Meeting documents

2001/39/TC

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     02/08/01     Decide by Date:     13/09/01

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham Town

App Type:     Work to unpreserved trees in Conservation Area

Applicant:      MRS J N ASHWORTH

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Amersham Old Town Conservation Area

Shopping Area-not PSF-Proposed Alterations S1(delete Prestwood East)

Ground floor residential use Amersham Old town and Chalfont St Giles

River Chess & River Misbourne - area liable to flood

Traffic calming scheme for Amersham Old Town

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Thames Water - groundwater protection zone

Grade 2 Listed Building

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

99/0006/TC     Felling of a cherry and a cypress. No TPO made, replacements requested.

99/0065/TC     Crown reduction of a sycamore and height reduction of a Eucalyptus. No TPO made.

THE APPLICATION

Reduce sycamore by a good third to a half.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approval.

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant:     We gained your permission 2 years ago to have the crown reduced by a third but the tree surgeons shaped and thinned rather than reducing the height. Since then it has grown into a very large tree and I would say it is too large for its environment. It grows well over the Museum garden and it is very near to our house where it takes out the light. It also blocks the views of the Alms Houses’ gardens.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Narrow rear garden extending to river Misbourne – well maintained with extensive recent planting.

Sycamore close to High Street buildings – top visible from High Street over buildings – work in 1999 appears to have involved some lifting, reduction of spread and shaping but little height reduction – tree has better shape now but still fairly large dominating parts of two gardens - two major side boughs from height of about 2m – removal of one or two would involve loss of fairly high proportion of crown but should leave reasonable more upright tree if some associated shaping – some height reduction also acceptable.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy CA5 

ISSUES

1.     The sycamore tree is situated in the rear garden of the property with limited visibility from beyond the River Misbourne but the top of the tree is visible from the High Street above the buildings.

2.     The proposed tree surgery should leave a reasonable shape to the tree.  Furthermore it is considered that the tree does not make a significant contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. A Tree Preservation Order would therefore not be appropriate.

3.     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

2001/40/TC

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     02/08/01     Decide by Date:     13/09/01

Parish:     Penn     Ward:     Penn

App Type:     Work to unpreserved trees in Conservation Area

Applicant:      G J ROBINSON

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Penn & Tylers Green Conservation Area

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Class B Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Archaeological site

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

01/0775/CH     Vehicular access. Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

Cutting down of a fir, a yew and a magnolia – later modified to retain magnolia with some pruning.

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant:     Reason for work is to allow for vehicle turning point – addition of access and turning point has been approved – fir and yew are potential hazard due to their close proximity to the property and restrict the light – no replanting proposed as it may obstruct site view for vehicles – though happy to replant in back garden.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Permission for vehicular access approved under 01/0775/CH but description did not refer to turning point – magnolia below notifiable size.

Cypress and Irish yew both small trees only about a metre from dwelling – not considered important – little space for replacement planting.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy CA5 

ISSUES

1.     The trees are situated at the front of the property and are visible from the road but they are small and not prominent.

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

3.     It is considered that it would not be appropriate to request replacement planting.

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

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

(1) INFORMATIVE - You are advised that the Magnolia has a maximum stem diameter of below 75mm measured at a height of 1.5m above ground level and so a notification to the local planning authority would not be required for any work to this tree.

2001/1194/CH

Case Officer:      Kathryn York

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

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham Town

App Type:     Application under Advertisement Regulations

Applicant:      TESCO STORES LTD

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Shopping area - not Principal Shopping Frontage

Adjoining Green Belt

River Chess & River Misbourne - area liable to flood

Traffic calming scheme for Amersham Old Town

Class A Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Thames Water - groundwater protection zone

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

98/0503/CH  Internally illuminated double sided advertising panel on proposed replacement bus shelter.  Outside Tesco petrol station.  Granted.

98/1229/CH  Internally illuminated signs comprising 3 freestanding signs, 2 wall mounted signs and 3 flagpoles each with sign attached to pole.  Withdrawn.

98/1444/CH  4 non-illuminated signs.  Granted.

98/1600/CH  3 internally illuminated 4m high pole mounted signs in car park.  Refused: signs by reason of height and internal illumination considered excessive and unnecessarily intrusive within the street scene and surrounding area to the detriment of the visual amenity of the area.

98/1601/CH  3 internally illuminated freestanding signs and 2 internally wall mounted signs.  Granted.  Implemented.

01/502/CH  3 six metre high internally illuminated double sided gantry signs, 40 non-illuminated parking/filling station/pedestrian crossing signs.  Withdrawn.

01/0801/CH  5m high replacement internally illuminated gantry sign, non-illuminated main entrance sign and various non-illuminated signage within car park and petrol station.  Granted.  Implemented.

THE APPLICATION

Proposes the retention of non-illuminated entrance signs.

Type A: 2 circular signage panels, each 1.95 m high, forming a 0.7m cylinder around a column.

Type B: 2 rectangular signs, situated either side of the main entrance to the store.  Each sign measures 1.4m wide x 2.24m high.  

TOWN COUNCIL

Approve.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, A1.

ISSUES

1.     The application site comprises a commercial premises within the built up area of Amersham where there is already some illuminated and non-illuminated signage.  Therefore, there is no objection in principle to signs at this premises provided they are not visually intrusive or prejudicial to any safety considerations.

2.     The signs, which are already in place, are modest in dimensions, and are in keeping with the existing building.  It is not considered that the signs will be either intrusive or detrimental to safety considerations.  No objections are raised.

3.     The site is well clear of neighbouring residential neighbouring properties and accordingly, it is not considered that the proposals would adversely affect the amenities of the occupiers of these properties.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional consent

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C118 5 Year Limited Period - Adverts

(2) C261 Standard Advert Conditions

2001/1234/CH

Case Officer:      Kathryn York

Date Received:     19/07/01     Decide by Date:     12/09/01

Parish:     Great Missenden - Prestwood     Ward:     Prestwood

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS C HARVEY

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

CH/2143/75  Construct 29 houses, 12 flats, garages, roads and works.  Permitted and implemented.

