Meeting documents

2001/1074/CH

Case Officer:      Neil Higson

Date Received:     26/06/01     Decide by Date:     20/08/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Chalfont St Peter Central

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR DES CALLAGHAN

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Northolt Airfield safeguarding zone

Site within 250 m. of active or disused rubbish tip

Mineral Consultation Area

THE APPLICATION

It is proposed to construct a side extension to the southern end of the existing dwelling. It would measure 3.4m wide by 7.7m deep continuing the line of the existing ridge with hip detail to the side elevation. It would provide two bedrooms at first floor level served by 1.2m by 1m pitched roof eaves dormer windows in both the front and rear elevations. The flank wall would be 750mm from the common boundary to the south. It is also proposed to construct a single storey rear extension attached to the side extension to provide a conservatory measuring 3.8m wide by 3.5m in maximum depth with the roof to a maximum height of 3m.

PARISH COUNCIL

Objection – 1m rule has not been applied.  

REPRESENTATIONS

Letter from the neighbouring property to the south expressing no objection in principle to such an extension but would wish it to comply with the 1m distance from the boundary as required by policy.

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.

2.     Local Plan Polices GC1 and H15 indicate that extensions to dwellings should be in keeping both with existing buildings and their surroundings. While Policy H16 through reference to H11, states that there should be a minimum distance of one metre between the flank elevations at or above first-floor level of a proposed extension and the boundary of the dwellings' curtilage. If a house is extended up to the plot boundary and a neighbouring property is close by, a terracing effect may result causing detriment to the character of the area.

3.     The proposal would result in the extension being within 1 metre of the common boundary with the property to the south which would result in the loss of an important gap between these properties to the detriment of the character and appearance of the streetscene. The proposal therefore fails the requirements of Policies GC1, GC3, H11, H13, H14, H15 and H16.

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

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 Chiltern District Council Local Plan 1997 seeks to ensure the retention of adequate separation between buildings which, in the case of a two-storey extension and the property boundary, should be a minimum of 1m. The proposal does not achieve this degree of separation, and would therefore amount to cramped development causing visual terracing detrimental to the street scene and the character of the area. As such the proposal is contrary to Policies GC1, H11, H13, H14, H15 and H16 of the Adopted Chiltern District Council Local Plan 1997.

(1) INFORMATIVE: The Applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that the submitted drawings contain several inconsistencies when the elevations are considered against the floor plans which should be addressed prior to any re-submission being made.

2001/1085/CH

Case Officer:      Neil Higson

Date Received:     25/06/01     Decide by Date:     19/08/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Giles     Ward:     Chalfont St Giles

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

Applicant:      A CHAPMAN

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

01/0663/CH     Certificate of Lawfulness for a Proposed Use or Development – Refused.

THE APPLICATION

The application is for a Certificate of Lawfulness relating to the erection of a flat roof dormer window in the rear plane. The dormer would be 3m by 1.7m high. As part of this application, the agent states on the submitted forms that the proposed development constitutes an increase in the volume of the dwelling-house by 6m3 which when added to previous additions results in a cumulative addition of 44m3 thereby qualifying as permitted development being below the required 50 cubic metres. This is a re-submission following a previous refusal.

PARISH COUNCIL

Object to the proposal as it fails to comply with the District Council’s Planning Advice Note No.1 (Homeowners Guide to Planning Applications) which requires dormer windows to be small and not dominate the roof. It would also result in unacceptable overlooking and would be out of keeping with the locality. As such the Parish Council would not expect planning permission to be granted and therefore no certificate should be issued.

ISSUES

1.     The application relates to the construction of a rear dormer window as permitted development. Thus for a certificate to be granted, the proposal must fall within the provisions of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 - The enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwelling-house.

2.     There is no history of any planning applications relating to the property and therefore the full permitted development rights relating to the dwelling exist, these are 50 cubic metres as the dwelling is a terraced house. The agent has stated that the proposed volume to be added by virtue of the dormer window comprises 6 cubic metres. Although there is no planning history, there appears to have been a previous rear extension to the property, which has a volume of approximately 44 cubic metres. The volume of this previous extension therefore needs to be considered when calculating the volume of any proposed extensions to the dwelling-house. In this case the volume of the previous extension added to the volume of the proposals would not take the resulting volume over the permitted tolerance of 50 cubic metres.

3.     It is therefore considered that the proposal is permitted by Class B of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.   

4.     Consequently, it is considered that the proposed development is permitted development and a specific grant of planning permission is not required for the proposed works and a Certificate can be issued in this case.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Certificate of lawfulness for proposed development or use issued

(1) The proposed dormer window is permitted development by virtue of Class B, clause B.1 (d)(i) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, in that the volume of the additions above the original building, the previous completed extensions added to the proposed extension, would not exceed the permitted tolerance of 50 cubic metres allowed under the above Class. Planning permission is therefore not required for the proposed dormer window and a certificate can be issued in this case.

2001/1091/CH

Case Officer:      Neil Higson

Date Received:     27/06/01     Decide by Date:     21/08/01

Parish:     Latimer     Ward:     Ashley Green & Latimer

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS PETERSON

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Green Belt settlement GB5

adjoining Common land

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Site within 250 m. of active or disused rubbish tip

Archaeological site

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/0230/59     Garage and new access. Permitted.

AM/2099/63     Garage. Permitted.

AM/186/65     Lean-to. Permitted.

AM/1658/70     Double garage. Refused.

AM/1831/72     Double garage. Permitted.

87/1038/CH     Part 3-storey part 2-storey side extension. Permitted.

THE APPLICATION

Permission is sought for the construction of a first floor above an existing flat roof projection. The extension would be tied into an existing first floor projection by extending a new roof over both. The extension would measure 4.5m in length with a width of 1.5m and an apex height of 8m. It would present a gable end to the side (western) elevation of the dwelling.

It is also proposed to construct a single storey extension to this side elevation to provide a conservatory. It would measure 5.5m wide by 4m deep with a lean-to roof to a maximum height of 1.8m.  

REPRESENTATIONS

Letter from adjoining property stating that while no objection to the extension per se, they do object to the construction of a mono pitch roof over the existing flat roof at the rear of the property adjoining the common boundary. This is due to the fact that they will also have to have the roof altered in the same way so that it goes across the whole of the two properties.

