Meeting documents

2001/31/TC

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     18/06/01     Decide by Date:     30/07/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Austenwood

App Type:     Work to unpreserved trees in Conservation Area

Applicant:      MR JACOBSON

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Chalfont St Peter-Firs Estate Conservation Area

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Unclassified road

Northolt Airfield safeguarding zone

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

01/0032/TC     Felling of two ash trees, two laburnums, a crab apple and a hawthorn. Not yet determined.

01/1101/CH     Single storey side extension. Not yet determined.

THE APPLICATION

Felling of T4 laburnum, T5 crab apple and T6 cherry.

PARISH COUNCIL

Would accept Forestry Officer’s advice.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Understand subsidence problem with garage and side extension – see 01/0032/TC.

T4 laburnum – small tree at front of property – leaning severely towards garage – signs of roots lifting out of ground.

T5 crab apple – small tree at front of property – in declining health with thin foliage.

T6 cherry – small tree at front of property – some vehicle damage.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy CA5 

ISSUES

1.     The three trees are all situated at the front of the property and are clearly visible from the road.

2.     All three trees are small and both the laburnum and the crab apple are in poor condition while the cherry has some minor vehicle damage. It is considered that none of the trees makes a significant contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. A Tree Preservation Order would therefore not be appropriate.

3.     Bearing in mind the subsidence problem at the property, 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

2001/32/TC

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     18/06/01     Decide by Date:     30/07/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Austenwood

App Type:     Work to unpreserved trees in Conservation Area

Applicant:      ZURICH PERSONAL INSURANCE

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Chalfont St Peter-Firs Estate Conservation Area

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Unclassified road

Northolt Airfield safeguarding zone

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

01/0031/TC     Felling of a laburnum, a crab apple and a cherry. Not yet determined.

01/1101/CH     Single storey side extension. Not yet determined.

THE APPLICATION

Felling of T1 & T2 ash, T3 & T4 laburnum, T5 crab apple and T7 hawthorn.

PARISH COUNCIL

Would accept Forestry Officer’s advice.

REPRESENTATIONS

Agent:     View of chartered engineers that property has suffered differential movement and subsequent damage consistent with clay shrinkage subsidence – attach copies of arboricultural report and factual report of investigation relating to subsidence damage to property – tree removal works proposed both as remedy to current subsidence and to ensure long term stability of building.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Understand subsidence problem with garage/outbuilding and side extension – ash roots found by garage/outbuilding – also some hawthorn/apple/pear roots found.

T1 ash – young multi-stemmed tree by drive to adjacent property – about 10m high – poor shape – not considered important.

T2 ash – young twin-stemmed tree by drive to adjacent property – about 10m high – poor shape – not considered important.

T3 laburnum - small tree in boundary of 19 Queensway.

T4 laburnum – small tree at front of property – leaning severely towards garage – signs of roots lifting out of ground.

T5 crab apple – small tree at front of property – in declining health with thin foliage.

T7 hawthorn – small tree by front corner of garage in drive to adjacent property.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy CA5 

ISSUES

1.     The six trees are situated at the front and sides of the property and are visible from the road.

2.     The two ashes are both young multi-stemmed trees of limited value. The other four trees are small and both one laburnum and the crab apple are in poor condition. It is considered that none of the trees makes a significant contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. A Tree Preservation Order would therefore not be appropriate.

3.     Bearing in mind the subsidence problem at the property, 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

2001/33/TC

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     20/06/01     Decide by Date:     01/08/01

Parish:     Chesham Bois     Ward:     Chesham Bois & Weedon

App Type:     Work to unpreserved trees in Conservation Area

Applicant:      DAVID HOLMES

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Chesham Bois Conservation Area

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

adjoining Public Amenity Open Space

adjoining Common land

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

01/0429/CH     Detached single storey outbuilding. Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

Felling of two cypresses.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant:     Trees have been previously lopped to approximately seven feet.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Two blue Lawson cypresses on rockery in front garden – recently topped at height of about 2m – not considered to be important trees – close to ivy-covered stump about 4m high – copper beech at front of garden – willow on common at side.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy CA5 

ISSUES

1.     The two cypresses are situated in the front garden of the property and are visible from Chesham Bois Common.

2.     Both trees have recently been topped and it is considered that they 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.     As there is already a copper beech in the front garden and a willow at the side on the common, 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

2001/946/CH

Case Officer:      Neil Higson

Date Received:     04/06/01     Decide by Date:     29/07/01

Parish:     Latimer     Ward:     Ashley Green & Latimer

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      PAUL WATKINS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt settlement GB5

adjoining Common land

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Site within 250 m. of active or disused rubbish tip

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

99/1667/CH     First floor rear extension incorporating dormer window in east side elevation. Refused, subsequent Appeal dismissed.