THE APPLICATION

Proposes a single storey rear extension measuring 3m x 3.1m, with a dummy pitched roof to the front 3.5m high; and the conversion of the garage to living accommodation.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections

REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters of objection from occupiers of no.3 Carrington Way:

1.     Increase roof height to garage will result in loss of light to front sitting room window, and bedroom

2.     Proposal to extend the garage to the rear will leave a very small gap between the walls of the extension and the main side wall of the house, rendering it impossible to carry out any repair work that may become necessary in the future.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1.     The application site is located in the built up area of Prestwood, 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.     There will be no adverse impact on the neighbouring properties, and therefore no objections are raised in this respect.

3.     The pitched roof to the front of the garage will improve the overall appearance of the property.  The extension is confined to the rear, and as such there will be no adverse impact on either the street scene or the character of the surrounding area.  No objections are raised.

4.     The conversion of the garage to living accommodation does not require planning permission, however the conversion of the garage to living accommodation and the additional floorspace of the extension result in the floorspace of the dwelling exceeding 120sq m, thereby requiring one additional car parking space to be provided.  There is adequate parking space within the curtilage of the site to provide an additional space, and therefore no objections are raised in relation to 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) C432 Materials - As on Plan or Subsequently Specified

(3) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or brought into use until two parking spaces each measuring 2.44m x 4.88m have been provided within the curtilage of the site in accordance with a plan which shall have previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Reason :  To ensure that adequate and satisfactory provision is made for the garaging/parking of vehicles clear of the highway.

2001/1238/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     19/07/01     Decide by Date:     12/09/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Chalfont Common

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS COX

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

THE APPLICATION

The summerhouse is to be located at the front of the dwelling behind the front boundary screening.  It would be octagonal in shape with each panel being 1.94m in width, the overall depth of the construction would be 4.66m.  It would be 2.15m to eaves and 3.5m to the ridge.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection, but condition should be sought that usage remains ancillary to the main house.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letter accompanying application from applicant’s –

1.     In the front courtway there will be a seven foot tree taken out and re-positioned in the back garden, in place of the tree will be a summer house which will be used for an office.

2.     The courtway is a very secluded frontage with tall trees and very thick bushes right along the courtway.

3.     The courtway driveway can park seven cars.

4.     We have explained to No.63 our intentions and they only said that if it looks attractive there will be no problem with them.

Letter from neighbour at No.63 –

1.     I should like to raise the following concerns in connection with the application for the erection of a summerhouse.

2.     The scale of the building does seem large for the proposed site and will have quite an impact on the outlook from the front of my property.

3.     Are there any conditions of use that apply for a summerhouse if it is not used for domestic purposes?

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC3, H20, TR11 & TR16.

ISSUES

1.     It is considered that the two main issues in this instance are the impact the proposed summerhouse would have upon the character of the area and also the impact upon the neighbouring property, No.63.  Taking firstly the impact upon the character of the area, in this respect the comments of the applicants regarding the screening along the front boundary are noted and agreed.  The screening is sufficient to ensure that the summerhouse would be barely visible when viewed from Denham Lane, and only then through the vehicular entrances of the application site and No.63.  It is, however, noted that this screening would be less in the winter months.  While it is agreed with the neighbour at No.63 that the summerhouse is a relatively large structure, what has to be considered is whether the summerhouse would result in any demonstrable harm to the character of the area being located at the front of the dwelling.  Given the amount of screening on the front boundary, it is considered that, on balance, despite reservations regarding the size and siting of the proposal, that no objections are raised to the impact the summerhouse would have upon the character of the area.

2.     As noted above the other main issue is considered to be the impact the proposal would have upon the amenities of the neighbouring property.  As explained previously, the summerhouse is not considered a particularly small structure, and as such would be clearly visible from the front windows of the neighbouring bungalow.  Given the size and positioning of the structure it is unlikely that any loss of light to No.63 would occur and given its location should not appear excessively overbearing.  However, having due regard to the comments made by the neighbour it is considered that, on balance, the impact would not be so significant so as to justify refusing the application.

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) C433 Materials - General Details

(3) C197 Ancillary residential buildings at Linares House, 61 Denham Ln - building other than garage

(4) C414 Landscaping - No Felling at front of site Except Specified Trees and Hedges

(5) C406 Landscaping Scheme to be Submitted

(6) C407 Landscaping Scheme to be Implemented

2001/1241/CH

Case Officer:      Kathryn York

Date Received:     20/07/01     Decide by Date:     13/09/01

Parish:     The Lee     Ward:     Cholesbury & The Lee

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR & MRS N G EXLEY

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt settlement GB4

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

CH/741/82  Two storey and single storey extensions.  Permitted – Not implemented.

90/1865/CH  Alterations, demolition of existing garage and construction of two storey side extension incorporating double garage, with front dormer windows and single storey rear extension.  Permitted and implemented.

THE APPLICATION

Proposes two storey rear extension measuring 3.1m x 6.1m, with a pitched roof 6.1m high; detached garage measuring 9m x 7m, with a catslide roof part 5m high/part 4.1m high; and the conversion of the existing integral garage to living accommodation.

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter of support.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC3, GB2, GB12, GB15, H11, H13, H14, H15, H16, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

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

2.     The proposed extension is located sufficient distance from the neighbouring properties, so as not to appear overbearing or visually intrusive.  The high level of screening surrounding the site means that there will be no loss of amenity to the neighbouring residents.  No objections are raised in this respect.

3.     There is a high level of screening along the front boundary.  There will be no adverse impact on the street scene or the surrounding Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and therefore no objections are raised in this respect.

4.     The garage is suitably small scale and subordinate in size to the original dwellinghouse.  No objections are raised.

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

(3) This permission shall relate to the submitted application form and plans as subsequently amended by Plan No. B10 01 01 B received by the Local Planning Authority on 20/08/01.

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

2001/1252/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     23/07/01     Decide by Date:     16/09/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Chalfont Common

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR D GORTON

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Adjoining Green Belt

Unclassified road

Site within 250 m. of active or disused rubbish tip

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/1089/64     Outline application for four houses and garages, refused.