CONSULTATIONS

Environment Agency – Unable to respond.

County Archaeological Officer – this scheme would be unlikely to have significant archaeological implications.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policies GC1, GC3, GB5, GB12, H13, H14, H15, H16, H17, TR2, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The site is situated in a GB5 area whereby there are no objections in principle to extensions to dwellings providing the relevant policies are complied with, in respect of siting, scale impact on neighbours, design, external appearance and materials.  

2.     The proposed extensions would use materials to match the existing dwelling. The building is set back from the highway and the extensions are at the end of the building furthest away from the frontage. When viewed from the open land to the west the extension would be seen against the backdrop of the existing dwelling and would not appear incongruous in the street scene.

3.     The comments of the neighbouring property are noted, however, it is common for pitched roofs to be erected over existing flat roofed projections up to the common boundary and not copied by the adjoining property. The proposal would not adversely affect the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties. Complies with Polices GC1, GB15 and H13.

4.     There is sufficient parking in compliance with the Council’s standards, therefore no objection under Policy 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) C174A No additional windows in first floor of northern elevation of extension.

2001/1130/CH

Case Officer:      Neil Higson

Date Received:     02/07/01     Decide by Date:     26/08/01

Parish:     Ashley Green     Ward:     Ashley Green & Latimer

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      DOMINIC HINEY

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt settlement GB4

adjoining Common land

Unclassified road

Bovingdon Beacon - safeguard zone - all development

Area of Special Advertisement Control

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/0459/67     Additions. Permitted.

CH/1437/74     Garage. Permitted.

CH/0288/82     Two-storey/single storey side extension. Permitted.

THE APPLICATION

Permission is sought for the incorporation of two pitched roof dormers in the front elevation of the existing projection at the southern end of the building. The dormers would measure 800mm in width by 1200mm in height, with the ridge of the dormers being 400mm below the existing ridge of the roof in which they would be installed.  

It is also proposed to construct a single storey front extension to provide a pitched roof entrance porch. It would measure 3.1m wide by 2.46m deep with a ridged roof to a maximum height of 3.5m. (Amended plans have been received increasing the depth of the porch from 1.8m to 2.46).

REPRESENTATIONS

Letter of support from nearby resident.

CONSULTATIONS

National Air Traffic Services – does not conflict with safeguarding criteria, accordingly no objection.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policies GC1, GC3, GB5, GB12, H13, H14, H15, H16, H17, H18, TR2, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The site is situated in a GB4 area whereby there are no objections in principle to extensions to dwellings providing the relevant policies are complied with, in respect of siting, scale impact on neighbours, design, external appearance and materials.  

2.     The Local Plan Policies seek to achieve dormers, which are well integrated with the design of the existing dwelling, and in this regard the use of dormers subordinate in scale to the roof is of special importance. Those proposed in this scheme are subordinate and of very modest size and no objection is raised in terms of street scene impact or design. The front porch would also be in character with the existing dwelling. The proposal is therefore considered in line with Policies GC1, GB12, H13, H15 and H18.

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

4.     Works had already begun at time of site visit.

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) C135 Single plan amended by plans (nos PLN/DH/A, PLAN FO2/A, HIN/GF/PROP/A received 11/07/01

2001/1159/CH

Case Officer:      Neil Higson

Date Received:     09/07/01     Decide by Date:     02/09/01

Parish:     Ashley Green     Ward:     Ashley Green & Latimer

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      D AND J LEA

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Green Belt settlement GB4

Common land

Class A Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

CH/1536/78     Change of use from Green Belt to Garden. Permitted.

THE APPLICATION

Permission is sought for the erection of a single storey rear extension measuring 5.9m in width by 5.8m in depth (the rear 2.4m being open sided) with a flat roof to a height of 3.1m, extending over the rear “canopy” as a mono-pitch.  

It is also proposed to demolish an existing detached garage, which is currently sited adjacent to the location of the proposed extension.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policies GC1, GC3, GB5, GB12, H13, H14, H15, H16, H17, TR2, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The site is situated in a GB4 area whereby there are no objections in principle to extensions to dwellings providing the relevant policies are complied with, in respect of siting, scale impact on neighbours, design, external appearance and materials.  

2.     The style and design of the proposed extension is considered acceptable in terms of relating to the existing dwelling and there will be no adverse visual impact upon neighbouring dwellings. The proposal would not be obtrusive or overbearing when viewed from any nearby dwellings. There should be no material loss of day and sunlight to neighbouring properties.

3.     There would be no demonstrable harm caused to the amenities of the adjacent dwellings. The proposal therefore meets the requirements of Policies GC1, GC3, GB5, GB12, H13, and H15.

4.     There is sufficient parking in compliance with the Council’s standards, therefore no objection under Policy 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

2001/1162/CH

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     09/07/01     Decide by Date:     02/09/01

Parish:     Little Missenden     Ward:     Little Missenden

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

Applicant:      DENNIS TRACY

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt settlement GB5

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Tree Preservation Order

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The Amersham Rural District Council (Little Kingshill - Hare Lane Cottage and Brisas) Tree Preservation Order, 1969 covering an area of trees at The Oakes, Hare Lane.

91/1097/CH     Crown reduction of an oak. Conditional permission.

97/0820/CH     Crown reduction of three oaks and a hornbeam. Conditional permission.

99/0084/CH     Felling of four hornbeam trees. Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

Felling of a hormbeam and reduction in height of six oak trees.

PARISH COUNCIL

Recommend approval subject to the approval of the Arboricultural Officer.

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant:     The six trees in question are very close together and have grown tall and spindly as a result, with narrow trunks and no natural shape. These trees are also very close to our home (no more than 30 ft away) and are directly in the path of the prevailing south winds. Our roof and garden are frequently covered in tree debris after high winds. These trees have remained uncared for since 1969 (TPO 50/69). Tree surgery i.e. crown reduction would remove dead branches and their excessive height (90’-100’) and give light and air thereby enabling these oaks to develop into more healthy specimens. The felling of the hornbeam is due to the trunk becoming diseased and has become ugly and unstable. We will replant with a lime tree.