00/0369/CH     First floor rear extension – Refused, subsequent Appeal dismissed.

01/0020/CH     First floor rear extension – Approved.

THE APPLICATION

Proposed extension consists of a 1st floor rear extension on the north elevation measuring 7.8m wide, by 8.5m deep, with ridge height at a maximum of 5.7m, which would be 500mm above the height of the existing ridge where the two roofs intersect. The extension would have an overall ridge length of approximately 7m, would have a half-hip detail to the rear elevation and have two roof lights in the western roof plane and a single roof light in the eastern roof plane. This is an amendment to a previously approved scheme.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letter of objection from 213 Botley Road:

a)     Object strongly to any type of fenestration to east facing roof slope, which would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy. Obscure, sealed windows would be equally unacceptable as previously stated by Planning Inspector;

b)     The raised ridgeline of the rear extension above the existing ridge height would dominate the original building being very visible in the street scene and significantly altering the scale of the original property. The proposed extension will appear incongruous in relation to the original dwelling;

c)     The new roof scape will severely affect the outlook from the side window to the first floor bedroom and will effectively block out direct sunshine to this window in spring and autumn;

d)     The submitted drawings are incomplete and misleading failing to adequately explain how the new floor space will be utilised. There is a discrepancy between the proposed elevations in relation to the height of the roof hip;

e)     The loss of the existing chimneystack, which is a significant feature of the roof scape, will adversely affect the character of the bungalow in the street scene.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, GB12, H13, H14, H15, H16, H17, H18, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1.     Proposal follows the refusal of permission for two alternative schemes 99/1667/CH and 00/0369/CH which where both subsequently dismissed on Appeal and the approval of a scheme smaller but similar to the current proposal.

2.     The Inspector in the appeal cases found that although the ridge of the proposed extension would be 500mm higher than the existing ridge of the original building it “would not be so large or out of scale as to dominate the original building.” He went on to say “I do not consider the extension would appear incongruous either in relation to the existing dwelling or to the surroundings.” It was on the basis of the Inspectors comments that the previous proposal was approved as it was not considered possible to sustain a reason for refusal on the possible adverse impact of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the street scene. The current proposal is very similar to the approved scheme except that the new addition would have one continuous ridge at a height of 500mm above the existing roof. This would run from its intersection with the existing ridge rather than having a linking section at the height of the existing ridge as previously approved. It is considered that the proposal therefore accords with the aims of Policies H13 and H15.

3.     The comments of the neighbour are noted with regard to the impact in the view from the first floor bedroom window in the western flank elevation. However, the Inspector opined in paragraph 11 of his Decision Letter that “No. 213 has small first floor windows in its flank wall facing the appeal site, but these face towards the main body of the bungalow rather than the extension. They would have oblique views of the extension, which I do not consider would be particularly dominant in the outlook. Regarding the principal first floor windows at the back of the house, their main views are down the considerable length of the back garden, and again would have relatively oblique views of the extension roof and of the dormer window. Given that there is some 3 to 4metres separation between the main body of No.213 and the boundary, with the bungalow side wall about 3.15m beyond that, I do not consider such oblique views of a pitched roof would be dominating in the outlook from the house, or from its garden.” The proposed scheme while larger than that previously approved would not be so significantly different as to be at variance with the view which has been previously taken regarding the impact of the extension.

4.     In relation to the neighbours comments regarding the likely loss of sunlight, this is a point of view which again was not supported by the Inspector who stated in paragraph 15 that “the height of the extension in both schemes may result in there being some shading of late afternoon sun to the part of the garden of No. 213 closest to the house. However, there would already be some degree of shading caused by the outbuilding of No.213 and the tall laurel hedge in its garden, and I am by no means convinced that the extension roof would significantly worsen this situation.” It is contended that the extension of the new ridge towards the front by approximately 3.5m at the same height as previously approved would not significantly alter this situation to a material degree.     

5.     The second reason for refusal of the schemes considered at appeal related to the overlooking and loss of privacy that would result from the incorporation of a dormer window in the eastern roof plane. This was supported by the Inspector who concluded that this dormer would “cause significant harm to the living conditions of occupants of neighbouring property in terms of privacy and outlook.” The approved scheme had removed this element and had no fenestration in this elevation. The current proposal seeks to incorporate a roof light into the eastern roof plane, which would light an existing kitchen. The Inspector’s conclusions regarding the use of obscure glazing in the previously proposed dormer window are noted, however in this case it is considered that to apply this opinion o a roof light would not be sustainable. The proposed window would be in the roof plane and not vertical as was the case with the dormer window, and therefore views through it would be at an oblique angle other than directly up into the sky. It is considered therefore that the requirement that this window should be non-openable and permanently obscure glazed would prevent any loss of amenity to the neighbouring property by virtue of overlooking and loss of privacy. This is further supported by the fact that the lowest point of the window would be 1.8m above the floor level. It is therefore considered that the proposal accords with the aims of Policies H13 and H14.