AM/1852/64     Outline application for three houses and garages, approved.

AM/1810/66     Full application approved for three houses and four double garages.

A similar application was refused at the neighbouring property, ‘Beavers Ridge’, under Policy H11 – ref. 97/0042/CH.

THE APPLICATION

The single storey front extension for a porch would have a floor area of 1.65m (projection) by 3.65m (width), the ridge of the pitched roof over would reach 3.6m (this figure would vary due to the changing ground levels).  The main extension is a first floor over the existing attached double garage.  This would have a floor area of 5.95m in depth by 5.3m in width.  The existing garage is 6.75m in depth, the proposal incorporates setting the front elevation of the first floor extension behind the main dwelling’s front elevation and constructing a pitched roof over the garage’s projection at ground floor level.  The eaves height of the first floor extension would match that of the existing dwelling, however, the ridge height would be 0.3m below that of the existing dwelling.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letter from neighbour at ‘Beavers Ridge’ fully supporting the application and stating that it would make ‘Green Trees’ a more up to date and pleasing to look at property.

Two letters of objection from neighbours at Nos. 5 & 7 Robson Close which could be summarised as follows –

1.     Overlooking to rear garden (No.7).

2.     Our house (No.5) is in an elevated position to the rear of ‘Green Trees’, their windows on the first floor overlook the living area of our house and all of the lawn and raised terrace in the garden.  An extension would further intrude on our privacy as it would be another room overlooking the living area of out house and the most used part of our garden.

3.     Reduction in value of property.

4.     The extension would not be in keeping with the overall properties in Misbourne Vale and would contribute to a terracing effect in a close of detached houses and would therefore not be appropriate in this situation.

5.     The first floor side extension would be obtrusive to our property (no.5).

6.     The pleasant view of the trees and valley from our house (No.5) would be obstructed and we would look onto an even larger expanse of building than already exists

CONSULTATIONS

Environment Agency (Waste Regulation) -

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.     In terms of the design of the application it has been noted that a similar proposal was refused planning permission at the neighbouring property, ‘Beavers Ridge’, this application was considered to result in ‘a cramped and incongruous form of development and the coalescence of dwellings to the detriment of the existing appearance of the street scene which is characterised by greater distances between dwellings at first floor level’.  There is, however, a distinct difference between the current application and that at the neighbouring property, most notably that this current proposal is located at the end of the road with no dwelling adjacent to the proposed extension, in other words an open situation.  This is considered to be an important difference as these circumstances are one of the stated exceptions to the general rule of Policy H11.  Having regard to the representations made regarding the terracing effect and to the requirements of Policy H11, it is not considered that the proposal would result in a terracing effect occurring and no objections are therefore raised to this aspect of the scheme.  As with the application at the neighbouring property no objections are raised to the intrinsic design of the proposal.

2.     Whilst noting the objections raised by the occupants of Nos. 5 & 7 Robson Close, it is not considered that the proposal would result in such additional levels of overlooking and loss of privacy to warrant objections on these grounds.  It is noted that no objections were raised to this aspect of the refused application at the neighbouring property, ‘Beavers Ridge’ it is also noted is situated immediately behind No. 5 Robson Close and much closer than ‘Green Trees’.  It is not considered that the situation would be made materially worse given the existing levels of mutual overlooking that already occur.  Given that the existing dwelling already has rear facing clear glazed windows, the introduction of a window to serve an en-suite bathroom and also dressing room is not considered to materially worsen the existing situation.  

3.     Given the considerable change in ground levels between the application site and Robson Close, together with the intervening trees and the distances between properties it is not considered that objections could be raised on grounds of any dominating or overbearing impact.  There is no automatic right to the retention of a view in planning terms and although the extension would result in a bulkier dwelling, this loss of view is not in itself an issue for which planning permission should be refused.

4.     There are a number of mature trees along the boundary adjacent to the proposed extension, although some trimming would be necessary, it is not considered that this would be objectionable.  This screening also prevents the proposal from having an adverse impact upon the dwelling along Amersham Road.

5.     No objections are raised to the single storey front extension.

6.     No adverse car parking issues arise, no objections 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) C174A No additional windows in first floor of northern elevation of extension.

2001/1277/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     25-Jul-01     Decide by Date:     18-Sep-01

Parish:     Chalfont St Giles     Ward:     Seer Green & Jordans

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

Applicant:      LINDA KATHERINE DOOLEY

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Article 4 Direction

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/0450/58     Dwellinghouse and two farm buildings. Approved

CH/0978/84     Variation of occupancy condition under planning permission CH/450/58. Approved condition restricts occupation of the dwelling to a person solely or mainly employed in agriculture, forestry or in the livery services at Jordans Farm.

00/1594/CH     Application for lawful development certificate relating to the occupation of the dwelling and 16 acres of land without complying with the occupancy restriction imposed on planning permission AM450/58. Withdrawn.

01/0068CH     Application for lawful development certificate relating to the occupation of the dwelling without complying with the occupancy restriction imposed on planning permission CH/978/84.  Partly issued / partly refused (issued in relation to the occupation of Jordans Farm but refused in relation to the extent of the residential curtilage).

THE APPLICATION

Following the part issued / part refused previous Lawful Development Certificate, this application has been submitted in order to demonstrate that the area outlined on the plans has been used continuously for a period of 10 years as residential curtilage.

The evidence submitted consists an Affidavit from Mrs Dooley together with a site plan showing the uses of the ancillary buildings together with a location plan showing the extent of the area of land in question.

PARISH COUNCIL

The Parish Council objects strongly to permission being granted for a change to residential use of buildings clearly designed for agricultural purposes on a farm site adjoining the Green Belt.  It seems clear to us that were such permission given further residential development of this site would inevitably follow.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letter submitted by the applicant’s solicitor –

1.     This application is to confirm the curtilage of the residential property which surrounds Jordans Farm.

2.     The Affidavit from Linda Katherine Dooley is extremely clear and shows that all the buildings and the land shown edged red on exhibit ‘LKD 2’ attached to the Affidavit have been used for residential purposes since 1984.

