Meeting documents

2001/38/TC

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

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

Parish:     Latimer     Ward:     Ashley Green & Latimer

App Type:     Work to unpreserved trees in Conservation Area

Applicant:      SUSAN STONE

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Chenies & Latimer Conservation Area

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Within curtilage of Listed Building - affects setting

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

97/0578/CH     Alterations and single storey side/rear extension. Conditional permission.

98/0016/TC     Fell a yew, remove some branches on two sycamores, an elm and a damson, deadwood and trim seven yews.

THE APPLICATION

Felling of a tree.

REPRESENTATIONS

Agent:     Tree is diseased and we believe needs to be removed.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Sycamore at end of line of four at rear of garage – in very poor condition with about 90% loss of foliage and some dead branches – much of bark lost near base – sensible to remove - very close to other trees so no replacement necessary.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy CA5 

ISSUES

1.     The sycamore is situated within the garden and is largely screened from public views by other trees.

2.     The tree is in very poor condition and it is considered that it does not make a significant contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. A Tree Preservation Order would therefore not be appropriate.

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

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

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

2001/1291/CH

Case Officer:      Sarah Moss

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

Parish:     Great Missenden - Prestwood     Ward:     Prestwood

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      P J D MITCHELL

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

1987/1937/CH     Alts, single storey side and rear extension and two storey side/rear/ front extension. Refused. Thimble Farm Cottage is a four bay range, Grade II listed building. The Council has no objection in principal to a small subordinate extension in matching materials. However, the proposed 2-storey side/front/rear extension by reason of its siting, size and design detracts from the listed building in terms of its historic and architectural value.

1987/1938/CH  Alts, single storey side and rear extension and two storey side/rear/ front extension. Listed building consent refused for reasons as above.

1987/2490/CH     Alterations, single storey side/rear extension and two storey side / front extension. Conditional Permission. Implemented.

1987/2573/CH     Alterations, single storey side/rear extension and two storey side / front extension. Conditional Consent. Implemented.

1989/0355/CH     Erection of rear conservatory. Conditional Permission. Conservatory constructed but not in accordance with approved plans.

1989/0356/CH     Erection of rear conservatory. Conditional Consent. Conservatory constructed but not in accordance with approved plans.

THE APPLICATION

The application is to retain a conservatory that has been erected on the rear of the dwelling. The conservatory has been sited on the south east elevation of the property in between two ‘bays’, and has been sited in the same location as the conservatory approved under 1989/0355/CH, although the erected conservatory is larger than that approved under 1989/0355/CH. The conservatory measures a maximum of 3.95 metres in width, and 5.65 metres in length. The conservatory is 2.35 metres in height to the eaves and 3.3 metres in height to the ridge. The conservatory is constructed of white UPVC with a brick and flint plinth.

As a result of previous extensions, the original dwelling of some 118. sq.m gross floorspace has been extended by 79 sq.m, an increase of 67% in floorspace.

The conservatory addition approved in 1989 but not constructed would have added a further 12 sq.m.representing a cumulative increase in floor space of 77%

The conservatory as constructed is 16 sq.m, application representing a cumulative increase in floor space of 80%.

PARISH COUNCIL

Whilst not objecting formally the Council agreed that Chiltern District Council should consider carefully whether the conservatory was appropriate on a listed building in the location proposed.

REPRESENTATIONS

Agent:

As you are aware over the years Thimble Farm Cottage has been substantially altered and rebuilt prior to the current owner purchasing the property. When the current owner purchased the property planning permission had been granted for a conservatory very similar to that which has been built. At the time of purchase by the current owner the work on the extension had already commenced and the ground works been carried out.

The current owner unfortunately had not realised that there was slight difference in the footprint on site to that for which planning permission and Listed Building Consent has been granted. He therefore continued with the construction of the conservatory in accordance with the plans provided to him, and on the foundations that existed when he purchased the house.

Client has agreed that the lean-to which is also being erected would be removed. It was also agreed that the original flint walls to the conservatory would be improved so that the brickwork and flint work corresponded more with the brick and flint work on the house.

The conservatory is sited in a position, which is not at all prominent, and does not distract from the character of the dwelling nor create any adverse effect on the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

CONSULTATIONS

District Historic Buildings Officer:

The conservatory to the rear is equally unsympathetic in that it is also UPVC, large, and draws attention with its ornate ridge and decoratively glazed top lights. The plinth wall below is constructed of hard red brick with performed cement and plinth panels that match the style of the conservatory rather than the original brick, flint and lime mortar of the house. However, it is not visible from the road and can only be glimpsed from the public footpath. Nor does it affect the structure of the historic building, which can still be seen through it. It reads as an obvious demountable addition and does not significantly affect the interpretation of the listed building. There are therefore no strong reasons on listed building grounds to object to its retention.

The unauthorised green house on the side of the house is visible from the road and is out of sympathy with the historic character of the house in that it is obviously made of UPVC. In my opinion it should be removed in order to restore the appearance of the listed building. (The removal of the green house does not form part of this application)

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 GC1, GC3, GB13, LSQ1, H13, H14, H15, LB1, LB2, TR11 and TR16

ISSUES

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

2.     The original dwelling which comprised some 112 sq.m in gross floorspace has already been extended by 67%. The conservatory which has been constructed, which comprises some 16 sq. m, results in a cumulative increase in floors space of 80% over and above the floor space of the original dwelling such that the resultant extensions are not considered to be subordinate in either size or scale to the original dwelling as such, the proposal is contrary to Policy GB13 (a) of the Adopted Local Plan.

