Meeting documents

2001/24/TC

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     21/05/01     Decide by Date:     02/07/01

Parish:     Penn     Ward:     Penn

App Type:     Work to unpreserved trees in Conservation Area

Applicant:      MR M J RASZPLA

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Penn & Tylers Green Conservation Area

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Adjoining Green Belt

adjoining Common land

Class B Road

Within curtilage of Listed Building - affects setting

Area of Special Advertisement Control

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

94/1084/CH     Alterations, part single storey, part two storey side extension and new access drive. Conditional permission.

97/0031/TC     Removal of an elm and a conifer. No TPO made.

00/0721/CH     Erection of detached outbuilding incorporating replacement garage. Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

Felling of a holly in Well End and an ash in Midelm.

PARISH COUNCIL

No comments.

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant:     Holly is poor specimen with much leaf drop in child’s play area – removal would open up views to rear – established holly next to existing will have better chance to grow.  Ash is self-seeded seedling growing under frontage of Grade II listed building – propose removal to prevent structural damage – will consult neighbour if permission granted – no replanting can be considered for structural reasons.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Holly - about 8m high near rear boundary of rear garden – in poor condition with thin foliage – good young tree about 4m high about 3m away.

Ash – young tree about 6m high very close to front of terraced building – branches touching building – poor specimen – topped several years ago.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy CA5 

ISSUES

1.     The holly is situated in the rear garden of Well End and is visible from the public footpath and the recreation ground to the rear.

2.     The ash is situated at the front of Midelm and is visible from the road.

3.     It is considered that neither tree makes a significant contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. A Tree Preservation Order would therefore not be appropriate.

4.     It is considered that there is little need for replacement planting for the holly and it would not be appropriate to request replacement planting for the ash.

5.     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

2001/25/TC

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     24/05/01     Decide by Date:     05/07/01

Parish:     Little Missenden     Ward:     Little Missenden

App Type:     Work to unpreserved trees in Conservation Area

Applicant:      LITTLE MISSENDEN C OF E PRIMARY SCHOOL

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Little Missenden Conservation Area

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

91/0759/CH     Single storey side/rear extension. Refused permission.

91/1344/CH     Single storey side/rear extension. Conditional permission.

01/0776/CH     Single storey front extension. Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

T1 – Lime – Remove deadwood and thin crown by 15%.

T2 – Cherry – Remove deadwood and reduce crown by 15%.

T3 – Purple Plum – reduce lateral limb by 25% and sever ivy.

T4 – Yew – Fell tree and grind out its stump.

T7 – Purple Plum – Fell tree and grind out its stump.

REPRESENTATIONS

Agent:     Have been asked by school to organise various works to trees within their grounds – works required to either maintain safety or to abate a nuisance.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Many trees in small area of land between school building and road – hedge along road boundary.

T1 – Lime – large tree with dense crown containing deadwood - proposed crown thinning reasonable.

T2 – Cherry – large tree in poor condition with dieback and thin foliage - proposed crown reduction reasonable.

T3 – Purple Plum (actually green-leafed variety but survey carried out in winter) – tree on front boundary with large limb growing towards school – some risk of breakage – proposed surgery reasonable.

T4 – Yew – Irish yew about 6m high fairly close to school – reasonable tree but partially hidden from public views by hedge and adjacent laurel – understand school concerned about safety issues with poisonous berries etc. – tree unlikely to be causing foundation problems but would cause some shading of building – recent permission for extension requires removal of tree – in circumstances TPO considered inappropriate.

T7 – Purple Plum (actually green-leafed variety but survey carried out in winter) – severely leaning tree on front boundary – root appears to have moved number of years ago – some risk of tree falling.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy CA5 

ISSUES

1.     The trees are situated to the front of the school building and are visible from the road and surrounding public viewpoints.

2.     The proposed surgery to T1 - lime, T2 - cherry and T3 – plum is considered to be reasonable management.  Of the two trees proposed for felling, T7 – plum is leaning and at risk of falling while the removal of T4 – yew was permitted under the recent planning permission for an extension to the school.  In these circumstances it is considered that a Tree Preservation Order would not be appropriate.

3.     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

2001/27/TC

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     30/05/01     Decide by Date:     11/07/01

Parish:     Little Missenden     Ward:     Little Missenden

App Type:     Work to unpreserved trees in Conservation Area

Applicant:      MR CUFF (CO AGENT)

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Little Missenden Conservation Area

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

River Chess & River Misbourne - area liable to flood

Class A Road

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Biological Notification site

Within curtilage of Listed Building - affects setting

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

90/0005/TC     Lopping of 19 trees and felling of one tree. TPO made.

92/0762/CH     Felling of two yews and a Norway spruce and crown reduction of eight yews. Conditional permission.

92/0021/TC     Height reduction of yew tree. No TPO made.

THE APPLICATION

Pruning back of ten lime trees to old pruning points, 20% of the upper crowns.

PARISH COUNCIL

Approve subject to approval of District Forestry Officer

REPRESENTATIONS

Agent:     Reason for application is good arboricultural practice.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Line of very large lime trees along edge of field beside A413 – signs of previous reduction perhaps 10-15 years ago – gap in line where one of trees fell about two or three years ago – replacement tree planted – line of hollies about 8-10m high at edge of highway partially screening limes from A413 – proposed tree surgery reasonable to reduce risk of further tree loss.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy CA5 

ISSUES

1.     The line of limes is a prominent feature from surrounding public viewpoints but is partially screened from the highway by a line of hollies.

2.     One of the line has blown down recently so it is likely that the other trees would also be at risk. The proposed tree surgery is therefore considered to be reasonable and 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

2001/28/TC

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     30/05/01     Decide by Date:     11/07/01

Parish:     Chenies     Ward:     Chenies

App Type:     Work to unpreserved trees in Conservation Area

Applicant:      MRS AILLEEN FOLKES

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Chenies & Latimer Conservation Area

Green Belt settlement GB4

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

Nearby properties:

99/0041/TC     Height reduction of a cypress and two hazels. (No7). No TPO made.

99/0043/TC     Crown reduction and thinning of a lilac. (No8). No TPO made.

THE APPLICATION

Felling of a cherry.

