Meeting documents

2001/22/TC

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     27/03/01     Decide by Date:     08/05/01

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham the Hill

App Type:     Work to unpreserved trees in Conservation Area

Applicant:      ANDERS ODGAARD

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Amersham - Elm Close Conservation Area

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

00/0035/TC     Felling of a pine tree. No TPO made.

THE APPLICATION

Felling of four trees and pruning of eight trees.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommended approval subject to Tree Officer’s comments.

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant:     Took over property on 1 December 2000 – obvious that most trees need trimming – suggested trimming has aim of allowing more light into garden and house – trimming will reduce root growth and risk of root damage to house – homebuyer survey states: few conifer and deciduous trees at front and rear, which are relatively close to building – no sign of root damage to building but suggested trees should be pollarded occasionally to restrict root growth.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Number of trees in garden – mainly small cypresses (not yews as shown on plan).

Propose removal of four cypresses – all 4-5m high – some suppressed – none important.

Propose pruning of eight trees – including three cypresses – also liquidamber, acacia, walnut? and two cherries – two cherries both heavily cut back in past and poor specimens – other trees better but not of particular importance – some trimming acceptable.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy CA5 

ISSUES

1.     The trees are situated in the front and rear gardens of the property with some visible from the adjacent roads.

2.     It is considered that the cypresses in the notification do not make a significant contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. Some of the deciduous trees are better specimens but nonetheless are not considered to be of particular importance. A Tree Preservation Order would therefore not be appropriate.

3.     Bearing in mind the limited space in the garden, 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

(1) INFORMATIVE - Although the description of the proposed pruning of the trees in your notification is rather vague, the Council has decided not to make a Tree Preservation Order to prevent the work.  Nonetheless it should be noted that only pruning was mentioned in the notification rather than pollarding and it is considered that anything more than a fairly light crown reduction would be harmful to the appearance of the deciduous trees.

2001/23/TC

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     28/03/01     Decide by Date:     09/05/01

Parish:     Chesham     Ward:     St Marys

App Type:     Work to unpreserved trees in Conservation Area

Applicant:      ANDREW BROWNE

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Chesham Conservation Area

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Class C Road

Within curtilage of Listed Building - affects setting

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

97/0020/TC     Crown reduction of an acacia, a Thuja and a holly. No TPO made.

98/0055/TC     Felling of a birch, a purple plum and five cypresses. No TPO made.

THE APPLICATION

(1) Acacia – lift lower branches.

(2) Conifer – lift lower branches.

(3) Sycamore – remove three lower branches.

(4), (5) & (6) Holly – lift lower branches and remove dead trees.

(7), (8) & (9) Conifer – remove.

(10) Sycamore – remove.

(11) & (12) – Cedar – remove deadwood and internal crossing branches.

(13) Yew – cut back hard and reshape.

(14) Ash – remove overhanging limb.

(15) Remove trees worst affected by bonfire damage.

(16) & (17) – Conifers – remove.

TOWN COUNCIL

The Committee would endorse the Tree Warden’s comments as follows:

Trees 1-6 – Agree to crown lifting to allow light.

Trees 7, 8 and 9 – Cannot give approval as no reason given for their removal.

Tree 10 – A large sycamore will always overshadow so does not constitute a reason on its own to remove it.

Trees 11 and 12 – Work supported.

Tree 13 – Suggest maximum of 25% pruning.

Tree 14 – Cannot comment as insufficient details given.

Tree 15 – Agree to removal and recommend agreement with Keith Musgrave regarding replacement species.

Trees 16 and 17 – Would question whether replacement planting of Yew will suceed in this location without reduction of the Lombardy Poplar. In favourable conditions Yews are long lived and very slow growing so it will take them many years to make any impact.

REPRESENTATIONS

Agent:     Comments on reasons for some of work

(1) Acacia – lift lower branches to let light to hedge.

(2) Conifer – lift lower branches to let light to hedge.

(10) Sycamore – this tree overshadows the neighbours garden and they wish it removed. It is a naturally coppiced tree and therefore covers a large area.

(15) Is an area of the garden where a bonfire has scarred some of the trees killing the bark. We should like to remove the worst trees and re-plant with suitable trees and shrubs.

(16) & (17) – Are conifers planted under Lombardy Poplars. These have grown up and are no longer effective as a screen. We propose to remove the conifers and replant with yew.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Laurel hedge about 3m high in front of house – poorer mixed species hedge on rest of front boundary – understand propose to plant laurel along entire front boundary – propose crown lifting of trees on frontage, i.e.(1) Acacia, (2) Conifer, (3) Sycamore and (4), (5) & (6) Holly, to allow improvement work.

Number of trees close to side boundary beside house – propose to remove three cypresses (7), (8) & (9) to allow more space for other trees to develop – would not significantly affect screening between properties.

(10) Sycamore – multi-stemmed tree in rear corner of garden within group of yews – not particularly important tree with limited public visibility.

(11) & (12) – Cedar – two large important trees – one in particular has suffered some storm damage – sensible remedial work proposed.

(13) Yew – feature tree in lawn – propose to reduce and reshape.

(14) Ash – large twin-stemmed tree fairly close to house – propose to remove secondary branch at height of about 6m growing towards house – would have little effect on amenity value of tree.

(15) Group of young sycamores, ashes and horse chestnuts around bonfire site – several with severe bark damage – none of particular importance – sensible to remove trees with worst damage.

(16) & (17) – Line of yews on boundary inside close-boarded fence – originally planted as hedge but now grown up as trees – five large Lombardy poplars on garden side of these – several cypresses planted inside these to provide further screening – generally weak and poorly shaped – some leaning – removal would allow work to improve yew hedge.

Although quite large number of trees in notification many more trees in garden - proposed work considered to be reasonable management and would have little overall effect on amenity value of trees within property.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy CA5 

ISSUES

1.     There are a large number of trees within the property and many are partially visible from the surrounding roads.

2.     The proposed work is considered to be reasonable management that would not have a harmful effect on the amenity value of the garden. Furthermore it is considered that many of 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.     It is considered that some replacement planting, particularly in the hedging on the boundaries of the site, would be useful and should be requested.