6.     Parking provision for 3 cars within the curtilage. No objection under Policies TR11 and TR16.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

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

(3) C176 Obscure glass in single window in eastern elevation

(4) The window in the eastern elevation  of the development hereby approved shall be permanently fixed shut by a means to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

(5) The roof light shown located in the eastern elevation of the development hereby approved shall have an internal cill height of no less than 1.8m above the floor level of the room which it is serving.

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

(6) C174A No additional windows in first floor of either elevation of extension.

(7) This permission shall relate to the submitted application form and plan as subsequently amended by the plan received by the Local Planning Authority on 27th July 2001.

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

2001/966/CH

Case Officer:      Tony Clements

Date Received:     06/06/01     Decide by Date:     31/07/01

Parish:     Great Missenden - Prestwood     Ward:     Prestwood

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS D VAN WELY

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Adjoining Green Belt

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

96/0195/CH: Single storey side/front extension incorporating garage – Conditional permission - Implemented.

99/0454/CH: Two-storey rear extension, single storey side/front extension and car port - Withdrawn.

2000/0924/CH: Rear conservatory and single storey extension – Conditional permission – Implemented.

THE APPLICATION

Proposes a single storey front extension to the garage 1.2m deep, replicating the existing form together with a first floor side extension over the garage to provide 2 additional bedrooms.  The extension measures 4.0m x 8.5m and extends the existing roof form across incorporating half dormers to the front and rear.  There are no side elevation windows.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997 (including the adopted alterations May 2001): Policies  GC1, GC2, GC3, H3, H11, H13, H14, H15, H16, H17, TR11, TR16, LSQ1

ISSUES

1.     The site is located within the built up area of Prestwood excluded from the Green Belt, which is also within the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  No objection is raised in principle to the proposed development, which will not have an adverse impact on the Chilterns AONB.

2.     The front extension is small scale and replicates the existing form of the garage; it is in keeping with the existing front elevation and therefore no objections are raised.  The first floor side extension does not give rise to any concerns regarding loss of privacy or amenity to the neighbouring property (there are no side elevation windows at first floor level in either dwelling).  There are two small secondary ground floor windows to habitable rooms in the side elevation of the adjoining house, however it is considered that the impact of the extension on these windows will not be significant.  

3.     However although the proposed first floor side extension is 1m from the boundary with Cherryholme at the front of the property, the boundary position shown on the submitted plan indicates that the rear of the first floor side extension will only be 0.75m from the site boundary with Cherryholm.   The siting of the first floor side extension within 1m of the common boundary will result in a cramped appearance out of keeping with the character of the area.

4.     There is adequate car parking space within the site to meet the Council’s parking 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 first floor side extension is shown on the submitted plan to be 1m from the boundary with the adjacent dwelling Cherryholme at the front of the property but this distance reduces to 0.75m at the rear of the proposed extension.  The siting of the proposed extension at first floor level within 1m of the common boundary between the dwellings will result in a cramped appearance out of keeping with the prevailing character of the area.  As such, the proposal is contrary to Policies H11 and H16 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 (including the Adopted Alterations May 2001).

2001/975/CH

Case Officer:      Kathryn York

Date Received:     07/06/01     Decide by Date:     01/08/01

Parish:     Little Missenden     Ward:     Little Missenden

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      R NORTH

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt settlement GB5

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

THE APPLICATION

Proposes a detached single garage measuring 5.454m wide x 7.302m deep with a pitched roof 4.35m high.  The application also includes the construction of a new access onto Walnut Way.

PARISH COUNCIL

Approve.

REPRESENTATIONS

2 letters from occupier of 46 Walnut Way: No objection.

CONSULTATIONS

District Highways Engineer: No objections subject to two conditions and an informative.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997: Policies GC1, GC3, GB15, LSQ1, H14, H15, TR2, 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 a Green Belt settlement in Hyde Heath, and also within the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  In such areas, ancillary residential buildings may be acceptable in principle provided they are both small scale and subordinate to the original dwelling.

2.     There are no principal windows in the facing flank elevation of the neighbouring property, and as such the proposed development will not have an adverse impact on the amenities of the neighbouring properties.  No objections are raised in this respect.

3.     The proposed garage is suitably small scale and subordinate to the original dwelling, and falls flush with the front elevation of the neighbouring property.  There will be no adverse impact on either the street scene or the surrounding Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and therefore no objections are raised in relation to Policies GC1, GB15, LSQ1 and H15.

4.     There are no implications in terms of parking provision.

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

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

(4) C561 Surface Water

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

2001/985/CH

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     11/06/01     Decide by Date:     05/08/01

Parish:     Chesham     Ward:     Newtown

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

Applicant:      A MASON

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Thames Water - groundwater protection zone

Tree Preservation Order

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The Bucks County Council (Chesham Urban District) Tree Preservation Order No 9 - 1958 covering 7 individual trees and an area of trees at the Hilltop Estate.