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant:     Cherry is diseased and badly rotted – propose to replant a weeping cherry in middle of rear of garden.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Cherry near rear corner of rear garden – ageing tree in declining health – extensive decay at base – probably from bonfire damage many years ago – also decay at fork at height of about 2m – appears to be at point where branch lost – sensible to remove and replace tree.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy CA5 

ISSUES

1.     The cherry tree is situated in the rear garden with very limited visibility from public viewpoints.

2.     The tree is in very poor condition and it is considered that it does 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 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; single replacement tree requested

2001/838/CH

Case Officer:      Thomas Gabriel

Date Received:     16/05/01     Decide by Date:     10/07/01

Parish:     Cholesbury     Ward:     Cholesbury & The Lee

App Type:     Application for Certificate of Lawfulness - existing use or development

Applicant:      NINA JONES, JOHN JONES & ARON JONES

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

adj Biological Notification site

Thames Water - groundwater protection zone

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

94/0001/CH   Erection of detached single garage. Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

The application is for a Certificate of Lawfulness relating to the occupation of a dwelling without compliance with the agricultural occupancy condition imposed on planning permission CH/1068/84, which states that:

‘This permission deletes Condition 1 of planning permission AM/843/61 subject to its replacement by the following condition: The occupation of the dwellings shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed, or last employed in the locality in agriculture as defined in Section 290 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 or in forestry (including any dependents of such a person residing with him/ her, or a widow or widower of such a person)’.

Enclosed with the application are six affidavits, three from the owners of the cottage, stating that when they moved in to the dwelling in 1977, one member of the family, Mrs. Jones, was working at Howes Turkey Farm. In 1981, a second member of the family, Mr. J Jones, started employment at the turkey farm, but was made redundant in 1983. Mrs. Jones was made redundant in 1984. Since those times, they have had a variety of jobs not related to agriculture. The third member of the family, Mr. A Jones (the son), has not worked in agriculture since 1985.

The remaining affidavits, two from the occupiers of nearby properties and one from a  previous owner of  nearby property, state that Mrs. Jones, since being made redundant from the turkey farm, has worked as a domestic help. Mr. Jones, further to leaving the turkey farm, until his retirement in 1998, worked for a couple of different firms.

Two further letters were submitted. One from Mr. Hadland, confirming that Mr. J Jones worked for Hadland Photonics Limited between 5 November 1987 and March 1998. The second letter, from Mr. Kitchen, confirms that Mr. A Jones worked from November 1988 to 1992 at AFG (Nissan) High Wycombe and subsequent to the closure of that workshop, Mr. A Jones worked for Davenport Vernon (Nissan). Mr. Kitchen believes that Mr. A Jones changed his employment and is now employed by Dan Perkins of Slough. Mr. Kitchen states that throughout the time he has known Mr. A Jones, he has worked in the motor trade.

PARISH COUNCIL

No comment.

CONSULTATIONS

Chief Executive – Legal – Subject to the receipt of confirmation of the employment of both Mr. A and Mr. J Jones (subsequently provided) and production of the original affidavits, and checks of your own records, including planning/ enforcement/ local knowledge, I am satisfied on balance to recommend the grant of this application, which is not worth refusing at this stage as the outstanding details required should be quite easily obtainable.

Although the correspondence relating to AM Jones is not what I had hoped for vis a vis confirmation on the employer’s stationary, I consider on balance that we can be satisfied that Aron Jones has not been agriculturally employed for the past 10 years.

To conclude on balance, I would recommend granting the Certificate.

ISSUES

1.     The comments of the Chief Executive indicate that the additional information requested, further to that originally submitted with the application, is sufficient to demonstrate that the dwelling has been occupied continuously for a period of 10 years without compliance with the agricultural occupancy condition imposed upon planning permission CH/1068/84.

RECOMMENDATION: Certificate of Lawfulness - existing development or use - issued

(1) In the Council's opinion, the submitted evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that 2 Hawridge Hill Cottages has been occupied without complying with the agricultural occupancy condition imposed upon planning permission CH/1068/84 for the required period.

2001/840/CH

Case Officer:      Thomas Gabriel

Date Received:     17/05/01     Decide by Date:     11/07/01

Parish:     Penn     Ward:     Penn

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR M MOIR

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Mineral Consultation Area

Tree Preservation Order

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

CH/1111/83   Two storey rear extension and new access to dwelling. Conditional permission – implemented.

95/0346/CH   Rear conservatory. Conditional permission – implemented.

00/0533/CH   Detached house and double garage served by access onto Finch Lane. Withdrawn.

00/0915/CH   Detached house and double garage served by access onto Finch Lane. Conditional permission – not implemented.

THE APPLICATION

The application is for a front porch and part two storey/ part single storey front/ side extension incorporating a triple garage. The front porch is to measure 1.15m by 3.35m and 3.15m high to the pitch. The two storey element of the extension is to measure 5.9m by 3.5m and 7.15m high to the pitch. It is to incorporate a dormer window in the front elevation, 2m wide with a pitch 5.9m above ground level. The single storey element of the extension is to measure 3m by 5.9m with a sloping roof 3.9m high where it joins the existing sloping roof of the dwelling. A dormer window is to be inserted in the side elevation of the existing dwelling, above this extension, 1.2m wide with a pitch 5.5m above ground level. A pitched roof is also to be constructed over the existing front dormer window, the pitch of which is to be 5.5m above ground level.

PARISH COUNCIL

No comment.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry Officer – Plans do not show tree/ shrub loss nor changes to hardstanding in front of proposed new garage. Likely to involve loss of mock orange, laurel, yew and some shrubs. Fairly close to hazels near boundary. Possible minor trimming but should not be significantly affected. No objection.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997: Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, H13, H14, H15, 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 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 porch is a minor addition to the dwelling that will not impact upon the neighbouring dwellings. The impact upon the street scene will be acceptable. The porch will relate to the dwelling in a satisfactory manner and will not be obtrusive. No objections are raised to it.

3.     The part two storey/ part single storey front/ side extension will respect the scale and proportions of the existing dwelling, will not detract from the street scene and will not have any detrimental impacts for the neighbouring dwellings. The works will not be obtrusive and will not result in overdevelopment of the site. Both the dormer windows in the front elevation and that to be inserted in the side elevation will respect the scale and proportions of the roofslopes into which they are to be inserted. Overlooking from the front dormer window will not be an issue, while the potential loss of privacy for the dwellings currently under construction to the north east of the site can be overcome through the use of obscure glazing in the side dormer window (which is a secondary bedroom window). No objections are raised in terms of Policies GC3, H13, H14, H15 or H18.

4.     The floorspace of the dwelling already exceeds 120sq. m. No objections are raised in terms of Policies TR11 or TR16.

5.     The District Forestry Officer considers that the trees on the north west boundary of the site will not be significantly affected by the proposed extension. No objections are raised.

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) C178 Obscure glass in dormer window in north east elevation

(4) This permission shall relate to the submitted application form and plan as subsequently part amended by Plan No. PD/1420/01A received by the Local Planning Authority on 19 June 2001.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as to what is permitted and because you have so agreed in writing.

