwelling and its impact upon the character of the area.

2.     No adverse impact upon the neighbours’ amenity should occur.

3.     Sufficient car parking provision is provided to comply with Policies TR11 and TR16.

4.     The following recommendation is made having regard to the above and also to the content of the Human Rights Act 1998.

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

(2) C431 Materials of Development to Match Those of Existing Building

2001/395/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     12/03/01     Decide by Date:     06/05/01

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham Common

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS J MCCARTHY

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Unclassified road

Thames Water - groundwater protection zone

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

THE APPLICATION

Part of the application is for a single storey front extension, this would project 1.45m in front of the existing garage and its eaves level would be 2.3m high.  The extension over the existing single storey side / rear extension would be set in 1.6m from the boundary line with a pitched roof over, a pitched roof would cover the area of flat roof resulting from the insetting of the flank elevation.  This extension involves extending the roof across a further 2.35m and installing a dormer window in both the front and rear elevations.  The dormer in the front elevation would be 2.1m in width with a pitched and hipped roof, the rear dormer would be 1.7m in width with a similar style roof.  The depth of the side extension at first floor level has been reduced from 8.85m (front elevation of front dormer to rear elevation of rear dormer) to 6.5m in this application.  In addition there would be a proposed first floor rear extension that would be 3.9m deep by 4.25m in width, an eaves height to match the other features on the rear elevation and a ridgeline the same height as the main.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approval – subject to building line not being displaced.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letter from neighbour at 10 Westanley Avenue strongly reiterating their previous objections to application 2000/1959/CH –

1.     The reduction [in size of the current application] does not in my view, go far enough to extinguish the comments made in your Officer’s report that refused the original planning application [relating to the overbearing appearance to the detriment of the amenity of the occupiers of No.10]

2.     The amended plans have merely reduced the side extension a minimal amount and left the rear extension as originally submitted and in no way have been reduced sufficiently to alleviate my concerns.  The planning application is of such a size and structure that only a significant reduction from both the side and rear would alleviate any such concerns.

3.     The letter refers back to their previous comments on the previous application which could be summarised as follows –

1.     The proposal as submitted could amount to bulking or link detaching.  Without exception, all the houses on Westanley Avenue have at the very least a single storey building between properties.  In the main this takes the form of a garage.  By allowing this proposal to be passed the appearance and structure of the pattern of houses in Westanley Avenue is altered.  By allowing one such change you potentially set a precedent for more to follow, changing a desirable location of detached houses to a less desirable location of ‘semi-detached’ houses.  

2.     The proposal as submitted reduces the use of our patio as a place of relaxation and social eating / entertaining.  The area of garden that we use most is the patio area immediately beneath the proposed extension.  This is an area that during the summer months we use extensively for dining and entertaining.  It is an area that ‘catches’ the sun and provides easy access to and from our kitchen.  Should the extension take form, this patio area changes from being airy and light to claustrophobic and dark.

3.     The proposal as submitted offer up the likelihood of noise pollution.  The plans as viewed indicate two velux windows on the sloping side of the extension.  These appear to be vents and natural light entry points for the utility room.  When these windows are open the noise and emissions of washers, dryers and any other such utility appliances will project directly onto the part of the garden we use most (see point 2).  

Letter from occupiers of 31 Batchelors Way noting –

1.     Our concern relates to what appears to be a whole new ‘wing’, which extends considerably towards us and well beyond the current rear building line.

2.     Whilst not against an extension in principle, we feel that it could be achieved without protruding so far behind the existing rear building line.

3.     If approved we hope that external bricks and tiles match the existing building will be used.

Letter from No. 6 noting –

1.     Totally approve of the changes proposed...whilst accepting that the proposal has more impact upon No.10.

2.     The current development is much more aesthetically pleasing and much more in keeping with other properties in the road.

3.     The front development of the property enhances the aspect of No.8 when viewed from the road.

4.     I can see no negative features to the proposed development.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997: Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, H11, G13, H14, H15, H16, H17, H18, TR11 and TR16.

Proposed Alterations to the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 - Deposit Copy - July 1998 (including Proposed Modifications- November 2000): Policies GC3.

ISSUES

1.     As with the previous application, in design terms no objections are raised to the current proposal. It is considered that the extensions respect the scale, proportions and features of the existing property and would not look out of character in the street scene, maintaining an adequate distance (purely in design terms) to the boundary in compliance with Policy H11 and H16.

2.     It is considered that the main issue is whether the revised application has overcome the reason for refusal of the previous application, in essence would the proposal still have an adverse impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring property, No.10 Westanley Avenue.  In this respect it is also noted that the neighbours to the rear have now expressed concern at the rear extension, this objection has also been noted however given the distance and the screening in between no objections are raised in this respect.  As noted above, the previous application was refused on the grounds that the proposal would appear overbearing from the neighbouring property.  The side extension has been moved further away from the boundary, to 1.6m and has also been reduced in depth.  The effect being that it is not considered that any objection could be raised to this part of the proposal and consequently the proposal should not appear excessively overbearing and a refusal on these grounds could not be justified.  The letter received from the neighbouring property also raises concerns regarding to rear extension to form what is shown on the plans as being bedroom two.  It is not considered that this aspect of the proposal would be overbearing given the distance from the boundary.  The neighbours have also raised concern over the potential loss of light that may result.  Although the No.8 is set to the rear and to the south of No.10, thereby exacerbating this issue, it is not considered that any loss would be so significant so as to warrant a refusal on these grounds, in this context it is noted that the reason for refusal of the previous application did not raise objection to loss of light, merely to the overbearing impact of the scheme.