3.     However also material to the consideration of this application is the planning permission 1989/0355/CH and listed building consent 1989/0356/CH granted in 1989  for a conservatory in the same position as that which has been built, but which was slightly smaller comprising some 12 sq.m in floor space. The main difference between the conservatory as constructed and that previously approved is that the conservatory as built projects 1.4m further than previously approved. Given the previous permission, it is not considered that the additional 4 sq.m and increase in the depth of the conservatory significantly undermines the aims of the Green Belt in preserving openness. It is not considered that the change to the conservatory and slight increase in size significantly adds to the overall bulk and size and scale of the dwelling to now justify refusal of this application and as such no objections raised under Policy GB13.

4.     The comments of the Historic Buildings Officer are noted, as such no concerns are raised in respect of Policies LB1 and LB2 of the Adopted Local Plan.

5.     The conservatory is sited over 60m from the neighbouring property ‘Thimble Lodge’ and is at the rear of the house. Good screening exists on the south western boundary of the site, as such no concerns are raised in respect of the impact of the conservatory upon neighbouring properties.

6.     The conservatory is not visible from the street. It is considered that the conservatory will not detract from the natural beauty of the Chilterns AONB, nor be detrimental to the openness of the Green Belt. No objections are raised in respect of Policies GC1, LSQ1, GB13 and H15.

7.     Three car parking spaces are provided within the curtilage of the site. No objections are raised in terms of Polices TR11 and TR16.

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) This permission shall relate to the submitted application form and plans, as subsequently amended by your plan and letter dated 10 September 2001 and received on 12 September 2001.

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

(1) INFORMATIVE - For the avoidance of doubt the applicant is advised that the retention of the lean to greenhouse on the south west elevation of the dwelling known as 'Thimble Farm Cottage' is unauthorised and this permission in no may implies the Council's acceptance of this structure. The applicant is advised that failure to remove the lean to greenhouse could lead to further action being taken.

(2) INFORMATIVE - Notwithstanding the granting of this planning permission, you are advised that this Council does not accept that the red edge of the application site shown on the plans necessarily represents the residential curtilage of 'Thimble Farm Cottage'. No alteration has been requested to the plan in this instant as the matter does not affect the Council's decision in relation to this application.

(3) INFORMATIVE - It is bought to the attention of the applicant that public footpath number 53 which runs through this application site appears to have been re-routed. The applicant is advised that there is a right of way across the site and that it may be necessary to apply to either Chiltern District Council of Bucks County Council to divert the footpath. You are advised to contact: Rights of Way Officer, Bucks County Council, High  Wycombe Area Office, Easton Street, High Wycombe, HP11 1NH. Telephone: 014994 475368 to discuss this matter.

2001/1292/CH

Case Officer:      Sarah Moss

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

Parish:     Great Missenden - Prestwood     Ward:     Prestwood

App Type:     Application for Listed Building Consent

Applicant:      P J D MITCHELL

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

1987/1937/CH     Alterations, single storey side and rear extension and two storey side/rear/ front extension. Refused. Thimble Farm Cottage is a four bay range, Grade II listed building. The Council has no objection in principal to a small subordinate extension in matching materials. However, the proposed 2 storey side/front/rear extension by reason of its siting, size and design detracts from the listed building in terms of its historic and architectural value.

1987/1938/CH  Alterations, single storey side and rear extension and two storey side/rear/ front extension. Refused. Thimble Farm Cottage is a four bay range, Grade II listed building. The Council has no objection in principal to a small subordinate extension in matching materials. However, the proposed 2 storey side/front/rear extension by reason of its siting, size and design detracts from the listed building in terms of its historic and architectural value.

1987/2490/CH     Alterations, single storey side/rear extension and two storey side / front extension. Conditional Permission. Implemented.

1987/2573/CH     Alterations, single storey side/rear extension and two storey side / front extension. Conditional Consent. Implemented.

1989/0355/CH     Erection of rear conservatory. Conditional Permission. Not implemented.

1989/0356/CH     Erection of rear conservatory. Conditional Consent. Not implemented.

THE APPLICATION

The application is for listed building consent to retain the conservatory that has been erected at the rear of the property, and to remove the unauthorised greenhouse on the south west elevation. The conservatory has been sited on the south east elevation of the property in between two ‘bays’, and has been sited in the same location as the conservatory approved under 1989/0356/CH, although the erected conservatory is larger than that approved under 1989/0356/CH. The conservatory measures a maximum of 3.95 metres in width, and 5.65 metres in length. The conservatory is 2.35 metres in height to the eaves and 3.3 metres in height to the ridge. The conservatory is constructed of white UPVC with a brick and flint plinth. The lean to greenhouse is currently erected on the south west elevation of the dwelling and is constructed of white UPVC. The lean to green house is to be re sited on the south east elevation of an existing outbuilding. The lean to greenhouse measures 3.55 metres in width, 2.45 metres in depth, 2.05 metres in height to the eaves and 3.2 metres in height to the ridge.

PARISH COUNCIL

Whilst not objecting formally the Council agreed that Chiltern District Council should consider carefully whether the conservatory was appropriate on a Listed Building in the location proposed.

REPRESENTATIONS

Agent:

As you are aware over the years Thimble Farm Cottage has been substantially altered and rebuilt prior to the current owner purchasing the property. When the current owner purchased the property planning permission had been granted for a conservatory very similar to that which has been built. At the time of purchase by the current owner the work on the extension had already commenced and the ground works been carried out.