2001/859/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     21/05/01     Decide by Date:     15/07/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Gold Hill

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR D SHARP

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

86/2417/CH     Single storey rear extension, permitted development.

THE APPLICATION

1.     The front porch would have a floor area of 2.35m in width by 1.325m in depth.  Its eaves height would be approximately 2.3m with a hipped roof over to a ridge height of approximately 3.4m.

2.     To the rear of the dwelling a two-storey extension is proposed which would involve the demolition of an existing single storey structure (floor area of 2.2m by 3.4m).  The extension would cover the full width of the property and would project 3.87m adjacent to No.30 and by 4.85m (including the bay window) adjacent to No.26, the deeper part of the extension would be 4m in width (the dwelling 6.5m in width).

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections provided that the Officer’s site visit shows that he is content with the effect of this proposed development on the neighbourhood properties.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letter from the neighbour at 30 Eleanor Road objecting on the following grounds –

1.     My own initial plans to build a house on the plot adjacent to the current application had to be modified in that I was advised that I could not have side windows in the side of the house that overlooked No.28 on either floor.  This meant that my roofline had to be lowered and Velux windows fitted to the stair well, front and back bedrooms to gain sufficient light.

2.     The new rear wall will extend beyond my rear building line if the proposed new wall length of 3.870m is passed.

3.     The total new depth of the house to include the bay window will extend beyond the existing garage line if the proposed depth of 4.5m is allowed.

4.     The proposed new roofline plus the new walls will adversely affect the light on my patio and to the stair-well and bedroom Velux windows.  These are not currently affected by the existing roofline of No.28.

5.     On the first floor there are proposed to be two new bathroom windows that will overlook my property, since I was not allowed to overlook No.28 in 1985 this proposal seems out of place.

6.     The proposed new single windows to the main bedroom on my side of the extension bedroom should have obscured glass fitted.

7.     I have no objections to the building of a new front porch.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997: Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, H11, H13, H14, H15, H16, 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 design of the proposed extensions is considered acceptable, respecting the scale and proportions of the existing dwelling and, although relatively deep it is felt that the resultant dwelling would respect the size and characteristics of the plot.  The rear extensions would not appear intrusive in the street scene and no objections are raised in this respect to the front porch.

2.     Having regard to the representations of the neighbouring property, it is considered that the impact of the proposed extensions would not be so significant as to warrant a refusal of the application.  The neighbouring property to the east No.26, a bungalow, is set to the rear of No.28.  The only opening that No.26 has on its flank elevation is a doorway, there are no windows facing the proposed extension.  Consequently it is not considered that objections are raised to the impact that the extension would have upon this property.  

3.     As stated above, the comments of the neighbour at No.30 have been noted and have been duly considered.  No.30 has a lower ridge and eaves height (6.2m and 3.9m respectively) than No.28 and is also set to the rear of the existing dwelling at No.28 (the garage at No.28 is approximately 1m behind the rear elevation of No.30).  The neighbouring dwelling has no windows in its flank elevation, it does however have a number of rooflights in its eastern facing roofslope.  The windows in its rear elevation are located towards the centre of the dwelling approximately 2.4m away from the rear corner of the dwelling.  Taking firstly the issue of overlooking towards No.30.  The proposed window and door in the flank elevation of the utility room are in the same location as an existing clear glazed window and, as such would not result in any material increase in overlooking.  The two new windows at first floor level are to serve bathrooms and as such could reasonably be required to have obscured glass, a condition to ensure that this is the case could be included on any decision notice.  The neighbour has highlighted that the smaller window to the proposed rear bedroom should be obscured glass.  While this request has been noted, it is not considered that such a condition would be reasonable and it is not considered that the window would permit an unacceptable level of overlooking to No.30.  Although the proposed extension would project beyond the rear elevation of No.30, it would not project so far to the rear that the extension would appear to be overbearing and, noting the aspect of the dwellings, it is not felt that the extension would result in any significant loss of light to either the garden or to the dwelling itself.  

4.     No adverse car parking issues arise, provision within the site exists for three cars.  No objections 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

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

(4) C177 Obscure glass in multiple windows in western elevation - 1st floor only

2001/874/CH

Case Officer:      Ray Martin

Date Received:     25/05/01     Decide by Date:     20/07/01

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Chesham Bois & Weedon

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS M TILLBROOK

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Dwellings

Total New Dwellings - proposed:          1

Total Dwellings - displaced/demolished:     0

Floor Space

Codes:     AG

Proposed (m2):     0

Displaced (m2):     232

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

00/0736/CH  Conversion of building to a single dwelling and change of use of land to residential use.  Permitted, but not yet implemented.

THE APPLICATION

Proposal comprises the conversion of an existing barn to residential use.  The barn is of single storey construction and is 27.1 metres wide, 8.6 metres deep, with a pitched roof to a height of about 4 metres.  It is partly enclosed and partly open in its front and rear elevations.  The proposal retains the existing openings in the enclosed section of the building and infills the open front and rear sections set back slightly from the existing supporting posts.  The dwelling created would be a three bedroom property.  The roof was originally slated but presently is formed by fibre cement sheeting. It is proposed that the slate be reinstated.  The brick walls remain with the new infill panelling comprising glazed areas and timber boarding on a brick plinth.  The building would be served by a front garden 17 metres deep, across the width of the building, providing parking space and a rear garden of the same width and up to  about 15 metres in depth.  The curtilage of the property wholly comprises part of the existing farm yard.  This scheme differs from that recently approved in that the sloping roof would be replaced with three section of horizontal roof to the same height as the existing, a basement is introduced under the northern section of the building; some alterations to the fenestration are proposed; and an oil storage tank would be introduced to the site.  This would be about 2.5 metres long, 1.4 metres wide and 1.4 metres high.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approval.

REPRESENTATIONS

Agent: Proposal represents an amendment to the scheme approved under 00/0736/CH.  The site area is slightly reduced.  The internal layout is amended with associated alterations to the windows.  An oil tank is introduced.  A new stepped roof form is introduced to create horizontal rooflines.  This also requires some minor modifications to the eaves line.  The new basement is to provide storage space.

Applicant’s Structural Engineer: The Building is in quite a reasonable condition.  Its greatest shortcoming is in respect of the vertical timber support posts and the lack of lateral bracing to these.  The posts show signs of deterioration, especially near ground level and need replacing.  Other than this most shortcomings are in respect of straightforward maintenance items, but some upgrading of weather tightness and insulation is required.  Roof is sound with trusses and purlins in good condition.  Brickwork is generally of a good thickness and is in good condition.  Some repointing is required and about one square metre needs reconstructing.  In summary, the building is basically sound and provides a perfectly reasonable basis for conversion.