Two letters having no objections from the neighbours.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Strip of woodland between 49 and 51 New Road – previously owned by property to rear in Hare Lane but understand bought by applicant in March 2000 – number of trees removed recently and site much more open – remaining trees, mainly maturing oaks, fairly closely spaced and have grown in woodland environment up towards light – fairly tall with limited crown development – some height reduction to encourage lower crown development and improve stability considered reasonable – one of oaks topped in recent years and one with deliberate bark damage – latter tree now declining in health and likely to die – hornbeam has fairly healthy crown but severe bark damage at base with fungus present – sensible to remove and replace.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy TW2 

ISSUES

1.     The strip of woodland between 49 and 51 New Road is an important feature and the trees in the application are visible from New Road.

2.     The hornbeam has severe bark damage at the base and its removal and replacement is considered to be reasonable management.

3.     The six oak trees have grown upwards towards the light and some height reduction to improve their shape and stability is considered to be reasonable management.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

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

(2) The tree surgery hereby approved shall not exceed the felling of the hornbeam and height reduction by 20 % and re-shaping of the oak trees with only very limited reduction of the side branches.

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

(3) A lime tree of at least standard size shall be planted close to the hornbeam tree to be removed not later than the end of the first planting season following the date of implementation this consent and shall be maintained thereafter in accordance with the provisions of the existing Tree Preservation Order unless any variation to this requirement has previously been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to maintain the special character of the area, which was the reason 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 planning permission 99/0084/CH for the felling of four hornbeam trees beside the front drive required two lime trees and two maple trees to be planted as replacements for the trees removed. This work should be carried out within two months of the date of this notice.

2001/1172/CH

Case Officer:      Iwan Jones

Date Received:     10/07/01     Decide by Date:     03/09/01

Parish:     Coleshill     Ward:     Coleshill & Penn Street

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS D HALL

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Coleshill Conservation Area

Green Belt settlement GB4

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Grade 2 Listed Building

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

THE APPLICATION

The application relates to the erection of a replacement front porch measuring 2.6m wide, 2m deep and 3.3m high to the front elevation.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC3, GB2, GB4, GB12, LSQ1, H13, H14, H15 and CA1.

ISSUES

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

2.     The development is considered to be too insignificant in terms of its height, scale and bulk to have an impact upon the rural character of the settlement, the openness of the Green Belt and the appearance of the Conservation Area. Furthermore, it would have no effect upon the residential amenities of neighbouring properties. No objections raised in relation to Policies GB4, GB12, H14 and CA1.

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) C422 Materials - Bricks and Hip Tiles

2001/1179/CH

Case Officer:      Neil Higson

Date Received:     11/07/01     Decide by Date:     04/09/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Chalfont Common

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS P CLARKE

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Adjoining Green Belt

Class C Road

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/0393/52     New access – Permitted.

AM/0395/61     Additions – Permitted.

AM/1095/69     Double garage and boiler house.

THE APPLICATION

It is proposed to construct a side extension to the north eastern end of the existing dwelling. It would measure 5.6m wide by 10.8m in overall depth continuing the line of the existing ridge with a gable end to the side elevation, which would be 1050mm from the common boundary. It would provide two bedrooms at first floor level served by 2.1m wide by 2.4m high pitched roof dormer windows in the front and rear elevations. The roof pitch would be continued across the rear elevation to replace a currently flat roofed area incorporating to further matching dormers. The ground floor would provide a garage replacing the one to be demolished. Amended plans where received extending the depth of the garage at the front and extending the main roof over the whole extension.  

PARISH COUNCIL

No Objection.  

REPRESENTATIONS

Letter from the neighbouring property to the north east who believes it is a skilful redevelopment plan and support the proposed development.  

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policies GC1, GC3, GC4, H14, H15, H17, H18, 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.

2.     The street scene in this part of Rickmansworth Lane is characterised by a variety of different styles of property. Local Plan Polices GC1 and H15 indicate that extensions to dwellings should be in keeping both with existing buildings and their surroundings. While H11 states that there should be a minimum distance of one metre between the flank elevations at or above first-floor level of a proposed dwelling and the boundary of the dwellings curtilage.

3.     The proposal is considered acceptable in terms of relating to the existing dwelling and neighbouring properties, as it respects the required distance to the common boundary. The extension would not be overbearing or result in a loss of privacy or sunlight to the adjacent property.

4.     The dormer windows would be in character with and subordinate to the dwelling and the proposal therefore meets the requirements of Policies GC1, GC3, H11, H13, H14, H15, H16 and H18.

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

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.

(4) C134 Single plan amended by plan (no 201.031-1B) received on 03/08/01

2001/1181/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     11/07/01     Decide by Date:     04/09/01

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham Town

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR I K GALLOWAY

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Thames Water - groundwater protection zone

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

88/0005/CH     alterations and two-storey rear extension, approved.

96/1388/CH     Single storey rear extension, approved and implemented.

THE APPLICATION

The application is to build a first floor over an existing flat roofed ground floor extension.  This proposed extension would have a pitched roof over with a gable end facing to the rear.  Windows are proposed in the rear elevation, a small obscure glazed in the southern elevation and a high level in the northern.  The ridge height would be below that of the main dwelling. With the eaves to match the existing.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approve.

REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters from neighbours at Nos. 80 & 82 noting –

1.     Loss of privacy resulting from the large side window of the extension.

2.     The side window would provide potential for more noise and the new room than already exists from the ground floor.  

3.     Similarly there is increased potential for light shining from the windows at night towards my house.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry Officer –

Extension very close to a line of Beech Trees

Closely spaced about 10m high.

Appear to have been planted as a hedge and neglected    

Some branch trimming required, particularly on first tree

     Applicants side propose to remove first tree.

Trees not important

     Limited public visibility

     Potential future problems from position.

No objection.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, H11, H13, H14, H15, H16, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The design of the extension is considered to be acceptable, with no adverse impact upon the street scene.  It is considered that the extension, although relatively large, would not result in the overdevelopment of the site and is considered to respect the scale and proportions of the existing dwelling.