The current owner unfortunately had not realised that there was slight difference in the footprint on site to that for which planning permission and Listed Building Consent has been granted. He therefore continued with the construction of the conservatory in accordance with the plans provided to him, and on the foundations that existed when he purchased the house.

At our site meeting it was agreed that the lean-to which is also being erected would be removed and re sited against the existing out-buildings away from the house. It was also agreed that the original flint walls to the conservatory would be improved so that the brickwork and flint work corresponded more with the new brick and flint work on the house.

The conservatory is sited in a position, which is not at all prominent, and does not distract from the character of the dwelling nor create any adverse effect on the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

CONSULTATIONS

The unauthorised greenhouse on the side of the house is visible from the road and is out of keeping with the historic character of the house in that it is obviously made of UPVC. In my opinion it should be removed in order to restore the appearance of the listed building.

The conservatory to the rear is equally unsympathetic in that it is also UPVC, large, and draws attention with its ornate ridge and decoratively glazed top lights. The plinth wall below is constructed of hard red brick with performed cement and plinth panels that match the style of the conservatory rather than the original brick, flint and lime mortar of the house. However, it is not visible from the road and can only be glimpsed from the public footpath. Nor does it affect the structure of the historic building, which can still be seen through it. It reads as an obvious demountable addition and does not significantly affect the interpretation of the listed building. There are therefore no strong reasons on listed building grounds to object to its retention.

POLICIES

The Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991 – 2011 Policies HE1

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies LB1, LB2

ISSUES

1.     The District Historic Buildings Officer considers that the greenhouse should be removed in order to restore the appearance of the listed building. It is also considered that although the conservatory at the rear of the property is unsympathetic, it is not visible from the road. It is considered that has it does not affect the structure of the historic building which can still be seen through it, it reads as an obvious demountable addition, and as such there are no strong reasons to object to its retention. Mindful of the Historic Buildings Officers comments no concerns are raised in respect of Policies LB1 and LB2 of the Adopted Local Plan.

2.     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) The development to which this consent relates must be begun not later than the expiration of two months beginning with the date on which the consent is granted.

Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 18(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, to prevent the accumulation of unimplemented listed building consents and to enable the Local Planning Authority to review the situation at the end of this period if the development has not begun.

(2) C142 Listed Building Consent - List of Works

(3) The lean to greenhouse on the south west elevation of the dwelling known as 'Thimble Farm Cottage' shall be removed within two months of the date of this permission and any disturbed work to the exterior of the south west elevation made good to match the existing.

Reason: In order to retain the character of this listed building.

(4) This permission shall relate to the submitted application form and plans, as subsequently amended by your plan and letter dated 10 September 2001 and received on 12 September 2001.

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

(1) INFORMATIVE - Notwithstanding the granting of this consent, you are advised that this Council does not accept that the red edge of the application site shown on the plans necessarily represents the residential curtilage of 'Thimble Farm Cottage'. No alteration has been requested to the plan in this instant as the matter does not affect the Council's decision in relation to this application.

2001/1295/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

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

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham Town

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR J TANNER

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Thames Water - groundwater protection zone

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/1595/66     Erect conservatory, car port and covered way, approved.

89/3679/CH     Single storey side / rear extension, approved and implemented.

96/0736/CH     Erect front boundary fence and gates, approved and implemented.

THE APPLICATION

The application involves extending the rear of the garage by 2.6m, the proposal would have a flat roof over to match that of the existing garage.  A window and a door are proposed on the side elevation of the extension.  

(At the neighbouring property, No.88, a rear extension to the garage and at the side of the lounge area is proposed (01/1296/CH), this flank elevation of which would form a party wall with this application’s proposal.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approve, subject to the extension always remaining single storey.

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.     No objections are raised to the design of the extension and it is not considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact upon the neighbouring property’s amenity.

2.     No adverse car parking issues arise, no objections are raised under Policies TR11 and TR16.

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) C431 Materials of Development to Match Those of Existing Building

2001/1296/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

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

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham Town

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR M IMRIE

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Thames Water - groundwater protection zone

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

THE APPLICATION

This application is to convert the existing garage into a family room and to extend the rear by 2.6m, the proposal would have a flat roof to match the existing and to tie in with the neighbours proposal.

(At the neighbouring property, No.86, a rear extension to the garage is proposed, the flank wall of which would form a party wall with this application’s proposal).

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approve, subject to the extension always remaining single storey.

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.     No objections are raised to the design of the extension and it is not considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact upon the neighbouring property’s amenity.

2.     Although the garage is being converted to living accommodation, no adverse car parking issues arise, provided that the parking layout is laid out in accordance with the plans, no objections are raised under Policies TR11 and TR16.

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) C431 Materials of Development to Match Those of Existing Building

(3) The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until parking spaces for vehicles have been provided in accordance with the plan (No.201.040-1A) received on the 30th July 2001.

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

2001/1297/CH

Case Officer:      Iwan Jones

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

Parish:     Chalfont St Giles     Ward:     Chalfont St Giles

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS NAPOLITAN

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Mineral Consultation Area

THE APPLICATION

The application relates to the erection of a single storey side extension to the north eastern side elevation measuring 1.9m wide, 3.2m deep and to a pitched roof height 4m. All materials would match those of the existing property.

PARISH COUNCIL

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 Chalfont St Peter where there are no objections in principle to the proposed side extension subject to compliance with the relevant local plan policies.

2.     The extension would replace an existing flat roof extension. As such, the proposed pitched roof would improve the overall appearance of the dwelling within the street scene. No objection raised in relation to Policies H13(ii).