CONSULTATIONS

Building Control Officer: Fire fighting access acceptable.

District Highway Engineer: No objections.

POLICIES

The Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991 – 2011: Policies GB1, GB3, LS2.

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policies GB2, GB3, GB11, LSQ1, H12, GC1, GC3, TR2, 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.     Under Green Belt policy it is acceptable in principle for an existing non-residential building in the Green Belt to be converted to residential use provided a number of detailed criteria are satisfied, which seek to maintain the open and rural character of the countryside.  This makes such proposals acceptable as an exception to the general presumption against inappropriate development. In this case the principle of converting the building to residential use has already been accepted.

2.     The proposed alterations to the building would not significantly alter its character or the scenic beauty of the landscape.  Indeed, the replacement roof material and design will improve its appearance in the landscape.

3.     The proposed basement would not alter the impact of the development in the Green Belt or Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and therefore, is not objectionable.

4.     The garden area proposed for the dwelling would be within an existing well-defined curtilage. The development would not therefore, encroach into open agricultural land. The modest reduction to the size of the proposed garden is not considered to be objectionable.

5.     The proposed oil tank is of modest proportions and would not detract from the character of the area.  It would be well screened and would not therefore, be visually intrusive in the landscape.

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) C433 Materials - General Details

(3) C178 Obscure glass in utility room window in south elevation

(4) C298 Exclusion of Permitted Development in Classes A - H, Part 1

(5) The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until parking spaces for three vehicles have been provided in accordance with plans which shall have previously been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Thereafter, these parking spaces shall be permanently reserved for parking purposes.

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

2001/889/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     24/05/01     Decide by Date:     18/07/01

Parish:     Ashley Green     Ward:     Ashley Green & Latimer

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS G RENNIE

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

adjoining Public Amenity Open Space

adjoining Common land

Class C Road

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/490/53     Site for a caravan, approved.

AM/980/67     Outline application for a dwelling refused.

THE APPLICATION

1.     The proposed scheme incorporates a number of structures.  At the rear of the existing dwelling a conservatory is proposed, this conservatory would, via a glazed link, join the main part of the proposals, a triple garage and an indoor swimming pool.  

2.     The conservatory would project for the most part by 3.8m beyond the rear elevation of the dwelling with a further projection of 1.5m (this extra projection is 3.85m in width).  The conservatory would be approximately 8.45m in width with an eaves height of 2.3m at a ridge at 4.4m.  The roof would have a pitched roof sloping towards the dwelling with a gabled projection over the front projection with a ridge running back and joining the main dwelling.

3.     As stated above there would be a glazed link to the garage and pool proposals.  The garage would have a floor area of 5.9m by 9.7m with a ridge height at 6.05m.  Over each of the three bays there would be a gable-ended roof to a ridge height of 5m.  

4.     To the rear of the garage would be an indoor swimming pool.  This pool would be 20.6m deep and 7.2m in width for the most part, with a further projection towards the garden with a floor area of 2.8m by 6.1m and a plant room of 4.1m by 2.25m.  The main ridge of the pool would be 6m in height with the plant room at 4.45m in height and the gabled projection at 5.55m.

5.     Materials are shown on the plant to match those of the existing dwelling.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letter in support from agent which could be summarised as follows –

1.     The site, although in the Green Belt, is well integrated with the remainder of the village and the property is not in an exposed rural location.

2.     In the context of its village setting the proposed development would comprise a reasonable example of an ancillary non-habitable residential building, which is well related physically and functionally to the main house, and it would not be viewed as an isolated or intrusive structure in the landscape.

3.     If the garage / pool building were at least five metres from the house and less than four metres in height, planning permission would not be required by virtue of the General Permitted Development Order 1995.

4.     The proposed buildings would use materials (brick and slate) and incorporate architectural features and detailing reflecting the design of the Old Vicarage, so that the new development would visually complement the appearance of the existing house.

5.     The Old Vicarage is a substantial property on three floors with a steep pitched roof.  The proposed building would be sited at a lower level than the house due to the natural slope of the land and the building would therefore appear, from public vantage points, to be subordinate in scale to the existing dwelling.  

6.     The building would also be partially screened from the road and from neighbouring land by trees and hedges and by the existing Coach House, so that there would be no significant impact on the landscape or the visual amenities of the area generally.

7.     For these reasons we consider that the developments would be consistent with Polices GB15 and H13.

Letter from neighbour at March House with no objections subject to –

1.     Demonstration by mathematical calculation and selection of....parts that noise levels generated from the ventilation and dehumidification plant shall be undetectable from the garden of March House (note that the garden of March House now extends to the field adjacent to the sewage works and also includes the pond).

2.     The intake and exhaust ducts and louvres shall be reversed so that no chlorine laden exhaust is discharged towards the garden of March House.

3.     Any balanced flue boiler located in the plant room will have its flue located on the east elevation of the plant room.

4.     Demonstration by an Arboriculturalist that deep excavation for creating foundation of pool does not affect the trees forming the boundary between the Old Vicarage and March House.

5.     The rooflights on the north pitch of the pool enclosure roof shall be retrofitted with adhesive manifestations to provide opacity in the event that during winter months a sight line exists between the pool and the first floor windows of March House.

6.     The conventional boiler flue shown is kept below the boundary tree line.

7.     The gravel access track to the Old Vicarage and March House will be reinstated after the works.

CONSULTATIONS

Chief Executive (Common Land) – Existing access appears to cross over Common Land.  Providing no alterations to the existing access is made or no new access over common land is constructed, the proposed development would appear not to affect a registered common (adjoining).

Forestry Officer –

Site survey plan poor

Little information on vegetation.

Boundaries appear to differ from those Ordnance Survey map and those on site.

     Therefore relationship of building with boundary unclear.

Loss of several trees and shrubs

     Reasonable silver birch.

     Several small trees including conifers, pear and dead willow.

     Privet hedge along edge of existing terrace.

Proposed terrace in front of pool building likely to involve loss of cypress.

Group of tall sycamores to rear of coach house shown to be removed.

     Not directly affected by proposal.

Trimming and possible loss of boundary vegetation.

     Extent not clear from plans.

     May result in loss of screening on boundary.