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; multiple replacement trees requested

2001/476/CH

2001/480/CH

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     22/03/01     Decide by Date:     16/05/01

Parish:     Amersham - Little Chalfont     Ward:     Little Chalfont

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

Applicant:      MRS BRUNEN

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Identified Housing Site - Local Plan H2

Class B Road

Tree Preservation Order

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The Amersham Rural District Council (Nightingales Cottage, Little Chalfont) Tree Preservation Order, 1968 (No 45/68) covering an area of trees at what is now The Hawthorns, Cokes Lane, Little Chalfont.

The Chiltern District Council (Land at Nightingales Cottage, Cokes Lane, Little Chalfont) Tree Preservation Order 1995 (No 6 of 1995) an area of trees at what is now The Hawthorns, Cokes Lane, Little Chalfont.

96/0150/CH     Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 11 detached houses and garages and a terrace of 3 houses and garages served by an altered vehicular access. Conditional permission.

96/0569/CH     Erection of a terrace of 3 houses and garages served by an altered vehicular access (amendment to 96/0150/CH). Conditional permission.

96/1111/CH     Felling of two sycamores and four conifers, removal of a limb from a pine, crown lifting of two cedars, a beech and a conifer, and minor tidying of an oak. Conditional permission.

98/0253/CH     Lopping of a branch and crown reduction of an oak tree. (16 The Hawthorns). Conditional permission.

98/0287/CH     Crown reduction of a hawthorn and a beech. (9 The Hawthorns). Conditional permission.

99/1979/CH     Crown thinning of two limes and reduction of two branches of a pine. (3 The Hawthorns). Conditional permission.

99/1980/CH     Crown reduction of four cypresses and removal of broken branches from two limes. (5 The Hawthorns). Conditional permission.

00/0323/CH     Lopping of a yew and a beech, and crown reduction of three hollies and four Thujas. (7 The Hawthorns). Conditional permission.

00/0324/CH     Felling of two cypresses, pruning back of a cotoneaster, a yew and a cedar, and crown reduction of two spruces, a Douglas fir and four yews. (12 The Hawthorns). Conditional permission.

00/0989/CH     Felling of two sycamores and crown reduction of two oaks, a laurel and a hazel. (2 The Hawthorns). Conditional permission.

00/1665/CH     Felling of seven cypresses. (5 The Hawthorns). Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

Felling of a Douglas fir (described on the application as a spruce).

Spruce – crown thin by 20%.

Yew and cotoneaster – reduce and reshape by 2.5m.

Application later amended to omit felling of Douglas fir.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommended approval – no objection subject to Tree Officer’s comments.

REPRESENTATIONS

Agent:     Reason for work is to improve light availability into garden and house.

Letter from property to rear objecting to removal of spruce (Douglas fir) commenting:

a) Tree acts as part of natural screen that gives privacy to house.

b) Removal of tree would allow direct line of sight to garden of no 12 and to adjacent house.

c) Purpose behind TPO was to protect trees for benefit of neighbours, the general environment and to maintain a natural boundary.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Whole development of The Hawthorns covered by area TPO – therefore all trees on site at time of TPO protected irrespective of size and quality, including many not of suitable quality for individual protection - intention would be to replace general TPO with more specific Order in due course -most of trees remaining in rear gardens of properties providing some screening from surrounding buildings.

Considerable tree surgery to trees in rear garden last year under 00/0324/CH – Douglas fir on rear boundary reduced to about 10m – useful tree providing boundary screening between The Hawthorns and property to rear – application amended to omit tree.

Norway spruce – few metres further into garden – about 12m high – once topped – propose 20% crown thinning – considered reasonable.

Yew and cotoneaster in adjacent property (No 10) – reduction of overhanging branches under 00/0324/CH – now propose reduction of part in neighbours garden – yew is broad tree with fairly long side branches – reduction in width reasonable but only minor height reduction appropriate - cotoneaster is small multi-stemmed tree of no great significance.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy TW2 

ISSUES

1.     The trees are situated in the rear gardens of the properties with limited visibility from public viewpoints.

2.     The proposed crown thinning of the spruce is considered to be reasonable management.

3.     The overhanging branches of the yew and the cotoneaster were reduced under 00/0324/CH and now further reduction is proposed within the neighbouring garden. Some reduction and shaping is considered to be reasonable but in the case of the yew this should concentrate on the width rather than the height of the tree.

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) C109 Time Limit for Consent under Tree Preservation Order

(2) The tree surgery hereby approved shall not exceed

a) crown thinning of the spruce by 20%

b) crown reduction and shaping of the cotoneaster and the yew, but in the case of the yew concentrating on the width rather than the height

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

(3) C136 Plans amended by letter dated 11/05/01, received on 11/05/01.

(1) INFORMATIVE - You are reminded that this consent relates only to the planning aspects of your application and that the separate permission of the owners of the yew and the cotoneaster would also be required.

(2) INFORMATIVE -  I160 Trees - Tree works to British Standard                                     

(3) INFORMATIVE - I212 Tree Work - Crown Reduction                                                 

2001/494/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     26/03/01     Decide by Date:     20/05/01

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham Common

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS BEIRNE

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Unclassified road

Thames Water - groundwater protection zone

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

CH/150/75     Two-storey extension.

CH/34/79     Two-storey extension, approved and implemented.

THE APPLICATION

The proposed two-storey extension would project 3.3m to the rear of the existing dwelling and would be 4.85m in width.  Its eaves height would be 4.8m, with a hipped roof to a ridge at 7.1m.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approval.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letter expressing no objections from No.42 Stanley Hill Avenue.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997: Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, H11, H13,  H14, H15, H16, 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 proposal as it is considered to respect the scale and proportions of the existing dwelling and would not have an adverse impact upon the street scene.