CONSULTATIONS

Planning and Litigation Solicitor-

1.     On perusal of the papers which include those relating to the first application, provided you have received originals of all papers I am satisfied on balance that the application can / should succeed both on the facts and also in relation to the area of ground represented as curtilage land.

2.     Although the application Plan does not show the measurements of that area, it appears reasonable to accept it as such as the outbuildings and dwellinghouse are situated within close proximity and occupied in conjunction with the residence itself.

ISSUES

1.     With reference to the comments of the Council’s solicitor and the sworn statement submitted by the applicant, it is considered that sufficient evidence has been submitted to state that, on the balance of probabilities, the area in question has been used as curtilage land for a period in excess of 10 years.

2.     The comments made by the Parish Council are noted. However this application seeks to determine on the balance of probabilities that the area of land (as shown on the submitted plans) has been used for a period in excess of 10 years as the residential curtilage of Jordans Farm. The planning merits of the scheme are not therefore to be assessed under this application.

3.     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 - existing development or use - issued

(1) In the Council's opinion, the submitted evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that, on the balance of probabilities,  the area outlined in red on the submitted plan (and hatched black on the plan attached to this decision notice), together with the outbuildings on that land, have been used continuously for a period of ten years as the residential curtilage of the dwelling at Jordans Farm.

2001/1278/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     26-Jul-01     Decide by Date:     19-Sep-01

Parish:     Seer Green     Ward:     Seer Green & Jordans

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR M SAPPER AND MS N HARMAN

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/246/70     Garage, approved and implemented.

00/855/CH     Detached garage and single storey side / rear extension, approved.

In the field immediately to the south of the application site –

THE APPLICATION

The proposed extension to the dwelling is the same as previously approved under application 00/1651/CH save for an increase in the height of the roof over both the extension and that of the existing main dwelling to 6.2m, an increase of 0.54m.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letter received from agent –

1.     The building works have commenced and have exposed a fundamental building fault in the roof of the existing building i.e. the rafter members are not adequately restrained at their feet.

2.     The best solution is to take the roof off and start again with the ceiling joists connected to the rafters, thus forming a restrained triangle.

3.     It was appropriate to consider increasing the size of the structural members and the potential of accommodation within the roofspace and while this is eminently possible without any dormers, the quality of space provided will be significantly improved if the area of available flat ceiling is increased to a 1500mm wide centre section.

4.     In order to achieve this area of flat ceiling, it is necessary to raise the overall height by 540mm...this application is in every other respect identical to the approved plan.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, GB2, GB13, H13, H14, H15, H16, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1.     It is not considered that the increase in ridge height would materially affect the openness of the Green Belt and would not appear out of character within the context of the street scene.  

2.     Although the increase in height of the roof would have an impact upon the neighbouring property to the north, it is not considered that any increased loss of amenity, over and above that which may occur from the approved scheme, is sufficient to warrant a refusal on these grounds.

3.     No car parking implications occur, 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 NE facing roofslope of extension.

(4) C175 Obscure glass in multiple windows in NE elevation

2001/1288/CH

Case Officer:      Mike Evans

Date Received:     27/07/01     Decide by Date:     20/09/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Chalfont St Peter Central

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      RICHARD KINSEY

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

86/1168/CH:     Single storey rear extension over raised patio area. Conditional permission.

94/1385/CH:     Erection of chimney on western elevation. Conditional permission.

00/1478/CH:     First floor rear extension and detached garage with covered link to dwelling. Not implemented.

2001/0638/CH:  Side conservatory and single storey side/rear extension with balcony over.  Conditional permission. Not implemented.

THE APPLICATION

This application relates to the excavation of part of the former sloping garden area of Pinewood to provide a patio and more level garden area at the side and rear of the dwelling.  The excavation works have already been undertaken.

Stepped retaining walls, are to be constructed varying in height from 0.8m to 2.0m The wall is to be parallel to the northern boundary with Lewis Lane, and parallel to the eastern boundary with the adjacent residential property.  The ‘L’ shaped retaining wall extends 18 metres adjacent to the north boundary and 24 metres adjacent to the eastern boundary and is to be constructed of reinforced hollow blocks, rendered and painted white with coping stones to match the existing dwelling. The overall height of the wall does not exceed adjoining land levels.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters of objection have been received making the following points:-

1.     Express surprise at receiving notification of the application as work has already been carried out on site.

2.     Consider that the works have spoilt an attractive area.

3.     The garden was originally flat and not as described on plans, it was originally the height of the adjacent property and the road.

4.     Express concern regarding safety and that the retaining walls even if properly constructed will not prevent slippage and subsidence of Lewis Lane and the adjoining hillside.

5.     Concerned about adjacent property “The Buff” and safety and maintenance of retaining wall.

6.     A retaining wall was built but it fell down when the owner tried to “back fill”

7.     Draw attention that the Chalfont Heights Road and Estates Committee are involved and concerned about the development.

9.     The owner has planning permission to build a garage and an extension, these will now be in full view of 2 St Peters Close, whereas previously they would not be seen.

10.     Concerned that the applicant may wish to extend his property further or build a new dwelling on the land.

11.     Concerned that the development is undertaken properly and question if checked.

A further letter of representation has been received from the Trustees of the Chalfont Heights Roads Committee making the following point:-

The users of Lewis Lane are not considered to have been adequately safeguarded by the construction proposals. They also consider that the following points should be taken into account by the Local planning Authority in its determination of the application:-

1.     It is assumed that all necessary reinforcement details will be approved by the appropriate section of the Planning Authority.

2.     Provision of weepholes at intervals through the wall is considered to be inadequate.  It is suggested that this be supplemented with a drain of suitable diameter running the length of the wall with appropriate discharge facilities and backfilled with appropriate material.

3.     The boundary with Lewis Lane was previously marked by a post and wire fence with heavy tree and shrub growth providing screening and a safety barrier for any vehicles which might accidentally into and through the fence line.

CONSULTATIONS

District Landscape and Forestry Adviser: Notes that at time of 2000/1478/CH some 20 Scots Pine on site, now only 3 remain.  These trees added to character of the area.