CH/1621/83     Tree surgery on maple tree. Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

Crown reduction of sycamore.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approval.

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant:     Tree getting too big for garden.

Chesham Town Tree Warden:     Forest trees are never good neighbours in small gardens and need managing – no basic object to work but suggest condition deferring work to when birds have finished nesting.

Two letters from neighbours in Nalders Road, one having no objections and the other supporting the application as the tree is becoming too big for its position. Both express concerns about the way the work would be carried out, particularly in relation to safety and the appearance of the tree.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Boundary between Nalders Road and Sayward Close/Hazelwood Close covered by TPO protecting trees present in 1958 – sycamore in application probably largest tree on boundary – Sayward Close has fairly small rear gardens sloping up to boundary – tree has large, broad crown and appears to dominate garden – some previous surgery including removal of lower branches on Sayward Close side – crown reduction considered reasonable.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy TW2 

ISSUES

1.     The sycamore is situated on the rear boundary of the rear garden but the crown of the tree is visible from the surrounding public viewpoints.

2.     The tree has a large crown dominating the fairly small rear garden and the proposed crown reduction 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 to the sycamore shall not exceed

a) crown reduction and re-shaping by 25%

b) removal of a few small lower branches

c) crown thinning by 15%

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

(1) INFORMATIVE - I213 Quality of Tree Work                                                        

(2) INFORMATIVE - I212 Tree Work - Crown Reduction                                                 

(3) INFORMATIVE - You are reminded that this consent relates only to the planning aspects of your application and that the separate permission of the relevant landowners would be required for any work beyond your boundary.

(4) INFORMATIVE - You are advised that Chesham Town Tree Warden has requested that work to the tree should not be carried out before the end of the nesting season to avoid disturbance to nesting birds.

2001/993/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     13/06/01     Decide by Date:     07/08/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Chalfont Common

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      DR AND MRS CUMBERWORTH

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Class C Road

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

97/1666/CH     Single storey front extension, approved and implemented.

00/1511/CH     Single storey rear extension, approved, extant.

THE APPLICATION

There are three aspects to the application, a first floor side extension, a two-storey rear extension and a single storey rear extension adjacent to the two-storey rear extension.  1.     The first floor side extension would be constructed over the existing garage.  The floor area of the first floor extension would be 2.7m by 5.35m, it would have an eaves height of approximately 5m with a pitched roof over to a height of 6.9m (for reference the ridge of the existing dwelling is at 7.45m).  

2.     The two-storey rear extension would project a distance of 3.75m and would be approximately 6m in width.  Its eaves height would match the existing and the ridge height of the hipped roof would be 7.1m.  Adjacent to the two-storey rear extension and to the rear of the existing garage would be a single storey extension.  This would have a floor area of 1.1m by 3.75m with a mono pitched roof over.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letter from neighbours at ‘Burghley’ 60 Rickmansworth Lane objecting  –

1.     The overall height of the rear extension (7.1m above ground level) would have a severely obtrusive effect on neighbouring properties, spoiling the outlook from ground floor and particularly first floor windows.  The first floor windows to the north and east of my house currently enjoy an open aspect which would be obscured by the proposed development.

2.     The combination of the overall height and the proximity to the neighbouring properties would cause significant loss of light to both properties, which I do not consider to be acceptable.

3.     The property has recently been extensively extended to the front and the proposals would result in an over developed property out of keeping with other houses in the area.

4.     The rear extensions to neighbouring properties have been limited to single storey and in their depth from the existing buildings.  However, the proposals at No.62, as well as being double storey, extend well beyond the line of the existing buildings, interrupting the appearance and causing general obtrusiveness due to the size of the extensions.

5.     The combined effect of the above points will, I believe have a severely adverse effect on my property which will reduce its amenity and consequently its market value.

POLICIES

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

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

ISSUES

1.     The design of the extensions is considered acceptable and would not detract from the character and appearance of the street scene to such a significant amount that would, in this instance, justify a refusal on these grounds.  The first floor side extension maintains the minimum 1m distance to the boundary with the neighbouring property as required by Policy H11.  Both of the proposed roofs at above first floor level are subordinate in height to the existing.  The larger rear extension raises questions over whether the plot would be becoming overdeveloped, however given the extent permission for a single storey rear extension (floor area of 3.75m by 4.4m), it is not considered that the larger footprint of the rear extension (7m wide at ground floor level) would be sufficient to warrant a refusal, in this respect the fact that the two-storey rear extension would not be readily visible in the street scene has been noted.  It is considered that the property would maintain adequate amenity space with 16m remaining from the rear elevation of the proposed rear extension to the rear fence.