2.     The impact upon the neighbouring properties is considered acceptable with no loss of light and should not appear too overbearing when viewed from the neighbouring property.  No objections are raised with regard to any extra overlooking to No.51, it is also proposed to install a window in the first floor flank elevation facing No.47, however, given the distance and the existing first floor rearward facing windows nearer that neighbour, it is not considered that the extra overlooking from this window would be sufficient to warrant a refusal. No objections are therefore raised under Policies GC2, GC3, H13 and H14.

3.     No objections are raised under Policies TR11 and TR16, the existing floorspace is over 120m2 and three spaces are also provided.

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 western elevation of extension.

2001/504/CH

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     27/03/01     Decide by Date:     21/05/01

Parish:     Little Missenden     Ward:     Little Missenden

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

Applicant:      BRYAN AND JAYNE LUDBROOK

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt settlement GB5

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Tree Preservation Order

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The Amersham Rural District Council (Little Kingshill) Tree Preservation Order, 1967 (No 40/67) covering a belt of larch trees as an area of trees between New Road and Hare Lane at the rear of Longfield, Little Kingshill.

00/1391/CH     Single storey side and rear extensions and pitched roof over garage.

Adjacent property 32 Longfield

93/1241/CH     Felling of two larch trees. Conditional permission.

00/1991/CH     Felling of three larch trees. Conditional permission.

01/0507/CH     Single storey side extension to house and garage with connecting link and new roof over garage. Not yet determined.

THE APPLICATION

Felling of two larch trees.

PARISH COUNCIL

Approve, subject to the approval of the Arboricultural Officer.

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant:     The two trees are in a poor condition, being straggly and having previously been topped or damaged and therefore look unsightly. They are part of a group of five, three or which are in a neighbours garden and for which permission to be felled has been granted. This will leave these two much more exposed and we are concerned for our safety due to their close proximity to the house. We intend to replant with shrubs or small trees but have not yet decided on species.

One letter commenting trees visible from property – one of few remaining items of greenery – pity to fell these trees – other adjacent trees already removed – had wildlife value – surely these trees can be left.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Once belt of larch trees in rear gardens of Longfield properties with end in 21 New Road – three trees in adjacent property, 32 Longfield, recently felled under 00/1991/CH – now only four trees remaining in belt including two in current application.

Two trees in garden of 21 New Road – to side of house at higher level – both topped number of years ago with resultant coarse branching at tops – one tree thinner and weaker with branches in poor condition at top – other tree closer to house and larger with long side branching – trees now nearing end of useful lives – greater risk of wind damage with removal of adjacent trees – removal and replacement considered reasonable.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy TW2 

ISSUES

1.     The two larch trees are situated adjacent to the house and are visible from New Road.

2.     The trees are now towards the end of their useful lives and vulnerable to wind damage. It is therefore considered reasonable to remove and replace the larches with trees more appropriate for a small garden.

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) C412 Landscaping - replacement of two TPO trees (TPO felling app.)

(1) INFORMATIVE - I213 Quality of Tree Work                                                        

2001/505/CH

Case Officer:      Paul Tomkins

Date Received:     27/03/01     Decide by Date:     21/05/01

Parish:     Amersham - Little Chalfont     Ward:     Amersham Common

App Type:     Application under Advertisement Regulations

Applicant:      PETER JAMES LTD

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Employment Area for Business , General Industry, Storage or Distribution

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

99/1680/CH     Erection of distribution warehouse (Use Class B8) and two office blocks (Class B1) plus new vehicular access and car parking. Conditional Permission, and  subject of Legal Agreement. Development of Warehouse implemented.

THE APPLICATION

Three non-illuminated fascia signs at high level on warehouse building, consisting of individual cut out letters plus company logo. Lettering sizes 0.9m. high on north (service yard) and west elevations, 0.5m. on east facing elevation.

Freestanding sign adjacent to main vehicle access to Bell Lane, to be painted sign mounted between two metal posts and upon dwarf brick wall structure. Overall width 2.5m and height above ground 1.9m. To be set back 9 metres behind back edge of carriageway of Bell Lane. Illuminated by one ground level uplighter pointing at board. Sign to be black lettering on white background.

Agents have submitted details of illuminance levels, at 95. Candelas per sq.m. Also an amended plan showing wording to be Boughton Business Park; and frame to be black rather than red.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approval.

REPRESENTATIONS

Four letters of objection, on grounds that:

1.  Illuminated sign is unnecessary, Boughtons never had an illuminated sign there and presence of the other fascia signs on the building is sufficient to identify it.

2.   There is not a proliferation of company entrances in Bell Lane so unlikely to be confusion over site entrance.

3.   Sign will be an eyesore and create unwanted light pollution at night at a time when little or no traffic will be using the site.

4.    Bell Lane is a residential road, not an industrial estate which happens to have a few houses located on it.

5.     Development not in keeping with semi-rural area.

One letter objects to any illumination after 9 p.m.

One letter not objecting considers that signs are completely in keeping with character of area.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997: Policies A1. A2. GC3.

ISSUES

1.    Proposed fascia signs on three faces of warehouse are of modest proportions in relation to the very substantial elevations of the building, and are not obtrusive. Front elevation is over 100 metres from Bell Lane. Sign on north elevation faces service yard and adjacent timber yard. On west elevation, sign will be seen from railway. No objections to fascia signs under Policy A1.

2.    Freestanding sign on frontage to Bell Lane is also of modest size in context of whole site, and with brick feature forming plinth to sign and metal supports on either side, it is of attractive design and not obtrusive in street scene, being set back behind sight-lines to entrance. Materials and colour acceptable. No objection to illumination from external point source mounted at ground level.

3.    Objections of local residents are noted.  It would not be reasonable to withhold consent for freestanding sign on basis that this is a residential or semi-rural area: the site is clearly established for commercial employment-generating purposes and the sign is for identification of the location. Single sign of this size not excessive for the size of site. Further it is single sided,  facing traffic coming from White Lion Road.  