3.     The extension would not project beyond the existing front elevation whilst the roof would be subordinate to that in which it would be integrated into. Furthermore, the window in the flank elevation would be of obscure glazing. No objections raised in relation to Policies GC1, GC3, H14 and H15.  

4.     The proposal has no implications in terms of parking. No objection 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

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

2001/1301/CH

Case Officer:      Iwan Jones

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

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham the Hill

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR D AND MRS C UNDERWOOD

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Class A Road

Thames Water - groundwater protection zone

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

89/3381/CH: Demolish garage and erect detached garage/store. Permitted and implemented.

THE APPLICATION

The application relates to the erection of a rear conservatory measuring 3.3m wide, 2.4m deep and to a ridge height of 3.1m. It would replace an existing conservatory that is of slightly less floorspace.  

TOWN COUNCIL

Approve – subject to the remaining rear garden being of adequate size.

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter received from a neighbouring flat 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 Amersham where there are no objections in principle to the proposed conservatory subject to compliance with the relevant local plan policies.

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

3.     The residential amenities of neighbouring properties would not be affected by the conservatory having regard to the level of screening around the south eastern and south western boundaries of the property. No objection raised in relation to Policies GC3 and H14.

4.     The proposed conservatory would be of a better design and appearance than the existing one on site. No objection in terms of Policies GC1 and H15.

5.     The proposal would raise no implications in terms of parking. No objection raised in terms of Policies TR11 and TR16.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

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

2001/1304/CH

Case Officer:      Iwan Jones

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

Parish:     Penn     Ward:     Penn

App Type:     Application for Listed Building Consent

Applicant:      MR AND MRS P HUNNINGS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt settlement GB4

Penn & Tylers Green Conservation Area

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Class B Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Grade 2 Listed Building

THE APPLICATION

An application has been submitted for listed building consent for the erection of a replacement green house. It would measure the same as existing, 10.4m wide, 3.7m deep and 3.3m high. The building is of Grade II status.

PARISH COUNCIL

No comment.

CONSULTATIONS

Historic Buildings Officer: The application proposes the demolition of the existing green house, and its replacement with a completely new aluminium one set on the same base. The existing green house is not of particular architectural interest. It is a very simple construction, probably of the earlier part of the 20th century, its only design feature being the discreet mouldings on the timber uprights. There are no interesting roof trusses or brackets, and the opening lights are later 20th century replacements. The greenhouse is now in a poor state of repair with many of the timbers suffering from water damage and many of the glazing beads missing. Restoration to ensure safety and water-tightness would involve much replacement with little architectural justification. Demolition and replacement form a reasonable course of action. The proposal to replace with aluminium would not usually be recommended where listed buildings are involved, but it is perhaps acceptable in this case. The greenhouse is out of site from the main listed house, hidden behind the rear wall of a garden building. The aluminium is to be coated white, to match the painted woodwork of a smaller green house that is to be retained, and the simple pattern of uprights is to be maintained. The new material will help to establish that the new green house is a complete replacement, honestly appropriate to the modern day, rather than creating a misleading traditional impression. No reason therefore to object.

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 Historic Buildings Officer’s comments are noted and no objection is raised to the proposal as it is considered that the existing green house is not of particular architectural interest and is in a poor state of repair. The green house would be out of site from the main listed house and would be finished to match another smaller green house that would be retained.

2.     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) C141 Listed Building Consent - Time Limit

(2) C142 Listed Building Consent - List of Works

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

(1) INFORMATIVE- You are advised that in addition to the Listed Building Consent hereby granted, planning permission is also required for the construction of the greenhouse and must also  be attained prior to the commencement of the development.

2001/1313/CH

Case Officer:      Iwan Jones

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

Parish:     Amersham - Little Chalfont     Ward:     Little Chalfont

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      NYCOMED AMERSHAM PLC

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Employment Area for Business , General Industry, Storage or Distribution

Adjoining Green Belt

Class A Road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

Numerous planning applications have been submitted relating to this site although none of direct relevance to this application.

THE APPLICATION

The application relates to the formation of two canopies and the installation of roller shutter doors. One canopy would be formed between buildings 24.3 and 24.2 (4.9m above ground level) whilst the other would be formed to the southern elevation of building 24.2 (5.1m above ground level). The new roller door would be installed to building 24.2.

TOWN COUNCIL

Approve.

REPRESENTATIONS

Agent submits:

Works involve improvement of an existing controlled store for hazardous materials. Canopies would allow for weather protected delivery and collection.

CONSULTATIONS

District Environmental Health Officer: Satisfied that on site Health-Physics / Waste Regulation regime will attend to issues. No other appropriate controls to impose.

Health and Safety Executive: No objection.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC3, E2, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The appearance of the proposed canopies and roller shutter door are considered acceptable and which would be located within an industrial site. Having regard to the nature and scale of the development the amenities of neighbouring properties would not be affected. No objection under Policies GC1 and GC3.

2.     The works would not result in increased employment on the site. No objections raised in relation to Policies TR11 and TR16.

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

2001/1321/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

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

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Austenwood

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS S THRAVES

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Mineral Consultation Area

Northolt Airfield safeguarding zone

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/1517/61     Garage, permitted development.

AM/808/70     Addition and garage, outline application approved.