3.     No objections under Policies TR11 and TR16.

4.     The following recommendation is made having regard to the above and also to the content of the Human Rights Act 1998.

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

(2) C431 Materials of Development to Match Those of Existing Building

(3) C174A No additional windows in first floor of northern elevations of extensions.

(4) C178 Obscure glass in bathroom window in western elevation

2001/396/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     12/03/01     Decide by Date:     06/05/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Austenwood

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS R CAPON

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

00/1662/CH   Single storey front extension incorporating double garage.   Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

A single storey front extension incorporating double garage (amendment to planning permission 00/1662/CH). The double garage is 6m wide and 7m deep with a front gabled pitched roof. It sits 2.3m forwards of the front right-hand side of the property and is linked to the house by a flat roofed section 4.55m wide, extending beyond the flank elevation. The garage itself projects 2.2m beyond the side elevation.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997: Policies  GC1, H4, H13, H14, H15, H17, TR11 and TR16.

Proposed Alterations to the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 - Deposit Copy - July 1998 (including Proposed Modifications- November 2000): Policies GC3.

ISSUES

1.     The application site is in Chalfont St. Peter’s Established Residential Area of Special Character. The garage is the same proportions and is located in the same position as before. The link building is wider by 1.3m while the garage doors are moved from the front to the garden facing flank, to be accessed by the southern entrance of the carriage driveway. As such the appearance of the extension has not changed significantly to affect the decision previously granted under application 00/1662/CH. Local Plan Policy GC1, H4 and H15 are satisfied.

2.     The project remains acceptable under Policies GC3, H13 and H14 and the resulting impact on neighbourhood amenity is unchanged.

3.     The parking provision remains acceptable under Local Plan Policy TR11 and TR16.

4.     The following recommendation is made having regard to the above and also to the content of the Human Rights Act 1998.

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

(2) C431 Materials of Development to Match Those of Existing Building

(3) C306 Garage Not to be Converted to be Part of Dwelling

2001/403/CH

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     12/03/01     Decide by Date:     06/05/01

Parish:     Seer Green     Ward:     Seer Green & Jordans

App Type:     Application for work to tree(s) covered by a Tree Preservation Order

Applicant:      H HILL-VENNING

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Built-up area other than Local Plan Policy  H2 or H4

Unclassified road

Tree Preservation Order

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The Chiltern District Council (Land at 6 & 10 Raeside Close, Seer Green) Tree Preservation Order 1993 (No 13 of 1993) covering two oaks as individual trees.

CH/362/83     Nine detached houses and garages. Conditional permission.

CH/1826/CH     Adjustment to positions of houses and road. Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

Lopping of lower branches up to first major branch.

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant:     Reason for application is to prevent further damage to roof tiles on garage near to oak – attaches copy of surveyor’s report stating that garage roof is affected by lower branches of oak tree and hazel bushes and recommending removal of overhanging branches that are touching garage roof tiles.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Large oak tree at side of property – some deadwood in crown - about 4m from garage – several small lower branches including some touching roof of garage – first major branch at height of about 4m - reasonable management to remove small branches below this height - would not have significant effect on appearance of tree.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy TW2 

The Human Rights Act 1998

ISSUES

1.     The oak tree is situated to the side of the house and is clearly visible from Raeside Close. It is also partially visible from some surrounding roads.

2.     The proposed removal of some small lower branches is considered to be reasonable management and would have little effect on the appearance of the tree.

3.     The following recommendation is made having regard to the above and also to the content of the Human Rights Act 1998.

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C109 Time Limit for Consent under Tree Preservation Order

(2) The tree surgery hereby approved shall not exceed crown lifting, by the removal of lower branches, below the first major branch, which is growing at a height of about four metres.

Reason: In order to maintain, as far as possible, the amenity value of the tree and the special character of the area which were the reasons for the making of the Tree Preservation Order.

(1) INFORMATIVE - I213 Quality of Tree Work                                                        

(2) INFORMATIVE - I211 Tree Work - Branch Removal                                                  

2001/405/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     12/03/01     Decide by Date:     06/05/01

Parish:     Chesham Bois     Ward:     Chesham Bois & Weedon

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR & MRS J KETTLEWELL

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Class C Road

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Grade 2 Listed Building

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

94/0761/CH   Alterations, single storey extension and conversion of former cottages/stables/barn to dwellings with ancillary parking. Conditional consent.

99/1854/CH   Detached double garage. Conditional permission.

00/1982/CH   Rear conservatory.   Refused permission.

THE APPLICATION

A single storey extension in the angle between the two limbs of the property 3.5m wide and 4m long. The south facing pitched gabled roof (3.5m) overlooks a porch element 1.8m deep and 2.1m wide, with a matching gabled roof to a steeper pitch but the same height, facing at right angles, to the east.

PARISH COUNCIL

No comments.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997: Policies  GC1, GB13, LSQ1, H13, H14, H15, H17, TR11 and TR16.