4.      Level of illumination stated to be 95 cd./sq/m. assuming 65% reflectance from surface. Even if level of reflectance was up towards 100%, the cd/sq.m. would still well below guidelines as set out in appendix to Local Plan. No objectin under Policy GC3.  

5.     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) C118 5 Year Limited Period - Adverts

(2) C261 Standard Advert Conditions

(3) C266 Adverts - Not to shine in Drivers' Eyes

(4) C265 Adverts - intensity of illumination not to exceed 150 Cd/sq. m.

(5) C135 Single plan amended by plans (nos 4793/057/A) received on 10 May 2001.

2001/511/CH

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     28/03/01     Decide by Date:     22/05/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Chalfont Common

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

Applicant:      MRS NOWELL

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Site within 250 m. of active or disused rubbish tip

Tree Preservation Order

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The Chiltern District Council (Land at rear of Elm Tree Cottage, Amersham Road and Foxdell Wood, off Cherry Acre, Chalfont St Peter) Tree Preservation Order 1987 (No 4 of 1987) covering an individual oak tree and an area of trees.

00/2126/CH     First floor side extension. Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

Reduction of beech tree by 5m.

PARISH COUNCIL

Would accept Forestry Officer’s advice.

REPRESENTATIONS

Agent:     Reason for work is to lighten crown owing to large bark wound at ground level.

One letter from adjacent property having no objection to proposal.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Area of woodland to rear of property – mainly old beech trees – large tree on edge of woodland – most of crown growing towards light on house side – bonfire damage on woodland side – 3m high wound from number of years ago – quite deep decay – proposed height reduction considered sensible for safety reasons.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy TW2 

ISSUES

1.     The beech tree is situated on the edge of an area of woodland in the rear garden with part of the crown visible from Pheasant Walk.

2.     The tree has significant decay at the base from an old bonfire wound and has most of its crown growing on the side towards the house. It is therefore considered that the proposed crown reduction is sensible management.

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 a height reduction of 5 metres and re-shaping of the crown.

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 -  I160 Trees - Tree works to British Standard                                     

(2) INFORMATIVE - I212 Tree Work - Crown Reduction                                                 

2001/512/CH

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     28/03/01     Decide by Date:     22/05/01

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham the Hill

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

Applicant:      MR GIELENS

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 Raans County Secondary School, Quill Hall Lane/Raans Road, Amersham) Tree Preservation Order 1989 (No 22 of 1989) covering 16 individual trees, including T1 and T2 limes, and 2 groups of trees.

91/0756/CH     Outline application for residential development with open space. Conditional permission.

94/0524/CH     Erection of 91 houses, garages, parking areas, estate roads and two new vehicular accesses onto Quill Hall Lane (details pursuant to 91/0756/CH). Conditional consent.

00/1333/CH     Crown reduction of two lime trees. Conditional permission. Not implemented – extant.

THE APPLICATION

Crown thinning of two lime trees by 20%.

TOWN COUNCIL

No objection subject to Tree Officer’s comments.

REPRESENTATIONS

Agent:     Reason for work is to manage the trees with their close proximity to the houses.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Two very large lime trees in small rear garden – branches extending over roof of No 4 – extant permission for crown reduction by 30% - current application by new owner apparently unaware of previous approval – current proposal would have less effect on amenity value of trees - proposed work considered reasonable.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy TW2 

ISSUES

1.     The two limes are very large trees and are prominent in views from the surrounding roads.

2.     The two trees are located within a small garden and the proposed work is considered to be reasonable management.

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 thinning by 20%.

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

(1) INFORMATIVE -  I160 Trees - Tree works to British Standard                                     

(2) INFORMATIVE - I212 Tree Work - Crown Reduction                                                 

2001/518/CH

Case Officer:      Kathryn York

Date Received:     29/03/01     Decide by Date:     23/05/01

Parish:     Great Missenden - Prestwood     Ward:     Prestwood

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      I AND J HEWITT

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

87/0327/CH  Alterations and single storey side extension to provide domestic double garage.  Permitted – Not implemented.

89/2686/CH  Part two storey, part single storey side extension incorporating double garage.  Permitted – Not implemented.

94/0946/CH CH  Part two storey, part single storey side extension incorporating double garage (renew 89/2686/CH).  Permitted – Not implemented.

98/1509/CH  Alterations, single storey side extension incorporating replacement garage, and 1.8m high boundary wall.  Permitted and implemented.

THE APPLICATION

Proposes single storey rear extension measuring 4.65m wide x 5.6m deep, with a hipped and pitched roof 4.3m high.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997: Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, 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, TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The application site is located within the built up area of Prestwood where there are no objections to the proposed development in principle subject to compliance with the relevant local plan policies.  The site is also located within the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

2.     The proposed development will not have an adverse impact on the neighbouring properties, and therefore no objections are raised in this respect.

3.     The design of the extension is considered acceptable in relation to the existing dwelling.  The proposed extension is sited at the rear of the property, and it is not considered that there will be an adverse impact on either the street scene or the surrounding Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  No objections are raised in relation to Policies GC1, LSQ1 or H15.

4.     Adequate parking space exists within the curtilage of the application site, and therefore no objections are raised in terms of 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

2001/520/CH

Case Officer:      Iwan Jones

Date Received:     29/03/01     Decide by Date:     23/05/01

Parish:     Chesham     Ward:     Pond Park

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MRS K REYNOLDS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Thames Water - groundwater protection zone

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

C/517/72: Single storey rear extension. Conditional permission. Implemented.

THE APPLICATION

The application relates to the erection of a conservatory to the rear elevation. It would measure 3.85m wide, 3.75m deep and to a flat roof height of 2.9m. A lantern light measuring 0.9m wide, 1.1m deep and 0.7m high would be constructed in the roof of the conservatory. The conservatory would be built flush with the existing western flank elevation of the garage. It would project beyond the existing rear elevation by 1.2m. The proposed external materials have not been indicated on the submitted plan.

TOWN COUNCIL

No objections.