2.     When considering the impact of the extension upon the neighbouring properties, the comments of the neighbour at ‘Burghley’ have been noted and have been duly considered.  Noting the fist point made by the neighbour regarding loss of aspect,  while there is little doubt that there would be some loss of aspect from the flank windows facing the neighbouring property, it is however generally accepted that there is no private ‘right to a view’ that the planning system should protect.  In respect of the loss of light to the neighbouring properties, it is accepted that some loss will occur to ‘Burghley’ in the early morning given the alignment of the dwellings, however, for the majority of the day, the extension at the rear would not have a sufficiently adverse impact upon the amenities of ‘Burghley’ to sustain a refusal.  The impact upon the opposite neighbour, at ‘Quietways’, would be later in the day, it is not however considered that the loss would be sufficient to justify a refusal.  In this respect the distance the proposed extension is away from the boundaries, 3.9m and 3.6m, is noted and prevents the rear extension from having an unacceptably overbearing appearance.

3.     There is currently provision for the parking of three cars within the curtilage of the dwelling, no objections under Policies TR11 and TR16.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

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

(3) C174A No additional windows in either side elevation of extensions.

2001/1005/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     14/06/01     Decide by Date:     08/08/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Chalfont Common

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MRS WENDY SMITH AND KATE SMITH

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Mineral Consultation Area

THE APPLICATION

The proposed garage would be 10.1m deep (7m of which is beyond the dwelling’s rear elevation) with a flat roof over to a height of 2.7m (a tiled, false pitched roof is proposed at the front elevation that would reach a height of 3.4m), the flank elevation would be to within 0.1m of the boundary while the tiled roof would be on the boundary line.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997: Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, 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.     It is not considered that the proposed garage would have an adverse impact upon the street scene.  In this respect it is noted that the front elevation of the garage is set well back into the site, behind the front elevation of the dwelling itself.  The materials are shown on the plans to match the existing dwelling and the false-pitched roof over the front elevation of the garage would soften the visual impact of the garage.

2.     Although the garage is to be constructed adjacent to the boundary with No.57 and would project behind the rear elevation of the neighbouring property, it is not considered that the proposal would appear overbearing when viewed from No.57, given the boundary treatment, the change in ground levels and the relatively low height.  It should be noted that the property has not been extended and therefore has its full complement of ‘permitted development’ rights and that the proposed would replace a recently demolished structure in a similar position.

3.     No adverse car parking issues arise.  

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) C196 Ancillary residential buildings at 55 Nortoft Road - garage

2001/1009/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     15/06/01     Decide by Date:     09/08/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Giles     Ward:     Chalfont St Giles

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MRS MAGGI

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/885/71     Extension for bathroom, front porch and new garage, approved.

AM/1417/71     First floor extension for bedroom and bathroom.

AM/791/72     Double garage and boundary wall.

CH/24/78     Extension to kitchen and greenhouse.

THE APPLICATION

The proposed conservatory would form a link between the dwelling and the garage.  The conservatory would be 7.32m in depth and between 3.898m and 5.635m in width (allowing for the angled boundary wall).  The conservatory would have a ridge height at 3.881m with an area of flat roof adjacent to the wall on the southern elevation.  This wall would be approximately 2.284m in height with high-level windows fronting the footpath.

PARISH COUNCIL

The Parish Council objects to this proposal which constitutes overdevelopment, and which will occupy too high a proportion of the total property, reducing the garden area to an unsatisfactorily low level.

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): Policies GC3 & TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The proposal is not considered to adversely affect the amenities of the neighbouring properties.  A footpath is located to the south of the application site and to the north the neighbouring property has recently constructed a single storey rear extension with no windows in its flank elevation facing the proposed conservatory, there is also a Laurel hedge that provides more than adequate screening on the boundary, (this hedge is protected by a condition on planning permission 00/1097/CH – an application extending the neighbouring property).  No objections are therefore raised under Polices GC2, GC3, H13(i) and H14.

2.     It is considered that the proposal would represent an overdevelopment of the application site, with a high proportion of the site covered with structures, this would be out of character with the general area.  The resultant site would have very little amenity space remaining, with no amenity area at the front of the dwelling and only that over the existing garage together with an area to the side of the conservatory remaining.  

3.     The conservatory would also have an adverse impact upon the amount of car parking provision within the site.  At present the dwelling has the garage together with the forecourt between it and the dwelling.  The proposed conservatory would result in the loss of all the parking spaces within the site.  As no further spaces are proposed or, for that matter, could be accommodated within the site, then objections are raised.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse permission

For the following reasons

(1) The proposed conservatory would form a link between the existing garage and the dwelling, the result being that a high proportion of the application site would be covered by structures, the only remaining amenity area being adjacent to the proposed conservatory and that area of land over the garage. The scheme would therefore result in overdevelopment of the site, creating a continuous building some 22 metres in length immediately abutting the adjacent footpath. This would  not respect the general characteristics of the plot itself, and would detract from the character of the area. The conservatory would therefore be contrary to Polices GC1(d) and H13(ii) of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997.