THE APPLICATION

The proposed two storey side / rear extension would have a floor area of 3.4m (depth) by 2.9m (width).  Its rear elevation would be level with the existing rear elevation, its eaves height would be approximately 5m with a hipped roof over to a ridge height of approximately 7.3m.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1.     It is not considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring property, the ‘White House’.  This neighbouring property is set further to the rear than ‘The Glade’ and is also at a lower ground level.  On its flank elevation facing ‘The Glade’ this dwelling has no first floor windows, it does however have windows to its utility room and a toilet on the ground floor, neither of which are generally classed as being habitable accommodation.  Given the nature of the rooms that are served by these windows, the fact that the change in ground levels with the fence on top of the retaining wall is already higher than the top of the windows in question and that the extension does not project further to the rear than the existing dwelling and as such would be viewed against the backdrop of the existing dwelling, then it is not considered that any objections are raised with regard to the impact upon this property’s amenities.

2.     The design of the extension is considered acceptable, being clearly subordinate in size and scale to the existing dwelling.  However, under Policy H11 flank elevations of first floor side / rear extensions are required to be 1m from the boundary with the dwelling’s curtilage.  Due to the tapering nature of the boundary part of this extension will be slightly less than this required figure, as such it could be held that the extension is contrary to this Policy and as such should be refused on this basis.  It is considered, however, to look at the reasoning behind the Policy, to minimise the effect of dwellings coalescing together, consequently it is necessary to look at the specific characteristics of the site.  In this respect it is noted that the boundary is not parallel between the dwellings, resulting in only part of the extension being less than the 1m required.  It is also important to note the nature of the extension, being set a well behind the front elevation of the property with a roof clearly subordinate in size and scale to the existing dwelling.  Bearing these factors in mind and given the minimal shortfall, it is not considered that the changes required to meet the 1m distance would make a material difference to the character of the area, as such it is considered that, in this instance, no objections are raised under Policy H11.

3.     Parking provision could be provided within the site for the parking of three vehicles, 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 side elevation of extension.

(4) C202 Garage/Parking Space (for extension) - Plans to be Approved

2001/1327/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

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

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Chalfont St Peter Central

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      WILCOX AND CO (LIMOUSINES) LTD

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Employment Area for Business, Storage or Distribution

River Chess & River Misbourne - area liable to flood

Class C Road

Northolt Airfield safeguarding zone

Within 8 m. of NRA-designated 'main river'

Mineral Consultation Area

Floor Space

Codes:     BU:MF:ST

Proposed (m2):     1139:0:0

Displaced (m2):     0:722:434

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

THE APPLICATION

The application is to renew application 96/0820/CH.  The plans are identical to those previously approved under 91/0992/CH & 96/820/CH.  The application proposes five separate offices in three blocks.  Two separate offices of 187m2 each are proposed at the front of the site, fronting onto Lower Road.  A third office building containing three offices providing a total of 761.5m2 of offices is proposed on the north-east corner at the rear of the site.

PARISH COUNCIL

No comment.

REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters of objection, the comments of which could be summarised as follows –

1.     The area is still a residential one despite gradual ‘industrialisation’ over the years.  

2.     Further enlargement of this factory – in any form – can only further damage the residential nature of the area.

3.     At present Lower Road suffers from very heavy parking load including car transporters, this results in the narrowing of the road to barely two car’s widths, blocking the footpaths and narrowing a busy road.  The worst instances of which are opposite the junction with Croft Road where the junction  is on a convex bend, so that egress by a vehicle from Croft Road turning right has to be made directly into the face of on-coming traffic.

4.     Requesting that the new access improves the dangerous and inconvenient situation and that during the building operations there is no additional overcrowding of the road by the off-loading and loading of heavy plant machinery, lorry access or the parking of skips.

5.     The developers need to be compelled to provide additional staff parking where there intentions are to expand their business.

6.     Any further expansion of this business – in any form – can only add to the blight.

One letter stating no objections, however, requesting working hours conditions and also a condition that there is no outside radio noise at all times.

CONSULTATIONS

Access Officer for the Disabled –

1.     Plans do not indicate W.C’s on ground floor for disabled persons.

2.     Staircases should comply with Part M (Disabled Access).

District Engineer –

1.     No objection subject to conditions.

Vivendi Water –

1.     Site is located within a Ground Water Protection Zone corresponding to Gerrards Cross Pumping Station.

2.     The construction works and operation of the proposed development site should be done in accordance with the relevant British Standards and Best Management Practices, thereby significantly reducing the ground water pollution risk.

3.     It should be noted that the construction works may exacerbate any existing pollution.  

4.     If any pollution is found at the sites then the appropriate monitoring and remediation methods will need to be undertaken.

County Archaeological Officer –

1.     This scheme is unlikely to have significant archaeological implications.

Environment Agency –

Objects for two reasons, and suggests a condition and an informative should the objections be resolved.

1.     The proposals include development in close proximity to the River Misbourne.  This will prejudice flood defence interests and adversely affect the character of the River Misbourne, and restrict necessary access to the watercourse for the Environment Agency to carry out its functions.  (Suggests a resolution to this objection)

2.     The site is shown as being within the indicative floodplain for the River Misbourne.  The development therefore may be at direct risk of flooding and may increase the risk of flooding to other properties by taking up floodplain storage and affecting flood flows.  (Suggests a resolution to this objection).

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC3, GC6, GC10, E1, E3, TR2, TR3, TR11 & TR16.

ISSUES

1.     Given the previous approvals for the same development, the only issue to consider is whether circumstances have changed in such a way that would now make the scheme unacceptable.

2.     The area is identified in the Adopted Local Plan as a site for business and storage or distribution.  The Office use proposed falls within Use Class B1 and is an employment generating use, therefore the proposed use is still acceptable in principle.  The design of the buildings is acceptable and no objections are raised in this respect.