Proposed Alterations to the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 - Deposit Copy - July 1998 (including Proposed Modifications- November 2000): Policies GC3.

ISSUES

1.     The garden room is in the same position as the refused conservatory under application 00/1982/CH, and of similar volume (around a 12% increase to the original structure) but of different proportions. This proposal's more sensitive massing, adjacent to the surrounding Green Belt and Chiltern Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, ensures it is more acceptable, being fused to the property in a more vernacular fashion. As before the extension is absorbed into the properties profile from the east and south where the existing boundary hedging further reduces its impact on the landscape. The new build is therefore acceptable under Local Plan Policy GC13 and LSQ13.

2.     The design of the structure is more in keeping than the previous conservatory scheme. The key improvement to the revised scheme is the use of traditional materials respecting the existing vernacular structure. A slate roof, rather than a contemporary glass one will coexist acceptably with this rural grouping of agricultural buildings constructed with clay tiled roofs. As such the quality of these listed buildings are not compromised and therefore the proposal is appropriate under Local Plan Policy GC1, CA1 and H15 of the Local Plan.

3.     The other buildings at Mayhall Farm are screened from this structure by the cottage itself and therefore no objections under Local Plan Policy GC3, H13 and H14 can be raised in relation to loss of amenity.

4.     The double garage and ample parking facilities cater for Local Plan Policy TR11 and TR16.

5.     The following recommendation is made having regard to the above and also to the content of the Human Rights Act 1998.

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

(2) C432 Materials - As on Plan or Subsequently Specified

2001/406/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     12/03/01     Decide by Date:     06/05/01

Parish:     Chesham Bois     Ward:     Chesham Bois & Weedon

App Type:     Application for Listed Building Consent

Applicant:      MR & MRS J KETTLEWELL

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Class C Road

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Grade 2 Listed Building

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

94/0761/CH   Alterations, single storey extension and conversion of former cottages/stables/barn to dwellings with ancillary parking. Conditional consent.

99/1854/CH   Detached double garage. Conditional permission.

00/1981/CH   Rear conservatory.   Refused consent.

THE APPLICATION

A single storey extension in the angle between the two limbs of the property 3.5m wide and 4m long. The south facing pitched gabled roof (3.5m) overlooks a porch element 1.8m deep and 2.1m wide, with a matching gabled roof to a steeper pitch but same height facing, at right angles, to the east.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections.

CONSULTATIONS

District Historic Buildings Officer:

Following refusal of a conservatory as out of keeping with this small listed cottage and its setting a revised proposal has been submitted for a rear porch and garden room to link the two wings of the L-shaped building.

In order to minimise the impact on the listed building the extension would have a roof of natural slate, which can be laid to a lower pitch than tiles. There would be a section of flat roof adjoining the cottage, but this would be entirely concealed by the pitched roofs of the porch and garden room. Consequently the extension as proposed would be subservient and reasonably unobtrusive and in my opinion would be acceptable from the listed building aspect.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997: Policies LB1 and LB2.

ISSUES

1.     The revised proposal incorporates both a concealed contemporary conservatory element and a more traditional slate roofed facade that aims to satisfy the aesthetic criteria of this Grade II Listed building as well as provide a modern functional space. As such the development appears to be a historical build from the east and south and in no way compromises the special character to which this property was listed. The scheme is acceptable according to the District Historic Buildings Officer under Policy LB1 of the Local Plan.

2.     The use of a slate roof at a lower pitch to the main tiled axis will not be out of character with this rural group, which was often a common way to extending agricultural buildings in the past. The mix of slate and clay tile roofing will not degraded the group, and as such this garden room will be in accordance with Local Plan Policy LB2 and not to the detriment of the group.

3.     The following recommendation is made having regard to the above and also to the content of the Human Rights Act 1998.

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional consent

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C141 Listed Building Consent - Time Limit

(2) C142 Listed Building Consent - List of Works

(3) C432 Materials - As on Plan or Subsequently Specified

(4) C437 Listed Building Materials - Affecting Interior and Exterior

2001/408/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     12/03/01     Decide by Date:     06/05/01

Parish:     Latimer     Ward:     Ashley Green & Latimer

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR & MRS J SMITH

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt settlement GB4

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

Application at No.44 -

THE APPLICATION

1.     The conservatory would be a maximum of 4m deep (the conservatory would be 2.8m at right angles to the dwelling before angling in) and 4m in width, it would be a maximum of 3.25 in height.

2.     The first floor side extension would be constructed over an existing single storey side projection and would therefore have an floor area of 5m by 2.75m.  Its eaves height would be the same as the existing building, however the ridge height would be 0.55m below the main ridge line.  As with the existing ground floor projection the extension would be set 0.6m in from both the front and rear elevations.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997: Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, H11, H13, H14, H15, H16, H17, TR11 and TR16.

Proposed Alterations to the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 - Deposit Copy - July 1998 (including Proposed Modifications- November 2000): Policy GC3.

ISSUES

1.     The design of the proposals is considered acceptable and should not detract from the appearance of the street scene and would respect the scale and proportions of the existing dwelling.  It is noted that similar first floor extensions have been approved and constructed in the vicinity, notably the adjoining property No.45.