CONSULTATIONS

Thames Water – Groundwater Protection Zone: No objections.

Environment Agency – Groundwater Protection Zone: No comments.

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 lies within the built up area of Chesham where there are no objections in principle to the proposed development subject to compliance with the relevant local plan policies.

2.     The scale and height of the proposed conservatory would be in keeping with the existing dwelling and would not affect the character and appearance of the street scene. No objections raised in terms of Policies H13(ii) and H15(i).

3.     Although the conservatory would comprise of a flat roof, it is considered that it would be acceptable having regard to the fact that there is an existing flat roof extension already to the rear of the property, as well as to the neighbouring properties. The dwelling also has a flat roofed dormer. The conservatory would therefore be surrounded by existing flat roofs. The lantern light is considered to be acceptable. No objections raised in terms of Policy H15(iii).

4.     Having regard to the siting and design of the proposed conservatory, it is considered that it would have no impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties. No objections raised in terms of Policies GC3, H13(i) and H14.  

5.     Three parking spaces are already provided within the site. No objections raised in terms of 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

(3) C173 No additional windows in western elevation of extension

(4) C131 All plans amended - by one plan

2001/528/CH

Case Officer:      Neil Higson

Date Received:     30/03/01     Decide by Date:     24/05/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Austenwood

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      CATHEDRAL HOMES (UK) LTD

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Northolt Airfield safeguarding zone

Dwellings

Total New Dwellings - proposed:          2

Total Dwellings - displaced/demolished:     1

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

CH/2193/83     Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of two houses. Withdrawn.

85/1/CH     Erection of two-bedroom bungalow for residential use by an elderly relative on land adjacent Fairwinds. Refused – cramped over development of the site with insufficient car parking and amenity space about the building.

85/1899/CH     Erection of detached bungalow and garage on land adjacent to Fairwinds. Refused – not of a standard compatible with the surrounding area; not satisfied that the rear garden would meet the required minimum standard; not able to provide satisfactory turning area within the site.

00/1720/CH   Erection of two houses, detached garage and new access.  Approved: being implemented.

THE APPLICATION

Planning permission was recently granted sought for the demolition of the existing dwelling known as “Fairwinds” and its replacement with two detached houses with garages, fronting onto Bull Lane sharing a single access relocated to be central within the frontage. This application seeks permission for the incorporation of two small-pitched roof dormers into the rear elevation of each of the dwellings currently under construction. They would each measure 1m wide by 2m high to the apex of the roof.  

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection

REPRESENTATIONS

1 letter of objection on the grounds of;  

the proposed development will further destroy the privacy of the back garden of “Enzian”, Maltmans Lane

Other none planning matters.

1 letter expressing no objection to the proposal.

CONSULTATIONS

District Highway Engineer – No objection subject to there being no change to the vehicular access. Previous conditions to be re-imposed.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policies GC1, GC3, GC4, H3, H11, H12, TR2, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The demolition of the existing dwelling and its replacement with two detached dwellings has already been accepted by the previous planning permission 00/1720/CH.  

2.     The new dwelling are currently under construction and the application now wishes to utilise the space in the roof by the incorporation of two small dormers into the rear roof slope of each dwelling. As the dormers would increase the volume of usable residential accommodation and the building works are under way the changes can not be carried out as minor amendments and hence the need for a revised application.

3.     It should be noted that the dormers could be inserted following the completion of the dwellings without the need for the specific granting of planning permission under the terms of permitted development, however the applicant wishes to carry out the work as the buildings are erected.

4.     This notwithstanding the site is well screened on all boundaries by natural vegetation, with Plot 2 having an average garden depth of 20.m and a width of 22m, while Plot 1 would have an irregular shaped garden with a minimum depth of 27m and a minimum width of 23m. It was considered that there would be sufficient distance between the properties and their boundaries in relation to other surrounding properties that problems with overlooking would not occur and hence there was no need for a condition removing permitted development rights for such alterations. Further the dwelling which was demolished included quite large dormers in the rear elevation and the situation would therefore be no worse than was previously the case.

5.     It is therefore considered that the proposal meets the requirements of the relevant Local Plan policies.

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) Before the development hereby permitted is first commenced, the screen fence shown on the northern boundary of plot 2 on the approved plans shall be erected.

Reason:  In order to ensure the privacy of the occupiers of the adjoining property.

(3) The windows at first floor level in the north and south elevations of both dwellings hereby approved shall not be glazed other than with obscured glass at any time.

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

(4) 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), the dwellings hereby permitted shall not have any additional windows to any habitable room or kitchen installed at any time in the northern elevation of Plot 2 or the southern elevation of Plot 1. Reason: To protect the amenities and privacy of the adjoining property.

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

(6) C402 Landscaping - removal of part of hedge on eastern boundary

(7) C406 Landscaping Scheme to be Submitted

(8) C407 Landscaping Scheme to be Implemented

(9) The exterior of the development hereby permitted shall only be constructed in the materials which shall previously have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason : To ensure that the external appearance of the development is not detrimental to the character of the locality.

(10) The garages hereby permitted shall only be used for purposes in connection with and incidental to the occupation of the buildings as private dwellings.  They shall not be used for any business, commercial or industrial purposes at any time.

Reason:  To prevent the undesirable establishment of any business, commercial or industrial use within the curtilage of this dwellinghouse, to the detriment of the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties.

(11) C453 Garaging/Parking as specified on site and location plan received on 30/03/01.

(12) C501 Access Layout - Adopted Road : Access to new Dev - Plan Approved

(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 2.4m 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;

A point on the nearer edge of the highway's running carriageway at a distance of 90m to the north and 50m to the south measured 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) C552 Closure of Access in one month; reinstate verge after consulting Div Survyr

(15) C561 Surface Water

(16) C571 Turning Space as on Plan Approved

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

(2) INFORMATIVE - As construction has commenced the applicant's attention is drawn to the conditions which applied to the previous permission and have been transferred to the current permission requiring the prior submission and approval of  certain specified details.