3.     Issues regarding the impact upon the amenities of the surrounding properties was considered under the previous applications.  Given that the proposed buildings are the same as previously approved and that there are not considered to have been any material changes in circumstances in this respect, it is not considered that objections would be warranted in terms of impact upon surrounding properties.

4.     The representations made by the neighbouring residents regarding the highway aspects of the development are noted.  The District Engineer has recommended approval subject to conditions.  Consequently it is not considered that any objections are raised in this respect.

5.     Notwithstanding this, the Environment Agency have raised objections to this proposal on two grounds (as noted above in the consultees section).  Paragraph 35 of PPG25 notes that ‘in making proposals for...redevelopment [of previously developed land vulnerable to flooding] local planning authorities should take account of the risks of flooding’.  Given the comments received from the Environment Agency regarding the risk of flooding of the proposed site and, notwithstanding the previous approvals for the same scheme it is considered that there have been sufficient material changes in circumstances, including the flood problems of recent times in this area, to warrant a refusal of the application.

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 proposal conflicts with Policy GC10 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan which states that there is a presumption against development in flood plains or in areas of flood risk where, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Environment Agency the proposed development would be at risk from flooding or would result in an increased risk of flooding elsewhere.  To permit this proposal would be in conflict with this Policy.

(2) The proposals include development in close proximity to the River Misbourne.  This will prejudice flood defence interests and adversely affect the character of the River Misbourne, and restrict necessary access to the watercourse for the Environment Agency to carry out its functions.  Policy GC6 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan states that all proposed development throughout the District should comply with the requirements of Statutory Undertakers, including the Environment Agency, as such, the proposal would be contrary to this Policy.

2001/1336/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     03/08/01     Decide by Date:     27/09/01

Parish:     Latimer     Ward:     Ashley Green & Latimer

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      LINDSAY AND NIKKI BURR

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt settlement GB5

adjoining Common land

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Site within 250 m. of active or disused rubbish tip

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

00/1878/CH   Two-storey side extension and single storey side/rear extensions.   Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

A two-storey and single storey rear/side extension. The two-storey element extends the east flank out by 1.5m and 8.4m in length (2.75m behind the front elevation and extending 3.5m beyond the rear of the property. The previous application (00/1878/CH) included a single storey element, which wrapped around the rest of the rear elevation and then part way down the western elevation. This modified scheme repeats this footprint, only including a first floor across the rear section. Therefore the rear section will be 4.5m wide and 1.7m deep, with the single storey side element being 5m long and 1.6m wide. All two-storey elements will be hipped, matching the height of the existing roof. The single storey element will be hipped at 3.3m above ground level.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, GB5, H11, H14, H15, H16, H17, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The application is in the Botley Green Belt Settlement (GB5) where the scheme was considered an appropriate development, under application 00/1878/CH, sensitively preserving the open, spacious, semi-rural character of the area. The only modification is the inclusion of a first floor above the rear section of the single storey element of the proposal.

2.     The completion of the framework of the approved scheme prevents this addition from being seen from No. 219, due to its two-storey projection to the rear. To the west (towards No. 215) this new element will be 2.5m away from the boundary and will not be considered detrimental to the amenity of this neighbouring resident. Taking into account the rear projection of No. 215 and its detached garage on the boundary, this addition to the original scheme will not have an adverse impact on this neighbour’s enjoyment of their property. This sensitive addition is considered appropriate under Local Plan Policy GC3, H13 and H14.

3.     As before under application 00/1878/CH the front garden can accommodate two cars comfortably with a third space to the side of the dwelling, subject to condition. No objection under 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) C432 Materials - As on Plan or Subsequently Specified

(3) C202 Garage/Parking Space (for extension) - Plans to be Approved

(4) The safety balustrade to be installed outside the first floor bedroom window on the north elevation of the rear extension hereby permitted, shall not project more than 0.3m beyond the face of the rear elevation.

Reason: In order to prevent the installation of a balcony which results in overlooking and loss of privacy to occupiers of adjacent properties.

2001/1337/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     03/08/01     Decide by Date:     27/09/01

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham Common

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR P WILKINSON

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Class A Road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/851/63     Garage and vehicular access, approved.

THE APPLICATION

The proposed single storey side extension is to replace an existing garage.  The proposal would be 7m in depth 2.85m in width when viewed from the front of the dwelling and 4.8m in width at the rear due to shape of the existing house.  The proposal would have a pitched roof over to a ridge height of approximately 5.35m with the eaves at 2.4m.

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 & TR16.

ISSUES

1.     No objections are raised to the design or the siting of the proposed single storey side extension which is replacing an existing garage.  It is not considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact upon the street scene.

2.     It is not considered that the proposed extension would have a detrimental impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring property, No.5.  In this respect it is noted that the proposed extension does not project a significant distance beyond the rear elevation of No.5’s and is therefore not considered to be overbearing, although the gable roof facing No.5 would have a greater impact upon the neighbour than the existing flat roofed garage.

3.     The gross floorspace of the dwelling would exceed 120m2, requiring the provision of three parking spaces under Policy TR16.  A forecourt space is provided in front of the proposed extension, this is to be between 7.9m and 7.4m (due to the angle of the road), this is sufficient to provide for one space.  At the rear of the site there is another vehicle access onto Lime Tree Walk.  This area is 4.8m in width and 5.35m in depth, although 8cm too narrow (given a standard parking space of 2.44m in width), the shortfall is considered to be negligible and as such is considered to be sufficient to park the other two vehicles as per the requirement of Policy TR16.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

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

2001/1341/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     06/08/01     Decide by Date:     30/09/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Chalfont St Peter Central

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR C WRIGHT

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Northolt Airfield safeguarding zone

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

98/0126/CH   Alterations, single storey rear extension and extension to staircase to serve self-contained flat.   Withdrawn.