Boundary of site some 1.5m from large TPO Oak Tree.

     Excavation on one side to within 2m of tree

     Many roots damaged including two visible of about 50mm

     Others may be hidden by garage doors against bank    

     Further damage occurring as roots exposed and drying out leading to further       root death

Crown on excavation side of tree thinner with some deadwood, could be consequence of root damage     

     Further deterioration of crown, particularly on this side likely

BS 5837:1991 Trees in relation to construction recommends protective fencing should be 6 metres from a tree of this type during construction work although in some circumstances this distance cold be reduced by a third. Recent excavation significantly closer than this and will affect health of tree.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC3, GC4, TW3.

ISSUES

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

2.     The design of the development having regard to its appearance and its relationship to its surroundings is considered to be acceptable in terms of extent of excavation, and the scale, height, siting, and choice of materials for the construction of the retaining wall.  The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policy GC1 of the Adopted Local Plan.

3.     The excavation provides a level, more useable outside amenity area at Pinewood, without adversely affecting the amenities enjoyed by nearby residential properties. A 1.8 fence is shown to be provided along eastern boundary of the site. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to comply with Policy GC3 of the Local Plan.

4.     It is understood that the excavation works already carried out have resulted in the removal of existing screen planting along the northern boundary to Lewis Lane and also within the site. Whilst the removal of trees and vegetation within the site has opened up views of the rear of Pinewood from Lewis Lane, this work did not require planning permission.

5.     Whereas a considerable volume of material has been excavated from this sloping site, because the proposed retaining walls are below natural ground level, the level of Lewis Lane and the higher land to the east of the application site, the visual impact of the proposals when viewed from surrounding land is not considered likely to have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area, provided that replacement planting is provided along the northern boundary of the application site adjoining Lewis Lane and along the eastern boundary of the site.

6.     It is considered that the imposition of the suggested landscaping conditions would ensure that the character and appearance of the locality is safeguarded.

7.     Concerns in respect of potential slippage and subsidence as a result of the excavation works are noted.  Where as building regulation approval is not required for the works and it is the applicants responsibility to ensure that the development is completed safely, the Council’s Building Control Officer has been asked to consider the details and structural calculations of the retaining wall and has informally confirmed that the details appear satisfactory.

8.     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)The retaining walls hereby permitted shall be shall be completed and backfilled in accordance with the submitted plans within 3 months of the date of this permission.

Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory development having regard to the amenities of neighbours and to safeguard the stability of adjoining land.

(2) The retaining wall hereby permitted shall be finished in accordance with the details specified on the plans hereby approved or in materials which shall previously have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

(3) Notwithstanding the details specified on the submitted plans, a hedge whose species, size and stem spacing shall have been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority within 28 days of the date of this permission, shall be planted on the northern boundary with Lewis Lane not later than the first planting season following the date of this permission .  Thereafter the hedge shall be allowed to mature to a height of at least 1.6 metres and be maintained thereafter for a period of 5 years in the following manner.  The hedge shall not be removed without the prior consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority and if at any time the hedge shall die, be uprooted, injured, wilfully damaged or be removed for any other reason, it shall be replaced with a hedge of the same species in the next following planting season.

Reason : In order to maintain, as far as possible, the character of the locality.

(4) Within 3 months of the date of this permission, the 0.75 m high chain link fenceshown on the northern boundary and the 1.8m high fence shown on the eastern boundary on the approved plans shall be erected.

Reason:  In order to ensure a satisfactory development having regard to public safety and the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining property.

(5) Within 28 days of the date of this permission, details of landscaping to be provided on site, particularly adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All planting comprised in the approved landscaping details shall be carried out in the first planting season following the date of this permission.  any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason :In order to maintain, as far as possible, the character of the locality.

(1) INFORMATIVE - The applicant is advised that it is his responsibility during and after the carrying out of this development to ensure that the ground is stable  and that any actual or potential instability of adjoining land is overcome by appropriate remedial, preventative or precautionary measures. Accordingly, you are advised to ensure that the construction of the retaining walls and backfilling are carried out in accordance with British Standard 8002:1994 - Code of practice for earth retaining structures.

(2) INFORMATIVE - The applicant is advised to ensure that no further excavation or cutting back takes place in the vicinty of the Oak Tree subject to a Tree Preservation Order  as such work could result in damage or disturbance to the roots o f this particular tree and could adversely affect its health. The applicant is also advised that it is an offence to carry out works to a tree subject to a Tree Preservation Order without obtaining the requisite permission.

2001/1293/CH

Case Officer:      Thomas Gabriel

Date Received:     30/07/01     Decide by Date:     23/09/01

Parish:     Chesham     Ward:     Lowndes

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS N EVANS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Class C Road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

CH/452/80   Two storey and single storey side and rear extensions. Conditional permission – implemented.

CH/887/84  Single storey side extension. Conditional permission – implemented.

THE APPLICATION

The application is for a front and a rear dormer window. The front window is to be 3.2m wide with a double pitched roof, 4m wide (it projects beyond both sides of the dormer window by approximately 400mm). Both of the pitches are to be 8.2m above ground level. The rear dormer window is to be 3.2m wide with a flat roof which also projects beyond both sides of the dormer window by 400mm (total width of 4m). The roof is to be 7.6m above ground level.

TOWN COUNCIL

No objections

POLICIES

The Adopted 1Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, H13, H14, H15, H18, 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 front dormer window will not result in the loss of privacy of the neighbouring or surrounding properties. It will respect the scale and proportions of the front roofslope and will not detract from the appearance of the dwelling or that of the street scene. No objections are raised to it.

3.     The rear dormer window, though it will permit a small increase in the degree of overlooking of the neighbouring and surrounding dwellings, will not result in a significant reduction in privacy for the occupiers of those dwellings as overlooking already exists from a first floor window in the rear elevation of the dwelling. The dormer window will respect the scale and proportions of the rear roofslope and will not detract from the appearance of the dwelling. No objections are raised to it.