(2) The conservatory, by forming a link between the dwelling and the garage would result in the loss of the parking provision within the garage, together with that on the forecourt between the dwelling and the garage.  As no replacement car parking is proposed, or could be provided within the application site, then objections are raised under Policies TR11 and TR16 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997, as the proposal would exacerbate the levels of on street parking along Albion Road.

2001/1010/CH

Case Officer:      Neil Higson

Date Received:     15/06/01     Decide by Date:     09/08/01

Parish:     Amersham - Little Chalfont     Ward:     Little Chalfont

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MRS J BLOWFIELD

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Adjoining Green Belt

adjoining Historic Park or Garden

adjoining Ancient Woodland

Unclassified road

adj Archaeological Notification site

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

CH/1437/79     Single storey extension. Permitted.

CH/57/81     Vehicular crossover. Refused.

THE APPLICATION

It is proposed to construct a first floor extension above an existing single storey flat roofed projection at the north-western end of the dwelling. It would measure 4.5m wide by 5.5m deep with a ridged roof to a height of 6.9m hipped to all elevations.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend Approve.  

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policies GC1, GC3, GC4, H14, H15, H17, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The application site is located within a residential area where there are no objections to the proposed development in principle, subject to compliance with the relevant local policies. The application has been submitted following a previous refusal.

2.     The dwelling is located on a corner plot with a substantial curtilage. The street scene in this locality is characterised by a variety of different styles of property, which are fairly well spaced out. Local Plan Polices GC1 and H15 indicate that extensions to dwellings should be in keeping both with existing buildings and their surroundings.

3.     The style and design of the proposed extension is considered acceptable in terms of relating to the existing dwelling and there will be no material adverse visual impact upon neighbouring dwellings. It is considered that the proposed extension would not appear cramped or incongruous in the street scene. The proposal therefore meets the requirements of GC1, GC3, H11, H13, H14, H15, H16 and H17.

4.     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, maintaining a sufficient distance between the flank elevation of the dwelling and the boundaries of its curtilage.

5.     Three parking spaces could be provided within the curtilage of the property in compliance with the requirements of Policy TR16.  

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

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

2001/1023/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     18/06/01     Decide by Date:     12/08/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Giles     Ward:     Chalfont St Giles

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS STEPHENSON

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The site has a long planning history the most recent of which being -

THE APPLICATION

The garage is proposed to be located in front of the main dwelling adjacent to the northern boundary.  The garage would be 10.7m by 5.9m with and eaves height on the flank and rear elevations of 1m and of 2m at the front elevation, the ridge of the garage would be 4.3m.  The frame would be of timber construction with timber boarding with clay tiles on the roof to match those on the main dwelling.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letter received from ‘Edelweiss’, the adjacent property, stating that they have ‘absolutely no objections to the development’.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, GB2, GB15, TR11 & TR16.

ISSUES

1.     As the dwelling lies within the Green Belt applications for new ancillary buildings, in this case a garage, are assessed under Policy GB15.  In essence this Policy states that garages are acceptable provided that they are seen to be both small and subordinate to the scale of the original dwelling.  In this context it is noted that the original bungalow has been considerably enlarged, a previous report (99/899/CH) noted that the original dwelling had been extended by approximately 161%.  However the Policy also notes that each development will be considered on its merits, principally of its siting, design, external appearance, location in relation to the existing dwelling and its surroundings and its impact upon the landscape rather than specific Green Belt considerations.  It is considered that in this instance, although the garage has a relatively large floor area (67m2) its design, especially the roof area, is such that its impact has been kept to a minimum.  Given the distance the proposal is set away from the roadside (approximately 28m), no objections are raised to its design and impact upon the openness of the Green Belt.  It is also considered that there is sufficient screening on the boundary between ‘Edelweiss’, the neighbouring property, to prevent any loss of amenity for the occupiers of this property.  

2.     Notwithstanding the above, it should be noted that no objections were made to an identical garage in the same location under application 2001/0454/CH.  Consequently no objections are raised to the garage proposal.