98/0409/CH   Alterations, single storey rear extension to shop, first floor side extension and extension to staircase to serve self-contained flat.   Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

A first floor dormer on rear north east side elevation. The premises currently have a single storey rear extension with steep rear facing gable, to the left of which is a first floor level open gallery. The dormer is proposed on the roof slope that leads down onto the gallery so as to provide an entrance and additional floor space to the first floor flat. The dormer structure will be 6m in length, 3m in height and with a 2.5m deep flat roof.

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, H18, S2, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The application seeks approval for a side facing dormer window to the rear of a property in the Chalfont St. Peter district shopping centre. This section of Churchfield Road is principally a service road with no special character, only the backs of the properties facing Market Place (bordering the street to the south east). The dormer window therefore is not seen to be detrimental to the street scene. Furthermore neighbouring property No. 4 who shares the gallery space, has an almost identical dormer structure, which is slightly smaller. As such the structure does not substantiate refusal in terms of Local Plan policy GC1, H15 and H18.

2.     This structure would directly face the dormer window at No. 4, from a distance of 3.1m and although this would not restrict light or be overbearing on this neighbour, windows will directly look at one another. As such the structure will be acceptable should obscure glass be used in the three proposed windows.

3.     Six car-parking spaces exist on the rear hardstanding, which is acceptable in terms of Local Plan Parking 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) C175 Obscure glass in multiple windows in north eastern elevation

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

2001/1346/CH

Case Officer:      Thomas Gabriel

Date Received:     06/08/01     Decide by Date:     30/09/01

Parish:     Great Missenden     Ward:     Great Missenden

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      SCOTTWOOD HOMES LTD C/O AGENTS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt settlement GB5

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

00/2132/CH: Detached house with attached double garage and detached double garage served by altered vehicular access (on land within the curtilage of Eversley). Withdrawn.

01/1243/CH: Detached house and detached double garage served by widened vehicular access (outline application). Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

The application is for two storey front and rear extensions, a rear conservatory, a new chimney, a detached domestic double garage in the front garden and widening of the existing vehicular access. The ground floor element of the front extension is to measure 1.1m by 4.1m and is to incorporate an open porch area, 1.6m by 4.1m. The first floor element of the front extension is to measure 2.6m by 4.1m. The extension is to have a hipped roof, 7.5m high. The rear extension is to measure 2m by 3.9m at both ground and first floor levels with a hipped roof, 7.3m high. The rear conservatory is to measure 6.8m by 2.7m and 3.5m high to the top of the sloping roof. The new chimney is to be 9m high, projecting approximately 1.3m above the surrounding roofslope. The detached double garage is to measure 5.9m by 5.9m and 4.2m high to the pitched roof. The vehicular access is to be widened to 5m.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections.

REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters received, one from the owner of an adjacent property, Radford, and one from the owners of the neighbouring property, Hill Rise, both objecting, on the following grounds:

1.     The proposed double garage appears to be in front of the building line and that it would be in full view from the road and would obstruct the view from the adjacent property.

2.     The proposed double driveway would be unsuitable as it would create more congestion, greater potential for accidents and would be unsafe as there is no footpath along Nags Head Lane.

3.     Though the resultant building will be an improvement over the existing one, building works will last most of the winter, causing noise and disturbance.

4.     Concern is stated about the need for access to the neighbouring property, Hill Rise, during construction work.

Agent’s comments noting:

1.     Double garage would be inconspicuously sited to the front of the dwellinghouse behind a tall imposing hedge.

2.     Extensions are of modest proportion adding interest to what is otherwise a bland, unassuming property, without adversely affecting the amenities of adjoining residential units through overlooking, loss of privacy and overshadowing. It is contended there will be improvements to the appearance of ‘Eversley’.

3.     Adjoining property ‘Hill Rise’ has a depth greater than ‘Eversley’ with its proposed rear extensions.

4.     Extensions designed to respect the scale, proportion and symmetry of existing dwellinghouse.

5.     Additions will appear subordinate to the size and scale of the existing property.

CONSULTATIONS

District Highways Engineer: No objections subject to conditions.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, GB12, GB15, LSQ1, H13, H14, H15, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The application site is located within the Green Belt Settlement of Little Kingshill where extensions to dwellings and the erection of ancillary residential buildings are acceptable in principle subject to compliance with the relevant local plan policies.

2.     As the proposed two storey extensions to the front and rear would only measure 2.6m and 2m deep respectively the openness of the Green Belt would not be affected. Consequently the proposed extensions to the dwelling would not have an adverse impact upon the neighbouring dwelling Hill Rise. As such, no objection is raised in relation to Policies GC2, GC3, GB12, LSQ1, H13(i) and H14.

3.     It is considered that the scale, height and design of the proposed front extension would improve the visual appearance of the dwelling therefore enhancing the character of the street scene. As regards the proposed garage, this would be sited adjacent to the hedge at the front of the site which is at a height of 2.5m from ground level where the garage is to be sited. The garage would be 2.4m from Nags Head Lane itself. As the eaves height of the garage would be 2.2m, only the hipped roof would be visible within the street scene having regard to the height of the hedge. It is therefore considered that despite the garage being well forward of the existing dwelling, on balance, the garage would not constitute a dominating feature being detrimental to the character and appearance of the street scene. No objection is therefore raised in relation to Policies H13(ii) and GB15.      