2.     The main issue is considered to be the impact the proposal would have upon both of the adjacent neighbours, in this respect the representations made have been noted and have been duly considered.  Taking firstly the impact upon the properties to the north, the main issue is the impact the side window would have upon their privacy.  While it is accepted that the original plans would have afforded an unacceptable loss of amenity for these properties, the applicant has amended his application in order to overcome this objection by altering the window into a high-level type.  It is considered that this amendment is sufficient to overcome the objections raised, as such no objections are raised to the impact the extension would have upon the dwellings to the north.  

3.     The extension will also have an impact upon the property immediately to the south, No.86.  This neighbouring dwelling has a single storey flat roofed extension to the rear, this has no windows in its flank elevation and projects a similar distance to the rear as does the existing flat roofed extension of No.84.  At first floor level this dwelling also has a number of windows that look out onto the proposed extension, one faces to the rear and is a rear facing window to a room which also has a window in the front elevation, one is obscure glazed and the other is a secondary window to that room’s rear facing window.  In terms of loss of light the application site is located to the north of the application site and the affected windows are, as noted above, obscured glass or are considered to be either secondary windows to their respective rooms or have another aspect (the room that also has a window that faces the road).  As such it is not considered that there would be any significant loss of light that would justify a refusal on these grounds.  The extension must also be assessed as to whether it appears to be unduly overbearing to this neighbouring property.  In this respect it is noted that the first floor element of the neighbour’s dwelling is for the most part set some way off the boundary, (save for the room that also faces the front) and that the single storey extension of No.86 does not have any flank windows and projects a similar distance to the rear as does the proposed first floor extension.  Given the orientation of the two properties, the window layout as noted above and the layout of No.86, it is considered that, on balance, no objections are raised to the proposed extension in terms of its impact upon No.86.

4.     The row of Beech trees on the boundary will be affected by the extension, however, although they are useful in terms of a screen, the comments of the Forestry Officer have been noted and as such no objections are raised to this part of the scheme.

5.     No adverse car parking objections arise, parking is provided for three vehicles to park within the curtilage of the site.  No objections under Polices 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 N & S elevations of extension.

(4) C177 Obscure glass in multiple windows in N & S elevations - 1st floor only

(5) C137 Selected plans amended by one unnumbered plan received on 24/8/01

2001/1187/CH

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     12/07/01     Decide by Date:     05/09/01

Parish:     Chesham     Ward:     St Marys

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

Applicant:      MEADES MEADOW MANAGEMENT CO

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Chesham Conservation Area

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

Amenity Open Space - Not Public

Unclassified road

Tree Preservation Order

River Chess & River Misbourne - area liable to flood

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The Bucks County Council (Chesham Urban District) Tree Preservation Order No 1 - 1967 covering 3 horse chestnuts and a sycamore as individual trees on the Meades Estate, Meades Lane, Chesham.

CH/1570/76     Crown thinning of three horse chestnuts and a sycamore. Conditional permission.

CH/2418/79     Pollarding of a horse chestnut and removal of three branches from a horse chestnut. Conditional permission

CH/1618/83     Removal of branches from two horse chestnuts and a sycamore. Conditional permission.

86/2685/CH     Crown reduction of three horse chestnuts and a sycamore. Conditional permission.

90/1644/CH     Crown reduction of three horse chestnuts and a sycamore. Conditional permission.

94/0377/CH     Lopping of three horse chestnuts and a sycamore. Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

Sycamore outside No 10 – crown reduction 15%.

Chestnut outside No 14 – lift skirt 1-2metres – thin crown 20%.

Chestnut in front of No 32 – crown reduce 20% house side – crown thin house side 10-15%.

TOWN COUNCIL

No objections.

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant:     Attach quotation from tree surgeon.

One letter of support from a property in Amy Lane.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     All are large full-crowned trees in open setting – regularly maintained to high standard for many years.

T1 horse chestnut (by No 32) – slight lean to tree – branching about 3m from house – some reduction, particularly on house side reasonable.

T2 horse chestnut (by No 14) – large tree once pollarded at about 6m – some branches now hanging to about 2m and others close to houses.

T3 sycamore (by No 10) – large tree – proposed reduction reasonable.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy TW2 

ISSUES

1.     The three trees are large prominent specimens in an open area in the Meads Estate and are visible from a number of public viewpoints.

2.     The trees have been regularly maintained over the years and the proposed work is considered to be reasonable management continuing this process.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

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

(2) The tree surgery hereby approved shall not exceed the specification in the quotation dated 19 June 2001 from J & D Clark - Treework Specialists - that was submitted as part of the application.

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

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

(2) INFORMATIVE - I212 Tree Work - Crown Reduction                                                 

2001/1189/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     11/07/01     Decide by Date:     04/09/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Chalfont St Peter Central

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS D BURNS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Unclassified road

Northolt Airfield safeguarding zone

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/1683/59     Re-site house and garage.

AM/1133/70     Study, utility room and garage, approved.

AM/909/73     Alterations and additions, approved.

89/1582/CH     Conservatory, approved.

94/1483/CH     Alterations and first floor side extension, approved.

THE APPLICATION

A two-storey side extension 9.8m long and 5.3m wide (overhanging the front and rear elevation by 2.2m). To the other end of the rear elevation will be a two-storey rear elevation 5.6m wide, all two-storey structures will have matching hipped roofs pitched to the same height as the existing roof ridge, although the ground level varies. Between these two rear elements is proposed a single-storey extension 4.5m wide and 1.6m deep with mono-pitch roof at 3.7m. To the rear of the right-hand side extension is proposed a hipped roofed single-storey extension, the full width of this two-storey element and 1.6m deep.

To the front of the property will be a 3.5m wide link between the house and existing garage. It will sit flush with rear elevation of the garage, with pitched roof at an average height of 4.5m, fusing to the new-hipped roof of the garage (positioned at a higher level) at 4.4m. A simple open lychgate porch, pitched at 3.3m above ground level will complete the development.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letter from occupant of ‘Woodlands’ with no objections.

Letter from ‘Merrydown’ which could be summarised as follows –

1.     The area most affected by the proposed extension is a very quiet corner of the garden...it is an area currently enjoyed by the family for its seclusion, tranquillity and privacy.

2.     The three proposed windows would overlook our garden

3.     The three proposed rooms would require extractor fans which, when in use would adversely affect the tranquillity of the garden.  There will be inevitably be noise generated by flushing or other running water.