2.     The two-storey element of the proposal should not adversely impact the amenities of the neighbouring property, No.47.  The rear conservatory would have an impact upon the amenities of No.45, most notably in the mid-morning period.  However given the existing boundary treatment, a fence (1.6m) and vegetation to an average height of 2m, together with the fact the conservatory would have a clear roof through which light would pass, it is considered that the impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring property should not be so significant to warrant a refusal on these grounds.

3.     Parking is provided for three vehicles in compliance with Policies TR11 and TR16.

4.     The following recommendation is made having regard to the above and also to the content of the Human Rights Act 1998.

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

(2) C431 Materials of Development to Match Those of Existing Building

(3) C174A No additional windows in first floor of SE elevation of first floor side extension.

(4) C178 Obscure glass in first floor window in NE elevation

(5) C178 Obscure glass in conservatory windows in its NW elevation

2001/415/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     13/03/01     Decide by Date:     07/05/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Giles     Ward:     Seer Green & Jordans

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS KABBANI

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt settlement GB4

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

A long planning history, the most recent of which are –

88/1392/CH     Alterations and single storey rear extension, approved.

88/1483/CH     Demolition of garage and erect new detached double garage, approved.

THE APPLICATION

At ground floor level the proposal involves two extensions one at the rear and one at the front.  The rear extension has a floor area of 2.4m by 4.1m, the front a floor area of 2.6m by 2.6m.  The main proposals are the additions at first floor level in the form of two ‘wings’ on either side of the house.  The resultant structure would have gabled ends to the new roof structure on both the front and rear.  The eaves height of the east  wing would be 4.9m high, 16.8m deep with a ridge height of 7.6m.  The western wing would be 17.75m deep while the ridge would be 0.5m higher than the eastern.  The ridge running between the two would be 5.5m when viewed from the rear and approximately 6.8m from the front, due to the changing ground levels.  A balcony would be provided on both the front and rear elevations.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letter received from the agents describing the existing property and the proposals.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997: Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, H11, H13, H14, H15, H16, H17, TR11 and TR16.

Proposed Alterations to the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 - Deposit Copy - July 1998 (including Proposed Modifications- November 2000): Policy GC3.

ISSUES

1.     The proposals are similar to the previously approved scheme in that two ‘wings’ and the raising the roof to create more space on the first floor are proposed.  The current proposal is, however, larger in scale with higher eaves and ridge heights together with deeper flank elevations.  The proposed scheme is also a less traditional style with more extensive use of glazing.  A distance of 1.22m and 1.24m is maintained to the side boundaries at first floor level, although this is only just above the minimum requirements of Policy H11 and H16, bearing in mind the previous approval it is not considered that any objections could be made in this respect.  The distance to Long Bottom together with the mature screening within the front garden area are considered sufficient to prevent any significant adverse impact upon the street scene.

2.     As with the previous application it is considered that there would be no significant adverse impact upon the adjoining properties in terms of loss of daylight and sunlight.  It is however, considered that the increased eaves and ridge height combined with the length of the respective ‘wings’ would, when taken in relation with the adjoining properties, appear excessively overbearing when viewed from these properties.  Some concern also expressed regarding the proposed balcony areas, most notably the rear balcony which is considered will potentially permit an unacceptable loss of amenity to the neighbouring property.  The front balcony, as it is set some distance away from the boundary and the neighbouring property is considered acceptable.

3.     No adverse car parking issues arise, no objections under Policies TR11 and TR16.

4.     The following recommendation is made having regard to the above and also to the content of the Human Rights Act 1998.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse permission

For the following reasons

(1) The proposed application, by reason of the length of the flank elevations, their eaves and ridge heights and their proximity to the side boundaries would result in the development having an overbearing appearance when viewed from both of the neighbouring properties, to the detriment of the amenities and contrary to Polices GC3, H13(i) and H14(i) of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997.

(2) The proposed balcony on the rear elevation would permit excessive levels of overlooking and a consequent loss of privacy to the neighbouring property, Wood End.  This is considered detrimental to the amenities of the neighbouring property and would be contrary to Policies GC3, H13(i) and H14(iii) of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997.

2001/419/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     14/03/01     Decide by Date:     08/05/01

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham Common

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MISS SUMMERS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Built-up area other than Local Plan Policy  H2 or H4

Unclassified road

Thames Water - groundwater protection zone

THE APPLICATION

A single storey side extension replacing garage. The structure will be 3m wide and 9.5m long, projecting 1.3m beyond the rear elevation and forming a 1m deep canopy with forward projecting brick piers to the front. The proposal will have a 4m high fake-hipped roof to the front and side that will extend across the existing front porch.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approval.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997: Policies  GC1, H13, H14, H15, H17, TR11 and TR16.

Proposed Alterations to the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 - Deposit Copy - July 1998 (including Proposed Modifications- November 2000): Policies GC3

ISSUES

1.     The application is in the built up area of Amersham-on-the-Hill, situated along a road of semi-detached houses of similar character. Most properties including the applicants have a single storey side garage wing, to which this replacement would not be significantly larger than the existing. The additional 1m projection to the front of the garage comprises an open pillared canopy bringing it flush with the front elevation of the porch, carrying across the slanting roof. This contributes positively to the street scene and is acceptable under Local Plan Policy GC1 and H15.