Concerned about loss of birch and possible loss of boundary vegetation.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997: Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, GB2, GB13, H13, H14, H15, H17, 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 main issue in this application is considered to be the impact of the proposal upon the openness of the Green Belt.  It is noted that in the letter accompanying the application the agent states that he considers the proposal consistent with Policy GB15.  However, it is not considered that this is the correct Policy under which to consider the application as that Policy clearly states ‘where these buildings are separate from a main dwelling’.  As the garage and pool buildings are attached to the main dwelling via the link it is considered that the proposals should be assessed under Policy GB13, extensions to dwellings rather than as an ancillary building.  

2.     Policy GB13 states that the proposals should be both subordinate to the size and scale of the original dwelling and not intrusive in the landscape.  Government guidance states that extensions should not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original dwelling.  An  extension is therefore required to be subordinate to the size and scale of the original dwelling, subordinate meaning that the proportion of increase in size of the dwelling should be modest and not significantly and materially alter the character of the dwelling in terms of its size, proportions, design and appearance.  It is not considered that this proposal satisfies these criteria.  The agents letter notes the ‘fall back’ position of the General Permitted Development Order.  While this is noted, it is not considered that it should be given sufficient weight so as to outweigh the fundamental objections under Policy GB13 bearing in mind that to be permitted development the proposal would need re-siting and considerable alterations to reduce the height, were the changes needed for the extension to become ‘permitted development’ more minor then it is considered that more weight could be given to this argument.  As noted by the agent, the site is well screened and as such it is not considered that the proposals would appear intrusive in the street scene, however, the Policy states that a ‘large’ extension alters the rural character, even if screened, by contributing to a reduction in openness of the Green Belt.   Consequently objections are raised under Policy GB13.

3.     It is not considered that the proposals would have an adverse impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring property, in this instance March House.  In this respect it is noted that the Forestry Officer is concerned about some potential loss of the boundary vegetation between dwellings.  The comments of the neighbour are noted and it is considered that were it not for the fundamental Green Belt Policy objections covered above, that such concerns could be resolved through the use of conditions.

4.     No objections are made 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 application site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt where Policy GB13 of the Adopted Local Plan states that extensions to dwellings will only be permitted where they are subordinate to the size and scale of the original dwelling and not intrusive in the landscape.  The proposed swimming pool extension has a ridge height of six metres and projects over twenty metres beyond the existing rear building line of the dwelling house.  By reason of its disproportionate size in relation to the original dwelling and the extent to which it extends the built form into the Green Belt, the extension would detract from the open rural character of the Green Belt and is contrary to Policy GB13 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan, a situation that would be exacerbated by the potential loss of some of the boundary screening between The Old Vicarage and March House.

2001/890/CH

Case Officer:      Ray Martin

Date Received:     24/05/01     Decide by Date:     18/07/01

Parish:     Chesham     Ward:     Pond Park

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR B BUCKLE

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Thames Water - groundwater protection zone

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

00/0837/CH  Two storey rear extension and dormer window in front and both side elevations.  Permitted, but not yet implemented.

THE APPLICATION

Proposal comprises rear extension to this chalet bungalow 5.5 metres deep, 9.7 metres wide with first floor accommodation within the roofslope, with a ridge height of 7.4 metres.  This extension would be located about 1 and 2 metres from the south east and north west flank boundaries of the site respectively.  Proposal also incorporates new pitched roof dormer windows in the existing roof of the dwelling, one each in both side elevations and two in the front elevation.  Proposal also includes an increase in height of the existing chimney and a new chimney attached to the rear extension.  The proposal is similar to that granted permission under reference 00/0837/CH.  The difference relates to the width and height of the rear extension.  The width has been increased by 1.5 metres moving closer to the north west boundary of the site and the height of the roof increases by 0.7 metre.

TOWN COUNCIL

No objections.

CONSULTATIONS

Thames Water: No objection.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997: Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, H13, H14, H15, H16, H18, 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 the built-up area of Chesham, wherein extensions to existing dwellings can be acceptable in principle providing they are not intrusive in the street scene, or detrimental to the amenities of nearby residential properties.

2.     In this case, much of the proposed development would be located behind the existing dwelling as viewed from the street.  It would not project outwards from the existing flank walls of the dwelling, but is level with both flank walls.  However, although it  incorporates matching materials it would be significantly higher than the existing dwelling and substantially adds to its bulk.  Whilst the previous proposal was similar, but was not considered detrimental, it must be noted that proposal was set in from one of the existing flank walls and was thus lower and less bulky.  Therefore, it is considered that the changes now proposed would be visually intrusive in the street scene.

3.     The proposed extension would add considerable bulk to the rear of the dwelling.  To the south east, the neighbouring house has a blank flank wall in line with and facing the proposed extension and therefore, it is not considered that the scheme would be in any way detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of this dwelling. To the north west the adjoining dwelling is a bungalow.  Although the bungalow is set off the boundary, the extension now proposed is closer to it than that recently approved.  The bungalow has a habitable room window in its side elevation facing the application site and given the height and bulk of the extension, the development would lead to an unacceptable loss of light to this window and would be dominant and overbearing in appearance.  This window would also be overlooked by first floor windows in the north west elevation of the proposed scheme.  However, those windows proposed in this elevation can all be glazed with obscured glass to avoid any unacceptable overlooking.  As such the proposal is not considered to be unduly detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of this neighbouring property.

4.     There is adequate on site parking to meet the Council’s standards.

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 extension would not be subordinate to the size and scale of the existing dwelling and would significantly increase its height and bulk.  This addition would appear unduly cramped in the street scene to the detriment of the character of the area.  As such the development conflicts with Policies GC1(b), H13(ii) and (iii) and H15(i) of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997.

(2) The proposed extension would significantly increase the height, depth and bulk of the dwelling in close proximity to the boundary of the site with the neighbouring bungalow to the north west.  This bungalow has a habitable room window in its flank elevation facing the proposed development and the proposal would be detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of this property by virtue of the loss of light to this window and the dominant and overbearing appearance of the addition as viewed from this window. As such the development conflicts with Policies GC2, GC3, H13(i) and (iii) and H14(i) and (ii) of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997.

2001/896/CH

Case Officer:      Kathryn York

Date Received:     29/05/01     Decide by Date:     23/07/01

Parish:     The Lee     Ward:     Cholesbury & The Lee

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      JAMES GARRETT

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Green Belt settlement GB4

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

CH/733/82  Two storey rear extension.  Permitted and implemented.

CH/74/84  New garage.  Permitted and implemented.

86/2231/CH  Alterations and two storey side/rear extension.  Permitted and implemented in part.

89/0458/CH  Alterations and conversion of part of garage for guest accommodation.  Withdrawn.