4.     The visual impact is alleviated by the existing Laurel hedge that serves as a screen.  It is our understanding that this should remain and should not be damaged by any of the intended works

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, H11, H13, H14, H15, H16, H17, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The design of the extensions is considered acceptable, with no adverse impact upon the character of the area and, although substantial extensions, would not result in the overdevelopment of the site.

2.     With regard to the impact upon the neighbouring properties, the representations made have been noted and have been duly considered.  Although well screened on all sides of the plot there is a small gap in the screening on the rear boundary opposite the proposed bedroom and shower windows in the two-storey rear extension.  While this could afford some overlooking to the dwelling at the rear, given the existing windows in a similar position, albeit 2m further to the rear than those proposed, it is not considered that any objections could be raised to this aspect of the scheme.

3.     When viewed from ‘Merrydown’, the extensions would, as noted by the neighbour, be screened by the mainly Laurel trees on the boundary.  Given the distance between the dwellings and the fact that much of the extension would be seen against the backdrop of the existing dwelling, it is not considered that the extension would appear unduly overbearing or obtrusive.  The comments regarding the loss of privacy are noted, as the first floor flank windows are to the bathroom and shower rooms, it is considered that they could reasonably be required to have obscure glazing installed, this would alleviate any loss of privacy issues arising.  

4.     The pitched roof over the garage would have minimal impact upon the neighbouring properties, being well screened and set at a lower level than the dwellings on Ellis Avenue due top the slope of the land.

5.     Sufficient car parking is provided on site to comply with 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 eastern elevation of extension.

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

2001/1203/CH

Case Officer:      Mark Spragg

Date Received:     13/07/01     Decide by Date:     06/09/01

Parish:     Great Missenden - Prestwood     Ward:     Prestwood

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MRS M OWEN

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Unclassified road

THE APPLICATION

Planning permission is sought to retain two wooden cat pens, replace two existing cat pens and replace an existing shed within the rear garden of 43 Grymsdyke.

The details of the proposed structures are as follows:

Pen 1 -     4.9m x 1.9m x 2.0m high

A lean to timber structure located adjacent to 1.8m fence along boundary with No 41 approximately 3m to rear of house      

Pen 2-     3.9m x 1.9m x 2.0m high

A lean to timber structure located adjacent to boundary with No 45 Grymsdyke approximately 20m to rear of house, replacing an existing structure of similar size and construction

Pen 3-     2.9m x 3.7m x 2.0m high

A lean to timber structure located in the far north east corner of the rear garden, approximately 23m to rear of house

Pen 4-     2.0m x 2.4m x 2.3m high

A flat roofed caged structure attached to the rear of the property, replacing a similar larger structure

Shed     3.6m x 1.8m x 2.0m

A lean to timber shed located in the south west corner of the rear garden adjacent to the rear boundary and rear boundary of No 45, approximately 22m to the rear of the house 

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections

REPRESENTATIONS

2 letters have been received, from the occupants of No 39 and 41 Grymsdyke. The points raised in the letters are summarised as follows:

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 : Policies GC1, GC3, H13, H14, H15 and LSQ1

ISSUES

1. 43 Grymsdyke is a semi-detached property located in a built up area of Prestwood within the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty as designated in the Local Plan.

2. Having regard to Policy 20 there is no objection to ancillary residential building in principle in this location.

3. Mature hedge screening exceeding 2m and fencing exists along both side boundaries with a high hedge along the rear boundary. The closest structures to the rear of the adjoining property are Pen 1 and 4. Pen 1 at its highest point exceeds the height of the boundary fence by approximately 0.2m. Pen 4 would replace an existing pen which currently extends right up to the boundary with the adjoining property at a similar height to the smaller structure now proposed. Although the erection of Pen 1 is considered acceptable on its own the cumulative impact of retaining it together with the caged structure attached to the rear of the property is considered harmful to the amenities of the occupiers of No 41. It is therefore considered appropriate to impose a condition requiring the removal of the existing structure. The shed and other two pens are located towards the rear of the garden and are well screened from No’s 41 and 45.

4. Representations have been received relating to the use of the premises as a cattery. The applicant has however stated that she keeps cats as a hobby and carries out no business from her property. Notwithstanding this the current application is solely for the erection and retention of the structures. Should it become apparent at a later stage that the use, as a matter of fact and degree, constitutes a change of use requiring planning permission, then this would be dealt with as a separate matter. Furthermore any concerns relating to noise and disturbance from cats at the property are matters which would be controlled under Environmental Health legislation.     

5. The proposed structures being at the rear of the property and enclosed by other residential curtilages would not result in any adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding AONB.

6. On the basis of the above the application is recommended for approval.

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) Pen 1 as shown on drawing No. 002 hereby approved, shall be removed within 3 months of the date  of this permission, unless the existing pen attached to and extending across the rear of the property and up to the boundary with No 41 Grymsdyke is removed.

Reason. To protect the amenities of the occupiers of No 41 by reducing the cumulative impact of structures in close proximity to the rear of that property.

(3) C197 Ancillary residential buildings at 43 Grymsdyke

(1) INFORMATIVE - For the avoidance of doubt the "existing pen" in Condition 2 of this permission is that referred to in paragraph 2 of the applicants letter dated 12 July 2001 and which extends from the location of the proposed Pen 4 to the southern boundary of the site.

2001/1208/CH

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     13/07/01     Decide by Date:     06/09/01

Parish:     Little Missenden     Ward:     Little Missenden

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

Applicant:      MRS J PERRY

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt settlement GB5

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Tree Preservation Order

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The Chiltern District Council (Land at Chalk Lane Cottage, Chalk Lane, Hyde Heath) Tree Preservation Order 1999 (No 10 of 1999) covering an area of trees.

00/0287/CH     Felling of a cedar, an elm, a laurel, a laburnum, a cotoneaster, an alder, a pine and two cypresses and crown reduction of two oaks, two maples and a sycamore. Conditional permission.

00/295/CH     Felling of about forty trees and work to several other trees in accordance with a submitted schedule. Conditional permission.

00/1280/CH     Felling of thirty nine trees and tree surgery to several other trees. Conditional permission.

01/0071/CH     Erection of detached house to replace existing bungalow. Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

Felling of two apple trees, a maple, a Lawson cypress and a hawthorn.