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) The materials to be used in the external construction of the extensions to the dwelling hereby permitted shall match the size, colour and texture of those of the existing dwelling.

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

(3) Before any construction work commences, named types, or samples of the facing bricks and roofing tiles to be used in the  external construction of the detached garage 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.

(4) C196 Ancillary residential buildings at Eversley - garage

(5) C174A No additional windows in first floor of west & east elevations of front and rear extension

(6) Only that part of the hedge on the northern boundary which is directly affected by the laying out of a new vehicular access shall be taken out.  The remainder of it shall be retained for at least 5 years from the date of this permission and 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.

(7) Notwithstanding Condition 6, no development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping at a scale of not less than 1:500 which shall include details of replacement planting on the northern site boundary adjacent to the south side of  the visibility splay that is required by Condition 8.

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

(8) C529 Visibility Splays - new access to highway : 2.4 metres x 40 metres

(9) Before the development hereby permitted is first brought into use, the altered access shall be sited and laid out in accordance with the approved plan and constructed in accordance with the County Council's standards for Private Vehicular Access within Highway Limits.

Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the development.

(10) C561 Surface Water

(11) C572 Turning Space as on Plan to be Approved

(12) C137 Selected plans amended by one unnumbered plan received on 12 September 2001

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

(2) INFORMATIVE - You are advised that the siting and footprint of the garage and dwelling identified as 'proposed dwelling' on the plan is not part of the current application and approval of the current application does not imply planning permission will be granted for these details of the new dwelling.

2001/1352/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     07/08/01     Decide by Date:     01/10/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Austenwood

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS E PARTON

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Northolt Airfield safeguarding zone

Mineral Consultation Area

THE APPLICATION

A single storey side extension forming integral double garage. The structure is linked to the side of an existing flat roofed single storey side projection and will be 6m wide and 5.5m deep. The build will be capped by a pitched roof 5.4m high (measured to the slab at the front of the garage) with half hip to the gable end 0.7m deep. The roof extends across the existing flat roofed side structure, and a dormer window 1.2m wide and 1.4m high (to the ridge of its gable) will be installed to the centre of the garage door on the front elevation (0.1m down from the ridge).

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter from neighbouring residents raising no objections.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1.     The property falls within the Kingsway Established Residential Area of Special Character in the built up area of Chalfont St. Peter. Situated on a northerly aspect, the property already has a detached double garage to which this proposal will replace with an integral one. The structure is designed to subtly fit in with the character of this early 20th century house. Although the proposal is fairly large, it does appear subordinate in relation to the scale of the house, being set back by 5.5m from the main front elevation and level with the eaves on the two-storey element. As such the new build is acceptable in terms of Local Plan Policy GC1 and H15.

2.     The front facing dormer window is small and is not out of character with the property as a whole. As such this feature satisfies Local Plan Policy H18.

3.     The volume of the new build is accentuated by the steep northerly slope on which it is sited. The neighbouring flank with door and obscure glazed window, already sunk well beneath the grassy bank between the two neighbours, will indeed clearly view this prominent structure above it. Due to the 5.5m gap to be preserved between the properties, the proposal is not considered to be detrimental to the neighbouring enjoyment of their property. As such the proposal (itself set in 1.5m from the boundary) is acceptable in terms of Local Plan Policy GC3, H13 and H14.

4.     The double garage and double car forecourt amply cater for Local Plan Policy TR11 and TR16 on off streetcar parking.

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

2001/1353/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     07/08/01     Decide by Date:     01/10/01

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham Common

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS D ELKINS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/1426/68     Extension to form double garage, approved.

CH/1229/75     Convert garage into dining room and erect double garage, approved.

93/1118/CH     Single storey front extension, approved.

THE APPLICATION

The single storey side extension would replace an existing conservatory.  The proposal would be 3.3m in width, 6.2m in depth with a pitched roof over to a height of 3.9m.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approve.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1.     The design of the extension is considered acceptable, respecting the scale and proportions of the existing dwelling and would not appear intrusive in the context of the street scene.

2.     It is not considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact upon the neighbouring property.  There is an existing conservatory structure in the same location which itself could permit more overlooking than the current proposal, however, given the conifer screening between the dwellings it is not considered that the proposal would result in any loss of light or privacy and would not appear overbearing when viewed from this dwelling.

3.     No adverse car parking issues arise, no objections under Polices TR11 and TR16 are raised.

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

RECOMMENDATION: 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  southern elevation of extension.

2001/1356/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     06/08/01     Decide by Date:     30/09/01

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham Town

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR & MRS G P CHILDS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Class A Road

Unclassified road

Thames Water - groundwater protection zone

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

91/0818/CH   Part demolition of existing bungalow and extensions to form two-storey dwelling and detached domestic garage at front.   Conditional permission.

95/0601/CH   Detached domestic double garage in front garden.   Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

Retention of a half-hexagonal rear conservatory, 3.75m wide and 2.4m deep with a hipped roof to 3.6m.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approve.

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 for retention of a rear side conservatory in the built up area of Amersham is considered to be of an acceptable size, being subordinate to the rear elevation of the property, and therefore in compliance with Local Plan Policy GC1 and H15.

2.     The fairly well secluded rear garden of the property (3m hedging all round) renders it impossible to view the structure from neighbouring properties. As such the conservatory raises no concerns over loss of amenity, or indeed any other Local Plan Policy issues.

3.     The detached double garage and double breadth forecourt caters for the properties off street car parking adequately, in terms 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

Subject to the following conditions