2.     The existing structure ends flush with the rear elevation of the property and the rear of No. 44’s garage. The new proposal projects a further 1.3m beyond this but will not generate any detrimental impact on the amenity of this adjacent neighbour who is largely obscured by a 2m holly hedge and a 0.6m downhill location. The new build will be without the existing wrap-around utility window, and will now face only into the applicant’s own garden. Furthermore the structure will be a better build and as such improving the overall aesthetic standard of the property. Therefore the development raises no objections with Local Plan Policy.

3.     The garage’s internal dimension satisfy Policy Standards and will preserve the existing parking arrangement providing two car parking spaces on the front driveway. As such Local Plan Parking Standards TR11 and TR16 have been upheld.

4.     The following recommendation is made having regard to the above and also to the content of the Human Rights Act 1998.

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

(2) C431 Materials of Development to Match Those of Existing Building

(3) C305 Garages Not to be Converted to be Part of Dwelling

(4) C174 No additional windows in south elevation of extension

2001/420/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     13/03/01     Decide by Date:     07/05/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Giles-Little Chalfont     Ward:     Chalfont St Giles

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS D BROWN

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt settlement GB4

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/1663/62     Outline application refused for a bungalow.

THE APPLICATION

The existing bungalow is 12m in width with a depth of between 10.3m and 14.6m, it eaves height would be 2.2m with a ridge at 7.2m.  There is an existing double garage at one side of the property, this is set approximately 0.8m away from the main body of the bungalow and is 5m in width to 0.3m of the boundary, it would be 5.5m deep.  On the opposide side of the dwelling there is an office / utility room also detached from the main body of the bungalow, however the passageway between is covered in this instance, this structure is positioned on the boundary and is 3.2m in width and 8.55m deep with a pitched roof over.

The proposal involves numerous extensions with the result that the property would have the existing garage and office / utility room demolished.  One the same side of the property as the garage it is proposed to add a two-storey extension incorporating a new garage.  This part of the proposals would be set approximately 6.45m behind the bay window on the front elevation and would project 5.3m to the rear of the main rear elevation, above this rear elevation it is proposed to have a balcony area.  This side extension would have a distance of 1m to the boundary.  The other side of the dwelling the extensions would also have a distance of 1m to the boundary, these would be effectively extending the bungalow by 3.5m at the same depth as the main part of the property.  Much of the proposal involves the creation of additional first floor accommodation, from the first floor plan the accommodation can be measured at being 17.25m in width, over the garage this would be at 1m distance to the boundary, adjacent to ‘Argentia’ this would be 4.7m away due to the pitch of the roofslope.  A front and rear gable would be created over he respective projections which the ridge height would be increased to 8.2m (it will however be a longer ridge than the existing).

PARISH COUNCIL

The Parish Council objects to this proposal which represents an overdevelopment of a small bungalow, and strenuously, objects to the siting of a large balcony to the detriment of the privacy and amenity of neighbouring properties.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letters received from the neighbouring properties on either side, those at ‘Argentia’ note –

1.     Although I agree in principle to the development proposed for this property I would like to object to the balcony feature.

2.     This part of the development is rather large and is obviously designed to be a sun deck rather than a balcony, which leads to its occupancy being fairly frequent and possibly with many persons present.

3.     Although on the opposite side of the garden to my property it will still provide a view across my property which I will find very invasive.

4.     Furthermore there is a 4ft wall above the family room designed to protect privacy to the adjacent dwelling ‘The Lodge’, any noise created on the balcony will rebound off this wall and carry across my property.

5.     Furthermore when designing the extension to my property I had to reduce the wall height near the boundary to just over single storey height as I was informed that there was a 2m / 2-storey rule applying to this rural location.  From the plans it would appear that the rule has not been applied in this application.

The owners of the ‘The Lodge’ note –

1.     I welcome the development of Braefield

2.     The balcony – provides a clear view of our garden, patio, lounge and playroom, the wall proposed is not enough to obstruct this.

3.     Balcony provides a noise hazard.

4.     The east elevation is approximately 1m from the boundary – from the plans I have I calculated that the wall will be approximately 4.8m high before the roof slopes away.  This solid wall extends for nearly 14m.  While is will be softened by the current hedge the trees will be affected by the construction resulting in an unpleasant view of the wall.  Furthermore the height and length will have a detrimental effect on the light coming into our lounge and playroom.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997: Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, H4, H11, H13, H14, H15, H16, H17, H18, TR11 and TR16.

Proposed Alterations to the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 - Deposit Copy - July 1998 (including Proposed Modifications- November 2000): Policy GC3.

ISSUES

1.     The application site is located within an area wherein there are no objections to development in principle, subject to its compliance with the relevant local plan policies relating to its appearance within the street scene and its effect on the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties.

2.     Taking firstly its appearance within the street scene.  It is considered that Long Walk, which has been designated an Established Residential Area of Special Character, is an area characterised by spacious layouts where relatively large distances between dwellings are important elements in the street scene.  Policy H11 and H16 note that in such circumstances the distance between the flank elevations of the dwelling at first floor level and the boundary should be significantly more than 1m, commensurate with the character of the area.  While it is noted that the proposal involves demolishing the existing garage and office / utility room which are currently located closer to the boundary than the proposal’s ground floor elements, it is considered that the element of the proposal over the garage, at 1m from the boundary, is not in compliance with the Policies, noting the increased bulk at first floor level, the result is that the proposed scheme would effectively fill the width of the plot and would be to the detriment of the street scene and character of the area in general.