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

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

(2) Before any construction work commences, named types, or samples of the hanging tiles to be used in 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 tiles to be used in the construction of the pitched roof of the front dormer window hereby approved shall match the size, colour and texture of those of the existing roof.

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 plans together with the additional plan drawing number mmCLC 211 received by the Local Planning Authority on 3/9/2001.

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

2001/1294/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     30/07/01     Decide by Date:     23/09/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Austenwood

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR C AND G CHARALAMBIDES

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Ch St P - North Park/Kingsway Conservation Area

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Class B Road

Northolt Airfield safeguarding zone

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

00/0767/CH   First floor and second floor rear extension, and single-storey side extension.   Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

An open ranch style fence along the front boundary of the property, 8.7m long between the in-out driveway, with 1m flanking to either end. The piers are at 1.5m in height, while the top rail is 1.1m above ground level.

PARISH COUNCIL

No comment.

CONSULTATIONS

Buckinghamshire County Council highways Development Control:

This is a retrospective application for a post & rail fence. It has linked IN & OUT openings aligned with existing footway crossings. Although the fence posts are robust, the exit visibility is unimpaired by the fence. I do not wish to raise any objections to this fence and, as no alterations are proposed within highway limits, do not wish to request any highway conditions to such permission as the Local Planning Authority may grant.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC3, H4, CA1, TR11 ad TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The application is located in the North Park/Kingsway Conservation Area and Established Residential Area of Special Character to the south of the built up area of Chalfont St. Peter. The post and rail fencing has a very open form, which does not appear prominent on the eye. It is further softened by the young laurel hedge behind it. The character of the Kingsway section of the Conservation Area is fairly open and therefore the skeletal-like structure of the newly constructed enclosure is considered acceptable in terms of design and conservation Policy GC1, H4, H15 and CA1.

2.     The fencing is not considered to be detrimental to highway users and therefore the County Engineers consider the scheme acceptable.

3.     The fence in no way restricts access to the single garage or forecourt which will cater for the off street parking requirements of 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: Unconditional permission

2001/1298/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     30/07/01     Decide by Date:     23/09/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Chalfont St Peter Central

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      JULIE ALLEN

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

River Chess & River Misbourne - area liable to flood

Class C Road

Northolt Airfield safeguarding zone

Mineral Consultation Area

THE APPLICATION

A half-hexagonal conservatory centred to the rear of the property, 4.7m long and 4.4m wide, with a hipped roof pitched at 3.1m.  

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

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 seeks approval for a conservatory to the rear of a property in the built up area of Chalfont St. Peter. The structure will replace and double the depth of an existing conservatory and will be in compliance with Local Plan Policy GC1 and H15, both in terms of architectural merit and scale.

2.     To the south the detached garage and mature 2m hedging preserves the privacy to rear gardens in this direction. To the northern boundary also is a 2m hedge, but this terminates short of the rear elevation of the property, and down the side of the property is only a 1.5m fencing. Although this will not screen the new build, the rear of No. 45 is set forwards and has no principal windows on the applicant’s side. As such the structure is considered to recognise the amenity of both adjacent neighbours and is therefore acceptable in terms of Local Plan Policies GC3, H13 and H14.

3.     There is adequate parking available on the side and front driveway and forecourt, along with the detached rear garage to satisfy 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) C138 Selected plans amended by more than one unnumbered plan recd on 15 August 2001

2001/1300/CH

Case Officer:      Ray Martin

Date Received:     30/07/01     Decide by Date:     23/09/01

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham Town

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR P G GRIMSEY

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Grade 2 Listed Building

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

CH/909/81  Conversion of agricultural barn into two dwelling units (Model Farm and Drakes Barn).  Permitted and implemented.

CH/910/81  Application for listed building consent for the same development for which planning permission granted under CH/909/81.  Granted.

87/0287/CH  Conversion of stable to form elderly relative’s annex.  Permitted and implemented.  Legal agreement ensuring annex remains ancillary to Drakes Barn.

89/2065/CH  Alterations, and single storey extension to side of detached annex, including link to main house.  Not proceeded with and treated as withdrawn.

89/2066/CH  Application for listed building consent for the same development for which planning permission sought under 89/2065/CH.  Granted.

90/1805/CH Alterations, and single storey extension to side of detached annex, including link to main house.  Permitted and implemented. Legal agreement ensuring extended annex remains ancillary to Drakes Barn.

92/1235/CH  Single storey extension.  Permitted, but never implemented.

92/1236/CH Application for listed building consent for the same development for which planning permission granted under 92/1235/CH.  Granted.

01/1302/CH Application for listed building consent for the same development for which planning permission is sought under this application.  Not yet determined.

THE APPLICATION

Proposal comprises small link extension between existing annex to the main house and the adjoining cartshed and the conversion of this cartshed to living accommodation.  The link extension would be 4.4 metres wide and 3.4 metres deep, with a pitched roof to a height of  3.9 metres. The elevations of the cartshed facing the driveway would be re-clad with stained timber boarding and the roof re-tiled with handmade clay tiles.  Glazed doors would be inserted in the rear elevation of the cartshed and the open frontage of the cartshed facing the courtyard at the front of the dwelling would be infilled, partly with timber boarding and partly with glazing.  A new chimney would be inserted in the roof of this building. When originally converted the main dwelling did not include the annexe, which was subsequently permitted comprising the conversion of an existing building on the site.  Thus, it is appropriate to consider main dwelling and annexe as one, since they are both original buildings.  The floorspace of these amounts to 220 square metres. The extension now proposed, together with the existing extension represents 36% increase in floorspace on site.  The cartshed conversion does not add to the size of the dwelling, in that like the annexe, it comprises the re-use of an existing building.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approval subject to the accommodation remaining ancillary to Drakes Barn and the refurbishment being sympathetic to and in keeping with the surrounding area.

REPRESENTATIONS

Agent:  Proposal comprises the re-use of an existing building and an enhancement of the historically less important and unlisted aspects of the property.  The re-use of the cartshed would help to guarantee the survival of the listed building.  It encloses the courtyard and adds to the complexity of the historic fabric.  The garden room extension comprises a resubmission of a scheme very similar to that previously approved.  This will act as a link between the existing house and the new accommodation.  