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) C108 General Time Limit

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

(3) C196 Ancillary residential buildings at Olde Chelsea - garage

2001/1026/CH

Case Officer:      Kathryn York

Date Received:     18/06/01     Decide by Date:     12/08/01

Parish:     Chesham     Ward:     Lowndes

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS D G BALICKI

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

THE APPLICATION

Proposes part two storey, part single storey side extension, and single storey front extension incorporating replacement garage.  The two-storey side extension measures 8.3m deep, and a maximum of 4.3m wide, incorporating a stepped in section along the side.  The roofline of this extension will continue the existing roofline.  The single storey side extension measures 4.3m deep, and a maximum of 1.95m wide, with a flat roof 2.9m high.  The single storey front extension measures 5.7m wide x 0.65m deep, with a sloping roof 3.25m high.  An existing single garage is to be demolished.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997 (Including the Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC3, H11, H13, H14, H15, H16, H17, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

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

2.     The two-storey extension remains one metre from the boundary at first floor level, in accordance with Policies H11 and H16.  The side boundary abuts the rear garden of the neighbouring property, with the extension being at least 16m away from this property.  No windows are proposed in the first floor side elevation of the extension.  The single storey extensions to the side and front are small scale, and as such there will be no adverse impact on the amenities of the neighbouring properties.

3.     The design of the extensions is considered acceptable in relation to the existing dwelling, and no objections are raised in this respect.

4.     Three parking spaces are to be retained within the curtilage of the site.  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

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

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

2001/1028/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     18/06/01     Decide by Date:     12/08/01

Parish:     Amersham - Little Chalfont     Ward:     Little Chalfont

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS L BAKER

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

THE APPLICATION

A rear replacement conservatory 3.6m deep and 4.3m wide with an all round hipped roof at 3.2m.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approval.

POLICIES

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

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

ISSUES

1.     The application seeks approval for a conservatory to the rear of a flat roofed single-storey extension to a property in the built up area of Little Chalfont. Currently the property has a conservatory of a similar depth, but only 2m wide and overhanging the flank by 0.5m. The application proposes to realign the conservatory flush with the flank and extend further across the property. Although it will be a 0.6m increase in height, it will generate no further impact on adjacent neighbours and will therefore not be in breach of Local Plan Policy GC3, H13 and H14. Furthermore dense trees to either boundary preserves the privacy to adjacent rear gardens.

2.     The conservatory will not brings to light any issues with relation to design and as it is located to the rear of the building, generates no concern with relation to Policies GC1 and H15 of the Local Plan.

3.     The property has an integral garage and space for two cars on the forecourt in compliance with Local Plan Policy TR11 and TR16.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

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

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

2001/1029/CH

Case Officer:      Iwan Jones

Date Received:     18/06/01     Decide by Date:     12/08/01

Parish:     Great Missenden     Ward:     Prestwood

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      J J EVANS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Class C Road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/1335/58: Alterations and additions. Permitted development.

88/1313/CH: Two storey rear extension and detached garage. Conditional permission. Implemented.  

THE APPLICATION

The application relates to the erection of a first floor side extension to the north eastern elevation. It would be built on top of a flat roof up to the same height as the existing dwelling forming a gable end. Dormer windows are proposed in the front and rear elevations of the extension.  

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC3, LSQ1, H13, H14, H15, H16, H18, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The application site is located within the built up area of Great Kingshill 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.     The resulting dwelling would not be out of character within the street scene as all other properties on this side of Heath End Road are two storey. No objection raised in terms of Policy H13(ii).

3.     The proposed extension would not have an adverse impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring property Radory as a distance of 3.6m would remain between the side elevation of the site and the north eastern boundary. No objections raised in relation to Policies GC3, H13(i) and H14.

4.     The scale, height and design of the proposed extension would reflect those of the existing dwelling. The dormers would mirror that of the existing dormer on the front elevation. No objections raised in relation to Policies GC1, H15 and H18.  

5.     Three parking spaces would be provided within the curtilage of the site to comply with the Council’s standards. 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) C174A No additional windows in first floor of north eastern elevation of extension.

2001/1045/CH

Case Officer:      Kathryn York

Date Received:     19/06/01     Decide by Date:     13/08/01

Parish:     Penn     Ward:     Penn

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS K GILL

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

adjoining Ancient Woodland

Class B Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

adj Biological Notification site

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/102/49  Additions to outbuilding.  Permitted

AM1369/59  Addition.  Permitted development.

THE APPLICATION

Proposes two storey front, side and rear extensions and single storey rear extensions.  A single storey side projection is to be demolished and replaced by a two-storey side extension measuring 5.75m wide x 9.35m deep including a front gable projection.  The ridgeline of the main house is to be raised by 0.35m, with the roof of the two-storey extension matching this height.  The two storey rear extension, adjoining the two storey side extension, measures 4.5m deep, and projects 2.7m further to the rear than the two storey side extension, with a pitched roof 8m high.  Infilling the area between this extension and the remainder of the dwelling is a single storey rear extension, with a flat roof 3.3m high incorporating a skylight.  Along the side (east) elevation, an existing two storey gable projection is to be extended and a new one measuring 0.45m x 4.3m with a pitched roof 7.7m high, created towards the rear of the property.  A single storey rear projection is to be demolished, and a small dormer window inserted in the existing side elevation.  