3.     It is the same part of the proposal that also raises concern over the impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring property.  The proposed balcony that projects 5.3m to the rear of the main rear elevation raises concern.  It is noted that the proposal involves a wall at approximately 1.4m in height (although on the side elevation – east this height is shown to be 1.3m) aimed at providing screening to the neighbouring property.  While it is accepted that this would mitigate the circumstances to an extent, it is not considered sufficient and it is felt that the balcony area would lead to a loss of amenity for the occupiers of the neighbouring property.  The impact upon the neighbours is exacerbated by its proximity to the boundary which may also result in much of the mature screening on the boundary being lost.

4.     No objections are raised under Policies TR11 and TR16, sufficient car parking provision is provided on site to comply with the Policies.

5.     The following recommendation is made having regard to the above and also to the content of the Human Rights Act 1998.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse permission

For the following reasons

(1)  The application site is located in an Established Residential Area of Special Character that is characterised by spacious layouts where relatively large distnaces between dwellings are important elements in the street scene, as such the distance between the flank elevation(s) of the dwelling at or above first floor level should be significantly more than 1m.  The proposed extension on the eastern elevation would have a distance of 1m between its flank elevation and the boundary, in conjunction with the overall proposal it is considered that this would result in an extension that would have a detrimental impact upon the street scene, contrary to Policies GC1(a), H11, H13(ii) and H16 of the Adopted Chiltern District Council Local Plan 1997.

(2) The proposed balcony extenison on the eastern elevation, by reason of its height and proximity to the boundary together with its and siting in relation to the neighbouring property would potentially permit an unacceptable level of overlooking and loss of privacy to this property.  The impact of the extension, on the eastern elevation, upon the neighbouring property would be exacerbated by its proximity to the boundary which may also result in the loss of some of the exisiting, mature, screening on the boundary between properties.  The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies GC3, H13(i) and H14 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997.

2001/422/CH

Case Officer:      Neil Higson

Date Received:     14/03/01     Decide by Date:     08/05/01

Parish:     Latimer     Ward:     Ashley Green & Latimer

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS G WILDING

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt settlement GB4

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

CH/1039/77     Single storey side extension. Permitted.

85/1137/CH     Single storey rear extension. Permitted.

87/2936/CH     Alterations involving loft conversion including 3 rear dormer windows and single storey side/rear extension. Permitted.

89/3105/CH     Porch. Permitted.

THE APPLICATION

Permission is sought for the erection of a detached garage to measure 7m in length with a width of 4.7m and an apex height of 4.5m. It would be sited to the south of the dwelling with access from the front driveway.  

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser – loss of five small trees including purple-leaf plum and three cypresses, none of importance. No objection.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policies GC1, GC3, GB4, GB15, H20, TR2, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1)     The site is situated in a GB4 area whereby there are no objections in principle to the construction of ancillary non-habitable buildings within domestic curtilages providing the relevant policies are complied with, in respect of the effect on the character and appearance of the street scene.  

2)     The proposed garage would have a tiled roof to match the dwelling and “hit and miss” Timber board walls. Screen fencing and planting would mean that only the roof is visible from the south while the building itself is set back some way from the highway and is separated from such by a deep grass verge and number of mature trees. The garage would not appear incongruous in the street scene and would not adversely affect the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties. Complies with Polices GC1, GB15 and H20.

3)     There is sufficient parking in compliance with the Council’s standards, therefore no objection under Policy TR11 or TR16.

4)     The following recommendation is made having regard to the above and also to the content of the Human Rights Act 1998.

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

(2) C306 Garage Not to be Converted to be Part of Dwelling

(3) C432 Materials - As on Plan or Subsequently Specified

2001/429/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     14/03/01     Decide by Date:     08/05/01

Parish:     Chesham Bois     Ward:     Chesham Bois & Weedon

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      JUDY SAUNDERS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Chesham Bois Conservation Area

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

adjoining Public Amenity Open Space

adjoining Common land

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

00/2065/CH   Detached single storey outbuilding.   Refused permission.

THE APPLICATION

A single storey outbuilding, 3.2m wide, 5.9m long with a gabled-pitched roof at 3m high.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections.

REPRESENTATIONS

Three letter from neighbouring residents raising the following concerns.

1.     Structure may/will be used for business purposes and therefore generate a parking problem in the vicinity and will be contrary to Local Plan Policies CA3 and E5;

2.     Too large a structure overbearing on ‘Manor Farm Cottage’ and ‘Homefield’ and would be contrary to CA1, GC3, H13 and H14 of the Local Plan;

3.     Would be better sited adjacent to the extension at ‘Manor Farm Cottage’.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997: Policies  GC1, H4, H13, H14, H15, H17, E5, CA1, TR11 and TR16.

Proposed Alterations to the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 - Deposit Copy - July 1998 (including Proposed Modifications- November 2000): Policies GC3.