THE APPLICATION

Proposes a single storey side extension measuring 2.5m wide x 8.425m deep, with a sloping roof 3.5m high, and incorporating a small side porch; part first floor, part two storey rear extension measuring 5.3m wide by 4.275m deep at first floor level, with a double pitched roof 5.3m high; and a rear conservatory, adjoining the two storey extension, which measures 5.5m wide x 3m deep, with a sloping roof 3.1m high.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997: Policies GC1, GC3, GB12, LSQ1, 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): Policies GC3, TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The application site is located within a Row of Dwellings in the Green Belt in Lee Common and also in the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  There are no objections to the proposed development in principle subject to compliance with the relevant local plan policies.

2.     The two-storey element of the proposal is slightly larger than that which was approved under planning permission 86/2231/CH, and which remains extant.  The two storey extension infils an area to the rear of the property, and is sited well away from the boundaries with the neighbouring properties, in compliance with Policies H11 and H16.  There is adequate screening on all boundaries, such that the proposed extensions will not be detrimental to the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties, and therefore no objections are raised in this respect.

3.     The majority of the extension is confined to the rear of the property.  The proposed development will not adversely affect the character of the street scene or the surrounding Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and therefore no objections are raised.

4.     Adequate parking space exists within the curtilage of the site to meet the Council’s parking requirements, and 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

2001/898/CH

Case Officer:      Thomas Gabriel

Date Received:     29/05/01     Decide by Date:     23/07/01

Parish:     Great Missenden - Prestwood     Ward:     Prestwood

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS THOMPSON

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Adjoining Green Belt

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

91/0574/CH   Part single storey side, part two storey side/ rear extension, conservatory and new vehicular access. Refused – the proposed extension would be less than one metre to side boundary of the site and would be overbearing and detrimental to the residential amenities of the adjacent property.

92/0292/CH   Part demolition of outbuildings, front extension to garage and new roof over garage and remaining outbuildings and erection of two storey rear extension. Conditional permission – not implemented.

92/0776/CH   Part demolition of outbuildings, front extension to garage, new roof over garage and remaining outbuildings, and erection of two storey rear extension. Conditional permission – implemented.

98/1381/CH   Single storey rear extension. Conditional permission – implemented.

THE APPLICATION

The application is for a two storey side extension, measuring 2.6m wide, 8.4m deep and 7.5m high to the ridge.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections.

CONSULTATIONS

Wycombe District Council - No objections.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997: Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, LSQ1, H4, 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.     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.

2.     The proposed extension will not appear overbearing when viewed from, or have an adverse impact upon, the neighbouring dwelling, Sydmar (a distance of approximately 4.5m will remain between the flank elevation of the extension and that of Sydmar). A one metre gap will be maintained at first floor level between the extension and the side boundary. The other neighbouring dwelling will not be affected by the extension, which will not detract from the street scene and will not result in a significant loss of privacy for the occupiers of the neighbouring dwellings. It will respect the scale and proportions of the existing dwelling. No objections are raised in these respects.

3.     Located within the built up area of Prestwood, the extension will not detract from the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. No objections are raised in terms of Policy LSQ1.  

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) C431 Materials of Development to Match Those of Existing Building

(3) 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 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 in the north east elevation of the extension hereby permitted at either ground or first floor level.

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

(4) C134 Single plan amended by plan (no 174 003 001 A) received on 4 July 2001

2001/903/CH

Case Officer:      Thomas Gabriel

Date Received:     29/05/01     Decide by Date:     23/07/01

Parish:     Great Missenden - Prestwood     Ward:     Prestwood

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MS MARKWELL

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Class A Road

Unclassified road

RELEVANT HISTORY

AM/1216/67   Amended design for 4 terraced houses. Conditional permission – implemented (the permitted development rights relating to Classes I and II of Part I of the General Development Order 1963 were removed).

THE APPLICATION

The application is for a rear conservatory measuring 3.56m by 3.5m and 3.15m high to the top of the pitched roof.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections.

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): Policy GC1.

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.

2.     The proposed conservatory will not appear overbearing when viewed from, or be detrimental to the residential amenities of, the occupiers of no.1 Peters Close by virtue of the existing boundary fence. The conservatory will not have an adverse impact for the other neighbouring dwelling, no.3 Peters Close either, and will not represent overdevelopment of the site. It will not result in a significant loss of privacy for the neighbouring dwellings (the side elevation of the conservatory at no.3 is obscure glazed), and will respect the scale and proportions of the existing dwelling. No objections are raised to the proposed conservatory in this respect.

3.     Located within the built up area of Prestwood, the proposed conservatory will not detract from the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. No objections are raised in terms of Policy LSQ1.

4.     With the conservatory constructed, the floorspace of the dwelling will remain below 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) The bricks to be used in the construction of the plinth of the conservatory hereby permitted shall match the size, colour and texture of those of the existing dwelling.

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

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

2001/912/CH

Case Officer:      Thomas Gabriel

Date Received:     30/05/01     Decide by Date:     24/07/01

Parish:     Penn     Ward:     Penn

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS E WELLINGS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

CH/1967/84   Single storey rear extension. Permitted development.

THE APPLICATION

The application is for a front porch and single storey side extension. The porch is to have a footprint measuring 900mm by 2.1m and is to measure 3.6m high to the top of the pitched roof. It is to be open sided and fronted. The side extension is to measure 2.95m by 9.3m and 5.1m high where the roof joins the existing roof of the dwelling.

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 proposed single storey side extension will not have an adverse impact upon either of the neighbouring dwellings, nor that to the rear, and will not detract from the street scene. The extension will respect the scale and proportions of the dwelling and will not represent overdevelopment of the site. It will not result in overlooking of the neighbouring dwellings. No objections are raised to it.

3.     The front porch represents a minor addition to the dwelling which will not detract from the appearance of the dwelling or that of the street scene. It will not impact upon the neighbouring dwellings. No objections are raised to it.   

4.     The floorspace of the dwelling already exceeds 120sq. m. There are therefore no implications for the Council’s Adopted Carparking Standards.

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

(3) Before any construction work commences, details of the colour and treatment to be used for the hardwood timber posts to be used in the construction of the front porch hereby approved shall be submitted to, and 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.

2001/913/CH

Case Officer:      Thomas Gabriel

Date Received:     30/05/01     Decide by Date:     24/07/01

Parish:     Little Missenden - Holmer Green     Ward:     Holmer Green

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS PHILLIPS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

CH/36/84   Single storey side extension. Conditional permission – implemented.

93/0296/CH   Single storey side extension. Conditional permission – implemented.

01/0176/CH   Single storey front extension and first floor side extension. Withdrawn.