2001/533/CH

Case Officer:      Thomas Gabriel

Date Received:     02/04/01     Decide by Date:     27/05/01

Parish:     Penn     Ward:     Penn

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR & MRS J WOOD

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

CH/1204/75   Twelve houses and garages. Conditional permission – implemented.

93/0272/CH   Alterations and single storey side/ front extension incorporating garage. Conditional permission – implemented.

THE APPLICATION

The application is for single storey front and side extensions. The front extension is to measure 1.6m by 2.3m and 2.6m high with a false pitch. The side extension is to measure 8.2m by 3.7m, incorporating a conservatory. The roof over the conservatory is to be 3.5m high to the pitch. The roof over the other element of the side extension, a utility room, is to be 4.1m high to the pitch.

PARISH COUNCIL

No comment.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, H13, H14, H15, 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 Knotty Green where there are no objections to the proposed development in principle, subject to compliance with the relevant local plan policies.

2.     The front extension is a minor addition to the dwelling which will not impact upon the neighbouring dwellings. It will not detract from the appearance of the dwelling or that of the street scene. The flat roof will not appear prominent. No objections are raised to the front extension.

3.     The side extension, shielded from the neighbouring dwellings by the existing dwelling, will not impact upon them. It will respect the scale and proportions of the existing dwelling and will not detract from the appearance of the dwelling or that of the street scene. It will not result in the loss of privacy for the occupiers of the neighbouring dwellings, and it is not considered to represent overdevelopment of the site. No objections are raised in terms of Policies GC3, H13, H14 or H15.

4.     The floorspace of the dwelling already exceeds 120sq. m. No objections are raised in terms of Policies TR11 or 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

2001/534/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     02/04/01     Decide by Date:     27/05/01

Parish:     Ashley Green     Ward:     Ashley Green & Latimer

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR & MRS K WATERMAN

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Site within 250 m. of active or disused rubbish tip

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

CH/910/84   Conversion and extension of existing farmhouse to form three residential units.   Conditional permission.

85/716/CH   Single storey extension for utility room.   Conditional permission.

94/0303/CH   Removal of Condition 3 and 6 from planning permission CH/910/84 and retention of original residential curtilage.   Conditional permission.

94/1278/CH   Demolition and re-erection of timber barn for use as ancillary residential use (UARI CH/910/84) construct triple garage and new vehicular access erect new front wall.   Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

Three front dormer windows (each 1.4m wide and 1.8m to the ridge of their hipped roof). They are evenly spread across the front elevation, 0.15m short of the main ridge.

The outer roof faces of the existing rear interlocked double gabled valley feature, is to be continued up to form one larger gable at 8.4m (level with the main ridge). To the right will be a second gable repeating the previous valley design, its ridge 2.5m away, continuing down (as before) to first floor level, where it will fuse with the projecting side element and fill in an existing void.

CONSULTATIONS

The Environment Agency:

No comments.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997: Policies  GC1, GB13, H11, H13, H14, H15, H16, 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.     The application site is located midst an isolated group of former farm buildings in the open Metropolitan Green Belt to the north of Ashley Green. As part of this cluster of Buckinghamshire red brick and clay tiled buildings, the project proposes to carrying through this strong vernacular trait and in doing so it meets the requirements of Local Plan Policy GC1 and H15. Neighbouring property N0. 1 has half dormer windows with hipped roofs on the north elevation which are used as an acceptable precedent for the dormers proposed on this same elevation of No. 2, and are therefore fully in compliance with the character and proportions of this facade, in terms of Policy H18.

2.     The rear private courtyard is defined by the flanks of No. 1 and 3, and as the few neighbouring windows that do overlook this space are formed with obscure glazing, no loss of amenity will be generated by the introduction of the larger double gable. The southern limits of the courtyard is completed by two outbuildings, and a 2m brick wall with lychgate, this partly obscures but mainly distracts the new build from the access track to the rear.

3.     Neither works will dominate the property being only incremental development that will not significantly increasing the size of this Green Belt Settlement enough so as to contravene Local Plan Policy GB13.

4.     No. 3 is orientated the reverse of 1 and 2 and therefore the applicants front dormer windows overlook the rear of N0. 3. As the dormers will gain no more of a line of vision into these neighbours private amenity space than the existing front first floor windows, they are not considered to be adverse in terms of Local Plan Policy GC3, H13 andH14.

5.     The property has two car parking spaces and garage to the rear and two additional available spaces to the front (not within their red edge). As such Local Plan Policy TR11 and TR16 have been satisfied.

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

2001/535/CH

Case Officer:      Neil Higson

Date Received:     02/04/01     Decide by Date:     27/05/01

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham Town

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MRS D HARASYN

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt settlement GB4

Locally Important Landscape

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

THE APPLICATION

It is proposed to construct a single storey side and rear extension to this bungalow to replace an existing single garage and rear conservatory. The extension would be “L-shaped” in footprint extending across the full width of the dwelling projecting 2.7m beyond the north-eastern (side) elevation. It would measure 8.5m wide for a depth of 3.9m narrowing to 2.7m for a further depth of 2.9m. The extension would have a flat roof.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend Approval.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policies GC1, GC3, GB4, GB12, H13, H14, H15, H17, TR2, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

The application site is located within an existing row of dwellings in the Green Belt whereby extensions to dwellings are acceptable in principle subject to compliance with the relevant policies of the local plan.

The style and design of the proposed extension is considered acceptable in terms of relating to the existing dwelling and there will be no adverse visual impact upon neighbouring dwellings. The dwelling has relatively long front and rear gardens would be only marginally closer to the common boundary with the property to the north east than is currently the case and the resulting building would not appear cramped or incongruous in the street scene. It is considered that the proposal therefore meets the requirements of GC1, GC3, GB12, H11, H13, H14, H15, and H17.

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.

Three vehicles can be adequately parked within the curtilage of the property. No objection under Policy TR16.