CONSULTATIONS

Historic Buildings Officer: This scheme affects two farm buildings attached to the rear of the listed former barns at Model Farm, Woodrow.  They form two sides of a yard added to the west of the listed buildings in the late 19th century, and constitute an important part of its curtilage.  The north range has already been converted to living accommodation, along with the listed buildings themselves.  It is now proposed to convert the west range, linking it to the north range with a small extension in the rear NW angle.  The west range is a disused cartshed, built in the late 19th-century but altered in the 20th. At present it is open on the yard side, with a series of wooden posts and brackets on concrete staddle stones, but there is constructional evidence to show that this side was formerly enclosed, while the rear wall of 20th-century concrete blocks was formerly open.  The arrangement of the building has therefore been reversed but its function and character retained.  The proposals show respect for this character by retaining the open nature of the three central bays, enclosing them only with a glazed screen (the amended scheme improves on the original by omitting the plinth walls that would be uncharacteristic in this position).  The weatherboarded end bays are appropriate for this type of building, and weatherboard cladding would improve the appearance of the concrete block wall to the rear.  The small chimney is not in keeping with the farmyard character but is consistent with similar chimneys already added to the other converted buildings.  There are therefore no objections on listed building grounds to this conversion, as long as the framing for the glazed screen is stained to match the existing posts, and the impost blocks of the original rear posts are retained visibly on the inside.  It should be noted that the present pantiles could be retained as they are appropriate for both the gentle pitch of the roof and the later character of this building as compared with the main barn.  If they are replaced with plain tiles, the tiles should match those used for the adjacent north range.  The link extension is unobjectionable as it is hidden in the rear angle, and screened by foliage from the west.  It is similar to one already approved in 1992 in application 92/1236/CH.

POLICIES

The Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991 – 2011 Policies GB1, GB3, LS2, HE1.

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GB2, GB13, LSQ1, GC3, LB1, TR11, TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The proposed conversion of the cartshed to form further ancillary accommodation to the main dwelling is not considered to be objectionable.  The building lies within the curtilage of the existing dwelling and thus, would have no implications in respect of eroding the openness of the Green Belt.  The alterations proposed would enhance the appearance of the building and accordingly this part of the proposal would not be visually intrusive in the landscape, or detrimental to the special character of the listed building.  

2.     The proposed extension to link the cartshed to the existing annexe is small.  It is located on existing terrace between these buildings and thus, is not intrusive.  Nor does it add significantly to general bulk of buildings being within the building complex, and accordingly would not erode the openness of the Green Belt.  It would be of a reasonable design and therefore, is sympathetic to the listed building.

3.     There is more than adequate space within the site to provide car parking to meet the Council’s standards.

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) C433 Materials - General Details

(3) The converted cartshed and extension hereby permitted shall only be occupied in connection with and ancillary to the occupation of the elderly relatives annexe as approved under application 87/287/CH.  If and when the elderly persons annexe ceases to be used for that purpose, the cartshed accommodation and extension together with the annexe, shall become an integral part of the existing dwelling, known as Drakes Barn, and shall not be occupied as an independent unit of accommodation.

Reason: To prevent the establishment of an independent dwelling unit within the curtilage of the main dwelling to the detriment of the character of the property and locality.

(4) This permission shall relate to the submitted application form and plans as subsequently amended by Plan No. 01/113/06a received by the Local Planning Authority on 7/9/2001.

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

(1) INFORMATIVE - The applicant is advised that the red edge identifying the application site does not correctly show the residential curtilage of Drakes Barn.  This excludes the paddocks to the south of the driveway and to the north of the dotted line to the rear of the dwelling shown on the submitted location plan.

2001/1302/CH

Case Officer:      Ray Martin

Date Received:     30/07/01     Decide by Date:     23/09/01

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham Town

App Type:     Application for Listed Building Consent

Applicant:      MR P G GRIMSEY

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Grade 2 Listed Building

INTRODUCTION

Application for listed building consent for the same development for which planning permission is being sought concurrently under 01/1300/CH.  Please see that report for details of relevant planning history, the application, Town Council comments, representations and consultations.

POLICIES

The Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991 – 2011 Policy HE1.

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policy LB1.

ISSUES

1.     The proposed alteration to the cartshed to convert it into living accommodation and the modest link extension, will improve the appearance of this existing ancillary building within the curtilage of the listed house.  The design and materials are sympathetic and therefore, the proposal will not detract from the special character of the listed building.

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional consent

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C141 Listed Building Consent - Time Limit

(2) C142 Listed Building Consent - List of Works

(3) C433 Materials - General Details

(4) The framing of the glazed screen on the courtyard elevation of the cartshed building to be converted shall be stained to match the existing posts.  The impost blocks of the original rear posts shall be retained visibly on the inside of the building.

Reason: To retain the character of this Listed Building.

(5) C435 Listed Building Materials - Affecting Exterior

(6) This permission shall relate to the submitted application form and plans as subsequently amended by Plan No. 01/113/06a received by the Local Planning Authority on 7/9/2001.

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

(1) INFORMATIVE - The applicant is advised that the red edge identifying the application site does not correctly show the residential curtilage of Drakes Barn.  This excludes the paddocks to the south of the driveway and to the north of the dotted line to the rear of the dwelling shown on the submitted location plan.

2001/1305/CH

Case Officer:      Kathryn York

Date Received:     30/07/01     Decide by Date:     23/09/01

Parish:     Great Missenden - Prestwood     Ward:     Prestwood

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      J M P AND M M CALNAN

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Class A Road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

CH/279/79  Extend driveway access, single storey extension and carport.  Permitted – Not implemented.

85/1130/CH  Two storey side extension, detached garage and alterations to vehicular access.  Permitted – Not implemented.

91/1302/CH  Demolish single storey portion of dwelling and erect two storey side/rear extension.  Refused: flat roof to two storey extension detrimental to appearance of building and character of area; precedent.