THE APPLICATION

The application is for a single storey front extension, measuring 2.2m by 2.15m and 3.5m high to the top of the sloping roof.

PARISH COUNCIL

Approve.

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

2.     The extension represents a minor addition to this dwelling which will not impact upon the neighbouring dwellings, will not detract from the appearance of the dwelling or that of the street scene and will not result in the loss of privacy for the occupiers of the neighbouring or surrounding dwellings. No objections are raised in these respects.

3.     The floorspace of the dwelling will remain below 120sq. m. once the extension has been constructed. No objections are raised in terms Policies 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) C431 Materials of Development to Match Those of Existing Building

2001/916/CH

Case Officer:      Iwan Jones

Date Received:     30/05/01     Decide by Date:     24/07/01

Parish:     Chesham     Ward:     Waterside

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MICHAEL ELIAS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Adjoining Green Belt

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

87/1484/CH(BR): Single storey rear extension. Permitted development. Implemented.

THE APPLICATION

The application relates to the erection of a single storey side/rear extension. It would measure 5.5m deep, to a width of 3m to the rear and 2.4m to the front and to a maximum flat roof height of 3m. The external materials have not been indicated on the submitted plans. The existing pre-fabricated garage would be demolished.

TOWN COUNCIL

No objections.

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter has been received from the neighbouring property submitting the following points:

1.     Can the new room be prevented from being used for commercial purposes?

2.     Will the new foundations affect our garden?

3.     Would the extension be higher than the existing garage?

4.     Have the existing drainage connections got sufficient capacity?

5.     How would the external walls be finished?

6.     Is it possible that the new roof can be sloped so that rainwater runs away from the boundary?

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 Chesham where there are no objections in principle to the proposed development subject to compliance with the relevant local plan policies.

2.     As the extension is proposed to be sited to the rear of the property and that it would replace an existing dilapidated asbestos garage, it is considered that it would not have a detrimental effect upon the street scene. No objections raised in terms of Policy H13(i).

3.     Having regard to the height of the proposed extension and to the level of screening on the south eastern boundary, it is considered that the extension would not reduce the level of amenities currently enjoyed by the occupiers of the neighbouring property No.65. No objections raised in terms of Policies GC1, H13(i) and H15.

4.     Although a flat roof is proposed, it is considered acceptable as it would not be prominent in the street scene and the existing rear extension consists of a flat roof also. The scale, height and design of the extension is considered to be in proportion with the existing dwelling. No objections raised in terms of Policies GC1 and H15.

5.     The proposed extension would not increase the gross floor area of the dwelling to beyond 120sq m. Two parking can be provided within the curtilage of 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) C174 No additional windows in south eastern elevation of extension

(4) C138 Selected plans amended by more than one unnumbered plan recd on 27 June 2001.

2001/918/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     30/05/01     Decide by Date:     24/07/01

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham Town

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS JOHNSTON

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt settlement GB4

Locally Important Landscape

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

THE APPLICATION

The profile of the property at its north western end is proposed to be extended across the remainders of the dwelling and carport (3.7m wide and 7.7m deep). The roof will continue across at the same pitch and height (5m) with a dormer window 1.8m high and 1.2m wide to the top left-hand of the front elevation. To the rear will be a 3.6m deep projection, to the right-hand side, 4.1m wide (pitch to match the height of the main axis, with a further dormer facing north west 1.8m high but 1.5m deep (1.1m from the end of the structure).

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend refusal.

REPRESENTATIONS

Three letters from neighbouring residents raising the following objections.

1.     Rear dormer window will overlook the rear gardens of No. 5 and 7 Dane Close;

2.     Internal cladding of carport appears to be asbestos or contains asbestos and will require health and safety procedures for the removal of this asbestos if this is what it is;

3.     No other two storey buildings on the estate and would change nature of the estate and current roof line of the property;

4.     No specification of materials, which will need to match;

5.     No provision for off road parking for their vehicles – in the past a rule of thumb was that the number of parking spaces had to equate to the number of bedrooms in the property, which would be six. Furthermore activities carried out in the carport will be moved out onto the new driveway;

6.     The loft space was not designed as a noise barrier. Noise from the two upstairs bedrooms will carry on through the loft space and affect the enjoyment of neighbours homes;

7.     It is believed that the one bedroom will be knocked through to make a larger living area, which will lead to more noise pollution, as bedrooms are present on the other side of the wall.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997: Policies GC1, GB4, H11, H12, 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 seeks approval for a two-storey rear/side extension in a row of dwellings excluded from the Green Belt (GB4 Policy Area) on the London Road, south of Amersham-on-the-Hill. The use of dormer windows and the steeper gabled roof to the rear do not pick up on the design character of the original bungalows thoughout the estate and is considered adverse on the architectural merits of the resulting property under Local Plan Policy GC1 and H15.

2.     The rear element although described as two-storey, will have a roof arrangement with a ridge running to the same height as the existing property. This structure will project 3.6m along the boundary with No. 1 and will be excessively long, projecting beyond the rear of this property.  Although the window arrangement to the rear elevation of No. 1 preserves a distance of at least 3m of walling before being interrupted by a window, it is still considered overbearing on this neighbours amenity. As such the extension to the rear is contrary to Local Plan Policy GC3, H13 and H14 with relation to No. 1 Dane Close.

3.     The 1.8m close board fence to the rear of the garden provides little screening as the land descends steeply towards it and it is easily overlooked from most viewpoints in the garden. Due to this fall in the topography the rear extension will be clearly viewed from the garden of No. 23 (positioned directly behind). First floor windows are elevated well above the properties to the south, and will be capable of an unreasonable degree of overlooking.

4.     The rear side facing dormer window will have clear views over the strip of 1.8m close board boundary fencing to the end of the patio area, and will overlook directly into the rear private amenity space of No. 5 directly contravening Local Plan Policy GC3, H13 and H14.

5.     The alterations to the front elevation will preserve the building line of the terrace, although it will extend the flank 2.3m forwards of the open carport and front door of No. 1. The dormer window to the front of the property will not overlook private amenity space as the street is open planned, but being the first in Dane Close, will set an unwanted precedent in the street in terms of Local Plan Policy.

6.     The property is proposing an extension of habitable floorspace from under to over 120sq.m. and as such will need to provide three car parking spaces (one more than the two indicated on the plans).

7.     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 existing property is a two bedroom bungalow on a plot of limited size; the proposed scheme to create a six-bedroom property incorporating rooms at first floor level would amount to overdevelopment of the site. The proposed two storey side extension with dormer windows to the front and rear of the property, would be visible in the street scene and create an undesirable precedent for the construction of similar extensions and dormer windows in this locality, the cumulative effect of which would be to bring about an undesirable change in the character and appearance of the street scene to the detriment of the area. The proposal would be contrary to the requirements of Policy GC1 and H15 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997.