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

2001/540/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     02/04/01     Decide by Date:     27/05/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Chalfont St Peter Central

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS G BERTRAND

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

97/0990/CH   Alterations, single storey front extension, single storey and first floor side extension, two dormer windows in front and side elevation and raising height and new roof to single storey store room on rear elevation.   Conditional permission.

99/1843/CH   Two storey front extension, first floor rear extension, two dormer windows in front elevation and four dormer windows in side elevation.   Conditional permission.

00/0286/CH   Two two storey front extension, first floor rear extension, two dormer windows in front elevation and four dormer windows in side elevation (amendment to planning permission 99/1843/CH).

THE APPLICATION

A conservatory is in a 2.1m by 5m angle between the main axis of the property and the side projection (on the south east corner of the property). The structure is 5m wide (flush with the rear corner of the property), whilst 3.1m deep at the rear and 5.2m deep at the front, forming a 65 degree angled side elevation, holding a pitched roof at 3.7m.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

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 seeks approval for a conservatory in Chalfont Heights, Chalfont St. Peter. It will not materially affect the appearance of this early 20th century cottage due to the steep north easterly incline to which the structure will be built into. This landscape will allow only part of this asymmetrical glass pentagon to be exposed to the front garden from behind retaining walls, and as such is small scale and subtle against the property and is considered acceptable under Local Plan Policy GC1 and H15.

2.     The structure will overlook the front garden that has in excess of 30m of lawn with a row of mature deciduous trees to the roadside. These trees screen most of the property from Chiltern Hill and will prevent the conservatory from being clearly viewed from the highway, therefore securing the future appearance of the street scene.

3.     ‘Oak Lodge’ and ‘Pine Cottage’ are up-hill from the site and concealed behind a retaining wall of railway sleepers. This wall is approximately 2.5m high with a brick outbuilding aloft which totally obscures the new build from these neighbours. ‘Silver Birch Cottage’ to the south west is set behind a 2.5m hedge, to which only its roof projects above. This conservatory although in close proximity to the boundary will be obscured from all neighbouring property and as such complies with Local Plan Policy GC3, H13 and H14.

4.     The long side driveway and court to the rear/side of the property caters for more than the required parking measures under Local 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

2001/542/CH

Case Officer:      Ray Martin

Date Received:     02/04/01     Decide by Date:     27/05/01

Parish:     Coleshill     Ward:     Coleshill & Penn Street

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS G STANGL

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt settlement GB4

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

adjoining Public Amenity Open Space

adjoining Common land

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

adj Biological Notification site

THE APPLICATION

Proposal comprises a front porch, a part single storey part two storey extension at the side and rear of the existing dwelling and a rear conservatory.  The porch would be 1.45 metres deep and 2 metres wide with a pitched roof to a height of 3.4 metres. The side extension would be 1.75 metres wide and extends the full length of the existing house,  This would have a mono-pitched roof to 4 metres in height.  At the rear corner of the dwelling a first floor element is proposed that would be about 3 metres wide and 4 metres deep with a pitched roof to 6.5 metres in height.  The single storey extension is close to the flank boundary of the site, with the two storey element being set at least one metre off this boundary.  A canopy would be constructed across the rear of the dwelling and one metre from the other flank boundary with the semi-detached neighbour it is proposed to erect a conservatory that would be about 2 metres wide, 3.5 metres deep, with a pitched roof to 4 metres in height.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

REPRESENTATIONS

Occupier of immediate neighbouring property to the south agrees with extension but would like to suggest that the front part of the extension be built on the boundary to act as a retaining wall and the rear part moved further away from the boundary in order to allow access for maintenance of his extension.

CONSULTATIONS

Council’s Solicitor: The proposed development would appear not to affect common land.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997: Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, GB4, GB12, TR11, TR16.

Proposed Alterations to the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 - Deposit Copy - July 1998 (including Proposed Modifications- November 2000): Policies GC3, TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The application site is located within an existing row of dwellings within the Green Belt, wherein residential extensions can be acceptable provided they are not visually intrusive in the street scene, or detrimental to the amenities of neighbouring properties.

2.     The site also lies within the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, but given its location within the village of Coleshill, it is not considered that the development would have any implications for the scenic beauty of the landscape.

3.     In street scene terms, the porch is small and of a suitable design, such that it would not be intrusive.  The side extension is also sympathetic to the existing house and given the fact that the two storey element is set well back from the frontage and remains one metre from the flank boundary, it is not considered that the additions would appear unduly cramped or intrusive.

4.     To the south, the neighbouring property has a single storey extension up to the boundary with this site containing no flank elevation windows.  This is in line with the two storey element of the proposal and given the fact that the two storey part of the neighbour is set well away from the boundary it is not considered that the development would appear intrusive and would not lead to any significant loss of light.  The only flank window facing this property is to a bathroom and thus, provided that this is glazed with obscured glass, it is not considered that the proposal would result in any significant loss of privacy for this neighbour.

5.     The two storey element of the proposal is well clear of the neighbour to the north and is concealed by an existing two storey rear projection.  The proposed single storey element on this flank is limited in size and height and is kept one metre from the boundary that is reasonably well screened.  Therefore, it is not considered that the proposal would be significantly detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of this property.

6.     The proposed development increases the size of the dwelling to in excess of 120 square metres in floor area wherein three car parking spaces are required under the Council’s standards.  There are presently two spaces on site, but given that space exists to provide a third, subject to a condition requiring this, no objection is raised in these terms.

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) C431 Materials of Development to Match Those of Existing Building

(3) C178 Obscure glass in bathroom window in south elevation

(4) C174A No additional windows in first floor of south elevation of extension.

(5) The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until parking spaces for three vehicles have been provided in accordance with plans which shall have been previously approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved parking spaces shall be provided prior to the occupation of the extensions and thereafter shall be permanently reserved for parking and kept free from any obstruction.

Reason: To ensure that adequate and satisfactory provision is made for the parking of vehicles clear of the highway.