THE APPLICATION

Proposes two storey rear extension measuring 2.8m x 2m, with a pitched roof 6.6m high; and a pitched roof 6.6m high over an existing two storey flat roofed projection.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC3, LSQ1, H11, H13, H14, H15, H16, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

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

2.     The proposed extension is sited away from the boundary with the neighbouring property, and remains approximately 5.4m from the side boundary with the road.  There is sufficient distance from the properties to the rear so as to prevent any additional overlooking, and in any case there are already two large first floor rear windows.  There will be no adverse impact on the neighbouring properties and therefore no objections are raised in this respect.

3.     A previous application for a two-storey rear extension with a flat roof was refused as the flat roof was felt to be detrimental to both the appearances of the building and the character of the area.  The current application proposes a pitched roof over the two-storey extension and a pitched roof over an existing two storey flat roofed projection.  The extension infils an area to the rear, and the two pitched roofs will considerably enhance the overall appearance of the property.  No objections are raised.

4.     Adequate parking space exists 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

2001/1307/CH

Case Officer:      Iwan Jones

Date Received:     31/07/01     Decide by Date:     24/09/01

Parish:     Little Missenden - Holmer Green     Ward:     Holmer Green

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS B ROBERTS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

THE APPLICATION

The application relates to a single storey side extension at the rear of the property measuring 2.8m wide, 6.8m deep and to a flat roof height of 3m. It would not project beyond the existing rear elevation. All materials would match those of the existing.

PARISH COUNCIL

Approve.

CONSULTATIONS

Wycombe District Council: No objections.

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

2.     Although the extension proposed would consist of a flat roof it would be sited to the rear of the property and would adjoin an existing flat roof. It would therefore not be prominent within the street scene. No objections raised in relation to Policies GC1, H13(ii) and H15.

3.     The amenities of the neighbouring property No.44 would not be affected as there is a 2.5m wall on the boundary between the two properties. No objections raised in relation to Policies GC3 and H14.

4.     Three parking spaces are provided within the curtilage of the site. No objections raised in relation to Policies TR11 and TR16.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

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

2001/1314/CH

Case Officer:      Iwan Jones

Date Received:     31/07/01     Decide by Date:     24/09/01

Parish:     Chesham     Ward:     Newtown

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR ALI AHMED

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Class A Road

Thames Water - groundwater protection zone

THE APPLICATION

The application relates to the erection of a conservatory to the rear elevation measuring 4.1m wide, 4.2m deep and 3m high.

TOWN COUNCIL

Approval.

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter received raising no objection to the proposal.

CONSULTATIONS

Thames Water: No objection.

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

2.     No impact on street scene due to siting at the rear of property. No objection raised in relation to Policy H13(ii).

3.     The neighbouring property No.315 has a single pane narrow window on its flank elevation facing the application site. However this window is set back from the proposed conservatory and serves the kitchen of the property. It is therefore considered that the proposed conservatory would not represent an unreasonable degree of overlooking into this window. In fact it is considered that reverse overlooking would be far greater. No objection raised in relation to Policies GC3 and H14.  

4.     The scale, height and design of the proposed conservatory is considered to be acceptable in relation to Policies GC1 and H15.

5.     No implications in terms of parking. No objections raised in relation to Policies TR11 and TR16.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

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

2001/1317/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     01/08/01     Decide by Date:     25/09/01

Parish:     Amersham - Little Chalfont     Ward:     Little Chalfont

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS G KERIN

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

92/0325/CH   Two-storey side and single storey side extension.   Refused permission.

92/0648/CH   Two-storey side and single storey side extension.   Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

A single storey front right-hand side extension, between the main flank wall and the existing single storey side extension. The structure is between 2.2m and 2.6m wide (as it widens towards the front, parallel to the boundary). The front wall has a part hexagon bay bringing it flush with the front wall of the property. The structure is pitched with a hipped roof to 4.3m.

The single storey rear extension is to the rear left-hand side of the property and consists of two elements. To the right a 3.8m wide by 3m deep section with rear facing gable at 3.9m high. To the left is a section 1.85m wide and 1.2m deep, hipped up against the house at 3.4m.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approval

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 is in the built up area of Little Chalfont, where only the front extension will be visible from the public domain. The extension will be a subtle addition to the front elevation of the property and as such be in keeping with the street scene and Local Plan Policy GC1 and H15.

2.     The front/side extension in no way can be considered detrimental to neighbouring property No. 176, who only have a side door opening onto the new build. Part of the hedge to the front boundary with this neighbour will require removal, but will not be to the detriment of the street scene.

3.     The rear extension is designed in a stepped fashion away from the boundary. The 1.8m close board fencing also present along this boundary further preserves the amenity of neighbouring property No. 176, avoiding any impact on the amenity of these neighbours. As such the application is acceptable in terms of Local Plan Policy GC3, H13 and H14.

4.     The single integral garage and accompanying double breadth forecourt cater for off-street car parking requirements housed under Local Plan Policy TR11 and TR16.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

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

(3) C402 Landscaping - removal of part of hedge on south west boundary

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

2001/1318/CH

Case Officer:      Kathryn York

Date Received:     01/08/01     Decide by Date:     25/09/01

Parish:     Great Missenden - Prestwood     Ward:     Prestwood

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MRS M E MILLER

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

CH/90/77  27 x 4Bed. Detached houses and garages; retention of “The Barn”; construction of estate roads at “The Barn” site.

94/0695/CH  Single storey extension to house and garage including pitched roof over garage.  Withdrawn.

94/0949/CH  Single storey extension to house and garage including pitched roof over existing garage.  Permitted and implemented.

THE APPLICATION

Proposes rear conservatory measuring 3.95m x 4.7m, with a pitched roof 3.5m high.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter of objection from occupier of No.5:

1.     Conservatory will further limit the view from No.5 and will increase the number of buildings visible from No.5.

2.     The conservatory will create further opportunities for the garden to be overlooked.

3.     The house has been previously extended and the volume added at that time should be taken into account when considering the size of the proposed conservatory.

4.     A person living on their own does not need to extend a property of this size.

5.     No.5 is already overlooked by at least 5 properties, and the conservatory will further decrease the level of privacy.

6.     Plans are inaccurate.

POLICIES