Coppicing of a hazel.

Removal of a lower limb from a Lawson cypress.

PARISH COUNCIL

Recommend approval subject to the approval of the Arboricultural Officer.

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant:     Reasons for works are

T15 Apple – Tree is very elderly and has been unsympathetically pruned over its life.

T16 Apple – Tree is very elderly and has been unsympathetically pruned over its life.

T31 Lawson Cypress – Remove lower limb to improve shape of tree.

T48 Maple – T47 the Scots pine is the principal tree of this group.T48 is starting to grow through the Scots pine.

T27 Lawson Cypress – Tree has bolted for light and is now very top heavy and appears unsafe in moderate winds.

T28 Hawthorn – Tree is in poor condition having been historically pruned and cut in an unsympathetic way.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Whole property covered by area TPO last year at time of sale of property – therefore all trees on site protected irrespective of size and quality, including many not of suitable quality for individual protection - intention would be to replace general TPO with more specific Order in due course. Previously approved work largely carried out including tree removal for house construction- site now fairly open in centre but largely screened by trees.

T15 Apple and T16 Apple – old trees of little importance – not contributing to screening.

T31 Lawson Cypress – small secondary stem growing at height of about 0.75m – removal would improve shape of tree.

T45 Hazel – pruned under 00/0295/CH to about 1.5m – about 1.5m re-growth – reasonable to coppice at base.

T48 Field Maple – small suppressed tree competing with cotoneaster under canopy of large Scots pine.

T27 Lawson Cypress – thin suppressed tree only a metre from another cypress – removal would have little effect on screening.

T28 Hawthorn – thin suppressed tree once topped at about 6m – poor shape – removal would have little effect on screening.

Although work proposed to several trees, major trees on site not involved and work has little effect on screening of adjacent dwellings.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy TW2 

ISSUES

1.     The site contains a number of trees and shrubs and is largely enclosed by surrounding properties. The larger trees are visible from surrounding public viewpoints but there is limited public visibility of most of the trees in the garden, including the trees in the application.

2.     The trees in the application are not the major trees on the site and the proposed work would not have a significant effect on the screening of the site.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

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

(2) The tree surgery hereby approved shall not exceed the specification on the schedule dated 13 July 2001 that was submitted as part of the application.

(3) C412 Landscaping - replacement of 3 TPO trees (TPO felling app.)

(1) INFORMATIVE - I213 Quality of Tree Work                                                        

(2) INFORMATIVE - I211 Tree Work - Branch Removal                                                  

2001/1212/CH

Case Officer:      Kathryn York

Date Received:     16/07/01     Decide by Date:     09/09/01

Parish:     Penn     Ward:     Penn

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MRS S D SHARMAN

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

88/3204/CH   Roof extension, two storey side extension, alterations and extension to garden store to provide detached garage and new vehicular access. Conditional permission – part implemented (the roof extension and the two storey side extension have been built).

01/0134/CH  Conservatory on side elevation.  Refused: shortfall in on site car parking

THE APPLICATION

The application is for a side conservatory, measuring approximately 3.8m by 2.4m and 2.803m high to the top of the sloping roof.

PARISH COUNCIL

No comments.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

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

2.     The proposed conservatory is to be sited away from the neighbouring dwellings and will not have any detrimental impacts for them. It will not result in any additional loss of privacy for the occupiers of the neighbouring dwellings and will not be obtrusive. No objections are raised in terms of Policies GC3, H13, H14 or H15.

3.     As a result of the conservatory, the floorspace of the dwelling will exceed 120sq. m. The previous application was refused, as it was not demonstrated that a third parking space could be provided within the curtilage of the site.  The applicant has now indicated that a third space could be provided, and as such the previous reason for refusal has now been overcome.  No objections are raised in relation to 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) Before any construction work commences, details of the materials to be used for the external construction of the development hereby permitted 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.

(3) The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until a third car parking space has been provided within the curtilage of the site in accordance with the unnumbered ground floor plan received by the Local Planning Authority on 16/07/01.  This parking space shall thereafter be permanently reserved for parking purposes.

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

2001/1213/CH

Case Officer:      Kathryn York

Date Received:     16/07/01     Decide by Date:     09/09/01

Parish:     Great Missenden     Ward:     Great Missenden

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS HARRISON

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Great Missenden Conservation Area

Identified Housing Site - Local Plan H2

Adjoining Green Belt

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

River Chess & River Misbourne - area liable to flood

Unclassified road

Tree Preservation Order

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

00/0096/CH  Erect 9 terraced houses and 2 flats with alterations to access from Buryfield Lane (amend p.p. 99/0313/CH)

THE APPLICATION

Proposes rear conservatory measuring 3m wide x 3.3m deep, with a pitched roof 2.958m high.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry Officer: No objection – no trees affected by proposal.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, LSQ1,CA1, H13, H14, H15, H17, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The application site is located within the Great Missenden Conservation Area and also within 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.     Adequate screening exists on the boundary with the neighbouring property.  The proposed development will not have an adverse impact on this property, and no objections are raised in this respect.

3.     The conservatory will be visible from the road as there is only a small post and rail fence running alongside the road. Policy CA1 states that in Conservation Areas, the use of synthetic materials will not be permitted.  However, the bricks to be used will match the existing, and whilst the frame of the conservatory is to be white UPVC, the house itself is a new development with white window and door frames.  As such, given the small scale nature of the development, it is not considered that the proposed conservatory will be detrimental to either the Conservation Area or the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  No objections are raised in relation to Policies GC1, CA1, LSQ1 or H15.

4.     Adequate parking space exists within the curtilage of the site.  No objections are raised.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

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

2001/1214/CH

Case Officer:      Iwan Jones

Date Received:     16/07/01     Decide by Date:     09/09/01

Parish:     Chesham     Ward:     Townsend

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS NEWBY

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

85/676/CH: Two storey rear extension and detached garage. Conditional permission. Implemented.

89/3359/CH: Alterations, part single storey part two storey side/rear extension. Conditional permission. Implemented.

00/0310/CH: Two storey side/rear extension, two dormer windows in rear elevation and single storey rear extension to garage. Refused because extension to house not subordinate to size and scale of original dwelling and therefore would erode open and rural character of the Green Belt. Appeal dismissed.