2001/543/CH

Case Officer:      Tony Clements

Date Received:     03/04/01     Decide by Date:     28/05/01

Parish:     Penn     Ward:     Penn

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      DR R BAYLY c/o THE HALL PARTNERSHIP

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

99/0506/CH: Two detached houses each with detached double garage; detached single garage/store for 58 Howe Drive and detached double garage for 60 Howe Drive, served by new private drive – Refused – Access drive would result in loss of amenity to adjoining residents – Appeal dismissed.                               

2000/0943/CH: Two detached houses each with integral double garages served by new private drive – Conditional permission – Implemented.

THE APPLICATION

Proposes the construction of a pitched hipped roof 4.5m to the apex on the garden store, which is the building that remains following the demolition of half the original double garage.

PARISH COUNCIL

No comment.

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter received expressing support for the proposal.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997: Policies GC1, GC3, H20.

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

ISSUES

1.     There is no objection to the provision of a pitched roof on this building.  There will be no significant impact on any interests of acknowledged importance and therefore no objections are raised, subject to appropriate materials.

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) C425 Materials - Roofing Tiles

2001/546/CH

Case Officer:      Kathryn York

Date Received:     03/04/01     Decide by Date:     28/05/01

Parish:     Penn     Ward:     Penn

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS MOOR

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/865/73  Sun lounge.  Permitted and implemented.

THE APPLICATION

Proposes single storey front extension measuring 3.305m wide x 1.5m deep, with a hipped and pitched roof 4.85m high; rear extension measuring 5.31m wide x 3.05m deep, with a flat roof measuring 3m high; extension to an existing side projection – the extension measures 1.865m deep x 3.265m wide, and the ridge height of this projection will be raised to 5.95m.  A rear flat roofed dormer is also proposed in the roofslope of the side extension.

PARISH COUNCIL

No comment.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

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

2.     There is currently a high level of overlooking from the side elevation windows facing No.3 Mynchen End, and no new windows are proposed in this elevation.  The proposed rear dormer window will result in additional overlooking, especially as there is currently only one obscure glazed window in this elevation.  However this window serves a bathroom and can therefore be obscure glazed.  No objections are raised.

3.     The majority of the development is confined to the rear of the site.  The front porch and side extension will be visible from Mynchen End, however it is not considered that they will be detrimental to the street scene.  No objections are raised in this respect.

4.     The rear dormer window is suitably small scale and subordinate to the existing roof.  No objections are raised in terms of Policy H18.

5.     Adequate parking space exists within the site to meet the Council’s parking requirements.  No objections are raised in relation to 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) C432 Materials - As on Plan or Subsequently Specified

(3) The dormer window in the north east elevation of the development hereby approved shall not be glazed other than with obscured glass, at any time.

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

2001/547/CH

Case Officer:      Neil Higson

Date Received:     03/04/01     Decide by Date:     28/05/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Chalfont St Peter Central

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR S DEAR

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

THE APPLICATION

Permission is sought for a two-storey side extension on the south-east elevation of the dwelling to measure 5m wide by 5m deep, reaching an overall height to ridge of 7.1m with a hip to the south east elevation. It would include a central bay window at ground floor level 2.04m wide by 0.6m in depth to the front elevation. A second bay window would be constructed to this elevation of the existing building along with a squaring off of the porch to the main front entrance. A mono-pitch roof would cap the new porch and continue along the front elevation over the two bay windows.

A single storey rear extension would be built to the kitchen measuring 4.6m wide by 3.05m deep with a mono-pitch roof.

It is also proposed to construct a detached building 1m to the south-east of the proposed two storey extension to provide a single garage and carport. This building would measure 5.6m wide by 5m deep with a ridged roof to a height of 3.9m with eaves height of 2.06m. It would have half-hip details to the side elevations.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

REPRESENTATIONS

1 letter from adjoining resident stating objection on the grounds of loss of light to kitchen due to position of proposed rear extension. Reference is also made to effecting the drains, which is not a planning matter.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1.     The proposed extension is to be situated to the south-east side of the existing dwelling bringing the flank wall of the resulting building 5m closer to the boundary with Joiners Lane than the current flank wall. It is considered that the extension would virtually double the width of the property and project significantly beyond the existing building line in this part of Joiners Lane where it would have a prominent and over-dominant impact in the street scene.

2.     It is considered that the side extension would not reflect the character and scale of the dwelling, failing to appear subordinate to the original dwelling. This extension along with the proposed garage and car-port would practically fill the whole width of the frontage onto Beacon Close at ground floor level on this prominent corner plot as approached up the hill from the A413 and would appear incongruous in the street scene.

3.     Objections have been received that daylight will be lost to the kitchen window of the property to the north due to the proposed single storey rear extension. However, it is felt that it would be unsustainable to refuse permission for a single storey rear extension which only projects 1m beyond the rear elevation of the adjacent property. It is not considered that any light loss would be so material as to cause demonstrable harm. The proposed extension would be clearly visible from within the curtilage of the adjacent property to the east No.45 however there no windows in the flank facing the application site, which would be materially, affected. Whilst objection is raised to the size and impact of the extension in the streetscene, it is not considered that it would have an adverse effect on the amenities enjoyed by these neighbouring residents.

4.     Adequate on site parking space for three cars.

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 development would, because of its size, design and siting on this prominent corner plot, be an over-dominant and incongruous addition to the property detracting from the visual amenities of the street scene and nearby residents. The proposal is therefore contrary to the principles of good design as set out in Policies GC1, H13 and H15 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997.

2001/548/CH

Case Officer:      James Chatfield

Date Received:     03/04/01     Decide by Date:     28/05/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Gold Hill

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      B ALLEN ESQ

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Class C Road

Dwellings

Total New Dwellings - proposed:          4

Total Dwellings - displaced/demolished:     1

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

00/1709/CH     Redevelopment of site by two pairs of semi detached dwellings, alterations to access, entrance gates, and front wall. Refused; overdevelopment, cramped appearance in street scene, overbearing to adjacent property at 7 Grove Close, inadequate parking.