(2) The proposed rear dormer window sited on the side of the extension facing north west, would directly overlook the rear private amenity space of No. 5 Dane Close. The proposal would result in loss of privacy and be contrary to the requirements of Policies GC3, H13 and H14 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local PLan 1997.

(3) The proposed two storey rear extension, by reason of its height, length and elevated position would result in overlooking of the private amenity space and rear windows to No. 23 Dane Close. As such it would be contrary to Policies GC3, H13 and H14 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997.

2001/921/CH

Case Officer:      Kathryn York

Date Received:     30/05/01     Decide by Date:     24/07/01

Parish:     Cholesbury     Ward:     Cholesbury & The Lee

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MS ALISON GRIEF

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Public Amenity Open Space

Common land

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

SINC (Site of importance for nature cons) NC1

Thames Water - groundwater protection zone

Biological Notification site

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/1764/60  Garage.  Permitted development.

AM/1965/60  Garage.  Unconditional permission.

AM/115/61  Double garage.  Permitted..

AM/226/63  Alterations and additions.  Permitted and implemented.

AM/456/73  Single storey extension to provide 2 bedrooms and porch.  Permitted and implemented.

THE APPLICATION

Proposes a two storey front/first floor side extension incorporating a roof terrace at the rear, a dormer window in the rear elevation, and a pitched roof over an existing single storey rear projection.  The two storey side/front projection projects 4.3m forward of the existing front elevation and measures 4.65m wide, at both ground and first floor level.  At first floor level, the extension extends across the full length of the house, and incorporates a roof terrace to the rear. The first floor element of the extension will continue the existing roofline, with the two storey front projection having a pitched roof matching the height of the existing property.  The pitched roof over the existing single storey rear projection measures 5.3m high. Two small dormer windows are proposed, one in the side elevation of the two storey front extension facing the main house, and one in the rear elevation.

The floorspace of the original dwelling measured 92sq m.  Previous extensions to the dwelling represent a 55% increase in the floorspace over and above the floorspace of the original dwelling.  The net increase of the current proposal is 74sq m.  This represents a cumulative increase in the floorspace of 125sq m, or a net increase of 136% over and above the floorspace of the original dwelling.   

PARISH COUNCIL

No comment.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letter from occupier of ‘Tankards Dene’

No objection, but express concerns about the removal of asbestos, and would like assurance that the work will be carried out within a reasonable time limit.

CONSULTATIONS

Environment Agency – No comment.

Corporate Services – Legal (common land): The existing access appears to cross over common land.  Providing no alternative to the existing access is made or no new access, over common land is constructed, the proposed development would not appear to affect the adjoining Registered Common.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997: Policies GC1, GC3, GB2, GB13, LSQ1, H11, 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, TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The application site is located in the open Green Belt where in accordance with Policy GB13, domestic extensions may be permissible providing that they are subordinate in size and scale to the original dwelling, are not intrusive in the landscape, and maintain the openness of the Green Belt location.  The site is also located within the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

2.     The dwelling has already been extended by 51sq m, an increase in the floorspace over and above the original floorspace of 55%.  The effect of the current proposal would be to increase the net floorspace by a further 125sq m, a total increase of 136% over and above the original floorspace.  The cumulative effect of the extensions would not therefore be subordinate in size or scale to the original dwelling.  A single garage, which is to be demolished, is located on the site for the proposed two-storey side/front extension.  However the two-storey front/first floor side extension adds considerable bulk to the property, particularly at first floor level with the additional roof bulk created.  The property is in a prominent location being close to the front boundary of the site, and being especially visible from the fields to the side.  It is considered that a first floor side/two storey front extension of this size will detract from the character of the original building, and as such the proposal is contrary to Policy GB13 of the Adopted Local Plan, 1997.

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

4.     The design of the proposed extensions is considered acceptable in relation to the existing dwelling.  It is not considered that the extensions will detract from the natural beauty of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  No objections are raised in relation to Policies GC1, H15 or LSQ1.

5.     The two dormer windows are suitably small scale, and therefore no objections are raised in this respect.

6.     Adequate parking space exists within the curtilage of the site to meet the Council’s parking requirements.  No objections are 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: Refuse permission

For the following reasons

(1) Within those parts of the Green Belt which are located outside existing rows of dwellings or settlements, both of which are defined on the Proposals Map of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan, 1997, it is the Local Planning Authority's general policy to allow domestic extensions which are subordinate to both the size and the scale of the original dwelling and which are not intrusive in the landscape.  The proposed two storey front/first floor side extension incorporating roof terrace to the rear, would significantly increase the floorspace of the dwelling, altering its character and resulting in a dwelling disproportionately larger than the original.  The extensions would signifcantly increase the bulk of the dwelling, particularly at first floor level, resulting in a reduction in the openness of the Green Belt location.  As such the proposal is contrary to Policy GB13 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan, 1997.

2001/926/CH

Case Officer:      Iwan Jones

Date Received:     01/06/01     Decide by Date:     26/07/01

Parish:     Chesham     Ward:     St Marys

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR SCOTT

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt settlement GB4

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Biological Notification site

THE APPLICATION

The application relates to the erection of a conservatory to the rear elevation. It would measure 10.4m wide, 3.3m deep and to a maximum lean-to roof height of 2.85m. It would be built flush with the existing south eastern elevation. All external walls would match those of the existing dwelling with the conservatory frame being of white PVC-u.

TOWN COUNCIL

No objections.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997: Policies GC1, GC3, GB2, GB4, GB12, 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): Policy GC3.

ISSUES

1.     The application site is located within a Green Belt settlement and within the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty where there are no objections in principle to the proposed development subject to compliance with the relevant local plan policies.

2.     Being sited to the rear of the property, the conservatory would have no impact upon the appearance of the street scene. No objections raised in terms of Policies LSQ1 and H13(ii).

3.     Having regard to the height of the proposed conservatory and that no windows are to be inserted into its south eastern elevation, it is considered that it would have no effect upon the amenities of the neighbouring property Evenwood. No objections raised in terms of Policies GC3, H13(i) and H14.

4.     It is considered that the height, depth and scale of the proposed conservatory would be in keeping with the existing dwelling. No objections raised in terms of Policies GC1, GB12 and H15.  

5.     The proposal has no implications in terms of parking. 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) C432 Materials - As on Plan or Subsequently Specified

(3) C174 No additional windows in south eastern elevation of extension