00/1434/CH: Dormer window in rear elevation, single storey rear extension to house and garage. Not implemented.

THE APPLICATION

The application relates to the erection of a conservatory to the rear elevation measuring 6.1m deep, 4.3m wide and 3.5m high. It would replace an existing flat roof conservatory that is slightly smaller in floor area. The external materials would match those of the existing. The original dwelling measured approximately 164 square metres. Under planning permission 85/676/CH a further 69 square metres was added representing an increase of 42% over and above the original gross floor area. A further 46 square metres of additional floorspace was constructed under planning permission 89/3359/CH representing a total of 115 square metres of additional floorspace. This amounted to a cumulative increase of 69.5% over and above the original gross floor area. Planning permission 00/0310/CH would lead to an additional 10 square metres if implemented. However, the siting of the proposed conservatory is in the same location as that of the approved single storey rear extension under 00/0310/CH and would constitute less additional floorspace at 8.4 square metres, representing an increase of only a 2.7%. The resulting cumulative increase in the gross floor area of the dwelling would be 72.2% over and above the original.  

TOWN COUNCIL

No objections.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC3, GB2, GB13, H13, H14, H15, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The application site is located in the open Green Belt where 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. It is also located within the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

2.     The application site is located within the open Green Belt. The main issue for consideration therefore, is whether the proposed extension is acceptable in relation to Policy GB13 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997. It is noted that the dwelling that is subject of this application has already had the benefit of substantial additions on its rear elevation and the proposed extension when considered in conjunction with these would not be subordinate to the size or scale of the original house. However, this addition results in only a very small net increase in floor area, in that it replaces an existing conservatory in the same position. Furthermore, the proposal represents less additional floorspace than the single storey rear extension that was approved under 00/0310/CH. In these circumstances, it is not considered that this extension would erode the open and rural character of this part of the Green Belt. No objection raised under Policy GB13 (a).

3.     Having regard to the location of the proposed conservatory to the rear of the property and the level of screening on the western boundary, it is considered that the proposal would not be detrimental to the visual amenities of this part of the Green Belt. No objection raised under Policy GB13(b).

4.     As the site is well screened and given that the site is well clear of neighbouring properties, no impact would be had upon the residential amenities of neighbours. No objection raised in terms of GC3, H13(i) and H14.

5.     The design of the proposed conservatory would be an improvement over the existing conservatory which consists of a flat roof. No objections under Policies GC1 and H15.

6.     There is more than adequate parking space within the curtilage of the site to comply with the Council’s requirements. No objections raised in relation to 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

2001/1215/CH

Case Officer:      Iwan Jones

Date Received:     16/07/01     Decide by Date:     09/09/01

Parish:     Chesham Bois     Ward:     Chesham Bois & Weedon

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR OGLE

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

88/0551/CH: Single storey side/rear extension incorporating double garage. Permitted and implemented.

THE APPLICATION

The application relates to the erection of a conservatory to the rear elevation measuring 4.6m wide, 3.6m deep and 3.6m high.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter of objection noting:

1.     Conservatory would have higher floor level and would be closer to fence leading to unacceptable level of overlooking into garden and principle windows of 7A Long Park.

2.     Roof would be too high resulting in conservatory being overbearing.

3.     Loss of privacy.

4.     Request no windows in elevation facing 7A.

5.     Reflection of sun from glazing would detract from enjoyment of garden of 7A.

One other letter received raising no objection to the proposal.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

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

2.     No effect would be had upon the street scene due to its positioning at the rear of the property. No objection under H13(ii).

3.     The orientation of the siting of the proposed conservatory would not be directly positioned so as to be parallel with 7A. On the boundary between the two properties there remains a 1.8m close boarded fence although it is acknowledged that the ground level of the application site is slightly elevated than that of 7A. However, at its nearest point to the boundary fence the conservatory would be 9.5m away, and 12.5m at its furthest point. The property of 7A itself is 10m away from the fence. Furthermore, there is currently a patio door in the rear elevation where the conservatory would be sited. Having regard to all of the above factors, it is not considered that the proposed conservatory would significantly affect the amenities of the occupiers of 7A greater than as present. No objections raised in relation to Policies GC3 and H14.    

4.     The scale, height and design of the proposed conservatory is considered acceptable in relation to the existing house. No objection raised in terms of Policies GC1 and H15.

5.     Sufficient parking space available within site to comply with Council’s standards. No objection under Policies TR11 and TR16.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

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

2001/1216/CH

Case Officer:      Thomas Gabriel

Date Received:     16/07/01     Decide by Date:     09/09/01

Parish:     Great Missenden     Ward:     Great Missenden

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS TOMPSON

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

CH/0104/84   Rear conservatory. Permitted development.

00/0550/CH   Single storey front extension to garage, single storey side/ rear extension, rear conservatory, detached outbuilding and greenhouse. Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

The application is for a rear conservatory measuring part 4.9m/ part 2.3m deep and part 9.3m/ part 4.7m wide. It is to have an average height of 3.1m (it is to be sited on slightly sloping ground).

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, LSQ1, H4, H13, H14, H15, TR11 and TR16.    

ISSUES

1.     The principle of this extension has been established by the granting of permission of the previous permission on the site (ref. 00/0500/CH). The new application differs from the previous one in that part of the conservatory is to be 4.5m wider, but up to 1.8m less deep, than the previous conservatory granted permission, and part of it is to be up to 2.4m deeper than the previous conservatory. The height is to remain the same.

2.     Though the proposed amendment adds to the bulk of the conservatory quite considerably, located centrally at the rear of the dwelling, the proposed conservatory will not have an overbearing impact upon the neighbouring dwellings. It will not impact upon the street scene and will not detract from the appearance of the dwelling. The degree of overlooking from the existing conservatory (which was constructed as permitted development) will not alter significantly. There will therefore not be any further loss of amenity for the neighbouring properties. No objections are raised to the proposed conservatory.

3.     Located within the built up area of Great Missenden, 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. 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) C432 Materials - As on Plan or Subsequently Specified

2001/1217/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     16/07/01     Decide by Date:     09/09/01

Parish:     Chesham Bois     Ward:     Chesham Bois & Weedon

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR D 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

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

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

01/0033/TC   Felling of two cypresses within a conservation area.