ISSUES

1.     The proposal is an amendment to application 00/2065/CH and is 0.5m narrower, 0.7m shorter and 0.8m lower, it is also relocated 1m into the garden from the boundary. It is now considered that the size of the building has been reduced enough to dilute the impact on the neighbouring property ‘Homefield’ who would be most directly affected by the positioning of a structure like this along the eastern boundary. Other neighbours mainly ‘Maryfield’ and ‘Manor Farm Cottage’ may be able to see the structure but will not suffer loss of amenity from it. As such the detached single storey outbuilding is not contrary to Local Plan Policy GC3, H13 and H14.

2.     The design of the new build is the same as before under application 00/2065/CH and will not be out of character with the mix of period in the area and the spacious environment they are landscaped into. Therefore this small wooden Edwardian style lodge is acceptable in the Chesham Bois Conservation area and Policies GC1, H15 and CA1 of the Local Pan.

3.     Although the positioning of the structure will require minor works to some shrubs/trees this will not be to the detriment of neighbouring amenity or the quality of the conservation area.

4.     Neighbouring residents comments regarding possible business use are noted: however if used solely by the owner for ancillary purposes to the dwelling house or for small-scale business (working from home with no other employees) and without changing the character of the main dwelling, then no material change of use will occur, in accordance with Government guidance in PPG4. However, it is appropriate to impose conditions making the outbuilding ancillary to the dwelling.

5.     The property does have one car parking space but no objections can be raised under Policy TR11 and TR16 of the Local Plan.

6.     The following recommendation is made having regard to the above and also to the content of the Human Rights Act 1998.

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

(2) C432 Materials - As on Plan or Subsequently Specified

(3) C174 No additional windows in east elevation of extension

(4) C197 Ancillary residential buildings at 'The Cottage' - building other than garage

(5) C134 Single plan amended by plan (no S/101/1) received on 02/04/01.

2001/430/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     14/03/01     Decide by Date:     08/05/01

Parish:     Chesham Bois     Ward:     Chesham Bois & Weedon

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MRS C MACIOCIA

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Chesham Bois Conservation Area

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/178/56     Alterations, permitted development.

THE APPLICATION

The proposal is for a dormer window in the front elevation.  This would be approximately 2.1m in width with a flat roof over, its front elevation would be approximately 1m in height.

PARISH COUNCIL

We wish to object to this application.  The proposed dormer window would be extremely ugly and totally out of keeping with the neighbouring properties.  If allowed it would totally destroy the character of a row of attractive Victorian terraced cottages in the heart of Chesham Bois Conservation Area.  The application is contrary to Policy H18 of the Local Plan and also paragraph 4.1(c) of the Conservation Area publication.  We ask that you refuse planning permission.

REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters of objection noting –

1.     This is a Conservation Area and this row of cottages dating from c.1890’s is a feature in the village.

2.     To allow the construction of a front dormer at 47 would aesthetically destroy the feature of the period.

3.     A single dormer window jutting out of the roof would, we feel, completely spoil the line as seen from the road.

4.     A window in the rear would be more suitable.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997: Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, H13, H14, H18, CA1, TR11 and TR16.

Proposed Alterations to the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 - Deposit Copy - July 1998 (including Proposed Modifications- November 2000): Policies GC3.

ISSUES

1.     The main issue in this application is considered to be the impact the proposal would have upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.  In this respect it is noted that Policy CA1 states that development which does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area will be refused.  It is noted that No.41 and No.43 both have front dormer windows not dissimilar to that subject of this application. However, both were constructed prior to the designation of the Chesham Bois Conservation Area in 1992, and probably before such front dormers were taken outside the scope of permitted development. Further, these adjacent  dwellings with their matching dormers do form a matching pair. The Conservation area booklet notes that ‘front roofslopes should not be disrupted by large and / or flat roofed dormer windows or by large rooflights’, the contents of this guidance are considered to be a material consideration when determining applications within the Conservation Area.

2.     The design of the dormer window, in terms of its width in relation to the roofslope in which it is to be located together with its flat roofed design is considered to be contrary to Policy H18.  The proposal is also considered to have an adverse impact upon the street scene and therefore upon the Conservation Area.  The roofslope of the terrace of properties, which at present are untouched and are considered to form an important part of the Conservation Area would be compromised.  The proposal is therefore considered to also be contrary to Policy GC1 and CA1.

3.     The amenities of the neighbouring properties should not be adversely affected.  No objections under Policies GC2, GC3, H13(i), and H14.

4.     Although there are no off street parking spaces, no objections are raised under Policies TR11 and TR16.

5.     The following recommendation is made having regard to the above and also to the content of the Human Rights Act 1998.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse permission

For the following reasons

(1) The proposed dormer window would be sited on the front roofslope of one of four terraced houses within the Chesham Bois Conservation Area.  By reason of its flat roofed design and excessive width in relation to the roofslope in which it is to be located, the dormer  would have an adverse impact upon the appearance of the hithertooo unaltered roofslope of the terrace, and would be intrusive in the street scene, and consequently is not considered to either preserve or enhance the Conservation Area. As such, the proposal is contrary to Polices GC1, H18 and CA1 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997.

2001/437/CH

Case Officer:      Iwan Jones

Date Received:     15/03/01     Decide by Date:     09/05/01

Parish:     Amersham - Little Chalfont     Ward:     Little Chalfont

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      M I RINGHAM

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Built-up area other than Local Plan Policy  H2 or H4

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/684/52: Garage. Permitted development. Implemented.