Original floor area – 365sq m.

Proposed floor area – 157sq m.

Percentage increase – 43%

PARISH COUNCIL

No comments.

REPRESENTATIONS

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997 (Including the Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC3, GB13, LSQ1, H11, H14, H15, H16, H17, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The application site is located within the open Green Belt, where in accordance with Policy GB13 domestic extensions may be acceptable provided they are both small scale and subordinate in size to the original dwelling, and are not visually intrusive.  The site is also located within the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  

2.     The floorspace of the original dwelling measures 365sq m.  A previous extension and other parts of the existing building are to be demolished, with the result that the floorspace of the proposed extensions measures 157sq m.  This represents an increase of 43% over and above the floorspace of the original dwelling.  Notwithstanding the relatively low percentage increase in floor area, the extension does add considerable bulk to the original house. However, the property is currently ‘L-shaped’, and the majority of the extension is confined to the rear, infilling this area.  When viewed from the front, the main extension comprises the two-storey side extension, which replaces an existing single storey flat roofed projection.  There is very little increase in the overall width of the property as a result of this extension, and the two front gable projections will improve the overall appearance of the property.  The extensions are largely contained within the existing footprint of the dwelling, and the ‘L-shape’ of the original dwelling is retained.  The cumulative effect of the extensions is subordinate in scale to the original dwelling, and will not detract from the character of the original building.  No objections is raised in relation to Policy 13(a) of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan, 1997.

3.     The property is set back approximately 30m from the front boundary of the site, with high levels of screening on all boundaries.  The proposed development will not be visually intrusive in the landscape, nor will it detract from the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  No objections are raised in relation to Policies GB13(b), LSQ1 and H15.

4.     The proposed extensions will have no adverse impact on the neighbouring properties, and no objections are raised in this respect.

5.     Adequate parking exists within the curtilage of the site, and therefore 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: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

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

2001/1046/CH

Case Officer:      Thomas Gabriel

Date Received:     20/06/01     Decide by Date:     14/08/01

Parish:     Chesham     Ward:     Asheridge Vale

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR N G ETHERIDGE & MS S PARSONS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Thames Water - groundwater protection zone

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

87/1987/CH   Erection of 12 houses and garages, carparking and access. Refused – overdevelopment of the site. The substandard garden depths on several of the plots would result in lack of privacy and amenity space for the occupiers of the dwellings and would not maintain the character of the area. Appeal allowed.

89/2785/CH   Erection of house with access off Bevan Hill (variation to design under planning permission 87/1987/CH). Conditional permission – implemented.

THE APPLICATION

The application is for a replacement rear conservatory and the erection of a part 1.5m/ part 900mm high fence on top of the existing retaining wall fronting Bevan Hill. It will be approximately 20.5m long. 16m of the fence, immediately to the rear of the dwelling, will be 1.5m high, while the remaining 4.5m, adjacent to the garage at the bottom of the garden, will be 900mm high. The total height of the retaining wall and new fence will be part 2.5m/ part 1.9m. The conservatory is to measure 4.5m by 4.5m and 3.6m high to the top of the pitched roof.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 (Including the Adopted Alterations May 2001): – Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, H13, H14, H15, H17, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

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

2.     The replacement rear conservatory will not have a detrimental impact upon the neighbouring dwelling, no.19 Bevan Hill. Though it is to be approximately 1.15m deeper than that it is to replace, the proposed conservatory will not have a significantly greater impact than the existing conservatory as it will be predominantly screened from no.19 by the boundary treatment  (the flank elevation of a rear extension at no.19, approximately 2m deep, and a 2.3m high close boarded fence to the rear of the extension at no.19, approximately 2.5m long). The roof of the conservatory is to pitch away from no.19, such that it will not have an adverse impact upon that dwelling. The conservatory will not represent overdevelopment of the site, will respect the scale and proportions of the dwelling and will not increase the degree of overlooking from the existing situation. It will not detract from the street scene. No objections are raised to the proposed conservatory.

3.     The floorspace of the dwelling will remain below 120 sq. m. once the conservatory has been constructed. There are therefore no implications for the Council’s Adopted Carparking Standards.

4.     The proposed fence, to be erected on top of the existing retaining wall will not have an adverse impact upon the street scene or impinge upon the amenities of the adjacent dwellings. No objections are raised to the new fence.   

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) The frame of the conservatory hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials as indicated on the approved plan, no.NGE/ SP2 received by the Local Planning Authority on 23 July 2001.

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

(4) This permission shall relate to the submitted application form and plan as subsequently amended by Plan No. NGE/SP2 received by the Local Planning Authority on 23 July 2001, the additional plan received by the Local Planning Authority on 24 July 2001 and the letter dated 24 July 2001 received by the Local Planning Authority on 25 July 2001.

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