THE APPLICATION

A part two-storey, part single-storey rear extension. The property as it exists, has a half-hipped roof with ridge running across the property at 6m in height. The proposal is to extend the rear elevation back by 3.7m at roof height and reinstate the existing left-hand side dormer (1.6m wide and 1.9m). To the right hand side will be a projection to the two-storey extension, 3.5m long and 3.8m wide (stepped in from the existing flank by 0.3m, 1.8m from the end). The structure is roofed to match the height of the main roof and is terminated by a half-hipped arrangement. In the resulting angle is proposed a conservatory 3.6m wide and 3.3m deep with a mono-pitched roof to 3.1m. The single-storey side element will also be extended the full width and backwards, flush with the new rear elevation, capped with a mono-pitched roof to 3.3m.

PARISH COUNCIL

The Parish Council has no objection to the one/two storey rear extension. However, the Council did not understand why ‘shiplap boarding’ had been specified at the first storey level. It does not sit easily with the surrounding building architecture.

REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters from neighbouring properties raising the following objections.

1.     Over development of a narrow plot in a Conservation Area should it be constructed with the summerhouse, but alone it would be acceptable. The house is currently 78sq.m. in floorspace, the extension 59sq.m. (75 percent increase) and the summerhouse 20sq.m.

2.     The extension to the existing building is not designed to respect the scale and proportions of the existing buildings in accordance with Policy GC1 and CA21.

3.     Shiplap finish not in keeping with other nearby houses in the Conservation Area.

CONSULTATIONS

Historic Buildings Officer:

This development is within the Chesham Bois Conservation Area and affects the setting of a listed range of buildings comprising Manor Farm Cottage and Rectory Cottages.

The Cottage is at present a very modest cottage, of early 19th century date, low, with its upper storey mostly in the roof. It stands at the entrance to Manor Farm Cottage and has been a humble companion to it, possibly once subsidiary in function. The proposed extensions hugely enlarge the scale of The Cottage with a full 2-storey addition that threatens to dwarf the original and provide 6m of high blank wall along the boundary with Manor Farm Cottage. This will destroy the subsidiary appearance of the Cottage and transform it into an equal, if not dominating neighbour. The historic relationship between the two buildings will be broken, and the varied character of the conservation Area made more uniform. These proposals do not preserve or enhance either the Conservation Area or the setting of the listed buildings.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, H4, H11, H12, H13, H14, H15, H16, H17, H18, CA1, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The application site is in the Chesham Bois Established Residential Area of Special Character and prides a central location in the village Conservation area. The design make little attempt to fit in with the appearance of the property using shiplap boarding on the first floor of the rear element and several velux windows, which are not suitable in this part of the Conservation Area. The scheme would be considered grossly out of keeping in terms of Policy GC1 and H15.

2.     The Historic Buildings Officer notes that the increase in scale of the property would be so extensive that the traditional appearance of the cottage would be destroyed. ‘The Cottage’ appears to have an historic juxtaposition with ‘Manor Farm Cottage’, to which the former is the subsidiary member. This relationship between the two properties would be compromised should ‘The Cottage’ be extended in such a major way. The proposal breaches Local Plan Policy CA1.

3.     The property is sited relatively close to the road compared to its neighbours (to the west, who are set back, partly behind the applicants) and sited on the boundary. Local Plan Policy H11 and H16 state that two-storey extensions should be set back by at least 1m from the boundary. As such the two-storey extension at such a great depth, running along the boundary is considered very prominent both to neighbours and in the street scene. The extended flank wall will extend further down the side of this neighbours driveway generating an adverse visual impact over their front garden and reduce the open spacious character of the Conservation Area. As such the application is contrary to Local Plan Policy H11, H13, H14 H15 and H16.

4.     The extent of the new build to the east, adjacent to ‘Homefield’ is slight in comparison to that above and will be a slight increase in the extension to the depth of the property. Furthermore the conservatory that is 3.3m long will largely be hidden by the neighbouring garage. It is considered that the window to the new first floor flank will not only be well distanced from the boundary but will not overlook any private amenity space or principal windows. This element of the application is not detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring property ‘Homefield’.

5.     The property only has one car parking space to the front garden: as the property already exceeds 120sq.m. habitable floor space, the shortfall in parking will not be exacerbated.

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)The property is at present a modest cottage which occupies a prominent position in the Chesham Bois Conservation Area and Established Residential Area of Special Character, and is sited forwards of neighouring properties. The proposed extension by reason of its height, length and bulk, would result in a disproportionate increase in the massing of this modest cottage, and the resulting property would have an over-prominent and cramped appearance in the street scene. Furthermore, due to its closeness to the boundary the two-storey extension would be overbearing to and detrimental to the amenity enjoyed by neighbouring property Manor Farm Cottage. As such it would be contrary to Policies GC1, H11, H13, H14, H15 and H16 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997.

(2)The proposed development by reason of its size, height, design and use of inappropriate materials would detract from the character of the Conservation Area and adversly affect the setting of the listed buildings contrary to Policies CA1 and LB2 of the adopted chiltern district local plan 1997.

2001/1218/CH

Case Officer:      Kathryn York

Date Received:     13/07/01     Decide by Date:     06/09/01

Parish:     Great Missenden     Ward:     Ballinger & South Heath

App Type:     Application to vary or to not comply with a condition on a previous permission

Applicant:      MR AND MRS GOOSSENS

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

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/178/58  WC and bathroom addition.  Permitted development.

AM/473/65  Additions.  Permitted and implemented.

93/0900/CH  Detached single garage at front of property.  Permitted and implemented.

00/0388/CH  Two storey rear extension.  Refused: not subordinate to size and scale of the original dwelling and therefore considered to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, to the detriment of its open and rural character and visually intrusive in the landscape; and dominant and overbearing in appearance to the neighbouring property.

00/0831/CH  Two storey rear extension.  Refused: not subordinate to size and scale of the original dwelling and therefore considered to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, to the detriment of its open and rural character and visually intrusive in the landscape.  Appeal dismissed.

01/0407/CH  Part two storey, part single storey rear extension.  Permitted.