93/0883/CH: Alterations, single storey front extension, dormer window in front and rear elevations and two storey rear extension. Conditional permission. Implemented.

94/0141/CH: Form mansard gable end roof on front elevation. Conditional permission. Implemented.

95/1103/CH: Retention of mansard gable end roof on front elevation (amendment to planning permission 94/0141/CH). Conditional permission. Implemented.

THE APPLICATION

The application relates to the erection of a single storey extension to the western rear elevation. It would measure 4m wide, 4.2m deep and to a hipped roof height of 4m. All external materials used would match existing   

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend Approval.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997: Policies GC1, GC3, H13, H14, H15, H17, TR11 and TR16.  

Proposed Alterations to the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 - Deposit Copy - July 1998 (including Proposed Modifications- November 2000): Policy GC3.

ISSUES

1.     The application site is located within the built up area of Little Chalfont where there are no objections in principle to the proposed development, subject to compliance with the relevant local plan policies.

2.     As the proposed extension is to be erected to the rear of the property the character and appearance of the street scene would not be adversely affected. Having regard to the siting and design of the extension and due to the screening of the site it is considered that the extension would not have an adverse impact on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. No objections raised in terms of Policies H13 and H14.

3.     The scale and height of the extension would respect the scale and proportion of the existing dwelling and all external materials used would also match existing. No objections raised under Policy H15.

4.     A minimum 3 parking spaces can already be provided within the curtilage of the property. No objections raised under Policies TR11 and TR16.

5.     The following recommendation is made having regard to the above and also to the content of the Human Rights Act 1998.

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

(2) C431 Materials of Development to Match Those of Existing Building

2001/438/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     15/03/01     Decide by Date:     09/05/01

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham Common

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR & MRS A YAU

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Built-up area other than Local Plan Policy  H2 or H4

Adjoining Green Belt

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

00/0372/CH   Single storey rear extension including new chimney.   Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

A rear conservatory 7m wide and 3.7m deep centred on the rear elevation of the property with 0.45m of existing brickwork remaining either side. The roof is 3.4m high and hipped all round.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approval.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997: Policies  GC1, H13, H14, H15, H17, TR11 and TR16.

Proposed Alterations to the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 - Deposit Copy - July 1998 (including Proposed Modifications- November 2000): Policies GC3.

ISSUES

1.     The proposal seeks permission for a conservatory in the built up area of Amersham, which will dominate the rear elevation of this chalet property. Being marginally smaller than the rear single storey extension granted conditional permission under application 00/0372/CH, the presence of a structure of this size in this location is acceptable, having no detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents.

2.     Positioned 1.6m behind a 1.8m close board fence and 2m leylandii to the north east, the structure may be marginally overlooked by No. 18 where a two storey rear extension is currently under construction. Neighbours to the south west are set further forwards and will not be affected by the development, being mostly shielded by the 2m holy hedge which has matured along this boundary. As such the structure is acceptable under Policy GC3, H13 and H14 of the Local Plan.

3.     The rear private amenity space will not be greatly reduced and the structure will not be detrimental to the appearance of the dwelling in compliance with Local Plan Policy.

4.     The integral single garage and double length driveway will cater for Local Plan Policy requirements on parking standards (TR11 and TR16).

5.     The following recommendation is made having regard to the above and also to the content of the Human Rights Act 1998.

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

(2) C431 Materials of Development to Match Those of Existing Building

2001/440/CH

Case Officer:      Neil Higson

Date Received:     15/03/01     Decide by Date:     09/05/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Chalfont St Peter Central

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR & MRS T LESLIE-SMITH

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Built-up area other than Local Plan Policy  H2 or H4

Unclassified road

THE APPLICATION

It is proposed to incorporate an existing single storey side and rear extension into a new single storey side and rear extension filling in the gap between the western flank of the dwelling and the western boundary of the site. It would measure 12.7m in overall depth along its western elevation with a width of 2.3m and have a mono-pitch roof. The new build would be 5.25m wide across the rear of the property for a depth of 1.6m before projection a further 3.1m in depth at a width of 3.3m. The rear projection would have a ridged roof with a hip detail to the rear elevation with an apex height of 3.6m.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policies GC1, GC3, H13, H14, H15, H17, TR2, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1)     The application site is located within a built up residential area whereby the proposal is acceptable in principle subject to compliance with the relevant policies of the local plan.

2)     The style and design of the proposed extension is considered acceptable in terms of relating to the existing dwelling and there will be no material adverse visual impact upon neighbouring dwellings. It is considered that the proposed extensions would not appear cramped or incongruous in the street scene. It is considered that the proposal therefore meets the requirements of GC1, GC3, H13, H14, H15, and H17.

3)     The extensions would respect the scale and proportions of the existing dwelling in relation to neighbouring properties and would not be out of character with the surrounding area.

4)     There are no windows in the eastern elevation of the adjacent property that would be adversely affected by the proposal, and although the extension would project beyond the front elevation of this property it would not be intrusive or overbearing in views from the bay window.  

5)     The site currently enjoys parking for three vehicles. No objection under Policies TR11 and TR16.

6)     The following recommendation is made having regard to the above and also to the content of the Human Rights Act 1998.

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

(2) C431 Materials of Development to Match Those of Existing Building

2001/441/CH

Case Officer:      Neil Higson