Meeting documents

2001/42/TC

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     13/08/01     Decide by Date:     24/09/01

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham the Hill

App Type:     Work to unpreserved trees in Conservation Area

Applicant:      MRS R WILCOX

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Amersham - Weller Estate Conservation Area

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Unclassified road

Thames Water - groundwater protection zone

THE APPLICATION

Felling of three conifers and sycamore.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approve, subject to tree officer’s inspection.

REPRESENTATIONS

Agent:     Sycamore is self set in fence line – conifers are unattractive and removal would let in more light – propose replanting of hedge on boundary.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Trees in rear garden of property – all fairly small trees with very limited public visibility – larger cedar would remain.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy CA5 

ISSUES

1.     The four trees are situated in the rear garden of the property with very limited visibility from public viewpoints.

2.     It is considered that the 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

2001/43/TC

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     14/08/01     Decide by Date:     25/09/01

Parish:     Penn     Ward:     Coleshill & Penn Street

App Type:     Work to unpreserved trees in Conservation Area

Applicant:      MRS K R CROSS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Penn Street Conservation Area

Green Belt settlement GB4

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

00/1253/CH     Part two storey, part single storey rear extension and single storey side extension. Conditional permission. Not yet implemented.

THE APPLICATION

Felling of six conifers.

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant:     Tree surgery proposed is intended to improve remaining trees.

Tree 1 – conifer – currently overcrowding copper beech and ash which would thrive better with additional space.

Tree 2 – golden conifer – too close to house and blocking light to kitchen.

Tree 3 – golden conifer – too dominant of flower bed and restricts view of garden.

Tree 4 – conifer – currently damaging maple and magnolia which would thrive with more space.

Tree 5 – conifer – need open space at rear of garden for children’s play area.

Tree 6 – conifer – currently damaging Eucalyptus which would thrive with more space.

Hedge 7 – tidying up of hedge/boundary – leave specimen trees intact – hazel has been neglected and needs cutting back to regain space in garden.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:    

Tree 1 – Lawson cypress – large cypress in group with beech and ash at front of property – beech suppressing sides of other trees – limited visibility of cypress – not considered important.

Tree 2 – cypress – small variegated tree about 2m high – below notifiable size – would be lost in approved extension 00/1253/CH.

Tree 3 – cypress – small golden conifer about 4m high – below notifiable size.

Tree 4 – Japanese cedar – tree about 6m high in closely spaced group with Magnolia and Japanese maple – mutual suppression – cedar with lean and poor shape.

Tree 5 – cypress – columnar tree about 3m high – below notifiable size.

Tree 6 – Lawson cypress – about 10m high – dominated and suppressed by adjacent very large Eucalyptus – also cedar on other side.

Hedge 7 – hedge/boundary – appears to be old mixed hedge that has been neglected for many years – mainly hornbeam and hazel with some holly and other species - hornbeams have developed multi-stemmed tree-like form about 8-10m high – hazels about 5-6m high – hedge, particularly hazels, spreading and encroaching on lawn – some trimming reasonable – hedge hardly visible from public views – no individual trees of high quality present.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy CA5 

ISSUES

1.     The trees are situated mainly in the rear garden of the property with very limited visibility from public viewpoints. The only tree in the front garden is a cypress that is largely hidden by other trees, including a beech and an ash.

2.     It is considered that none of the trees makes a significant contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. A Tree Preservation Order would therefore not be appropriate.

3.     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 trees 2, 3 and 5 in your letter are too small to require a notification and so work may be carried out to these trees without reference to the Local Planning Authority. A notification is only required if the largest stem on a tree has a diameter greater than 75mm measured at a height of 1.5m above ground level.

2001/44/TC

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     17/08/01     Decide by Date:     28/09/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Giles     Ward:     Chalfont St Giles

App Type:     Work to unpreserved trees in Conservation Area

Applicant:      MRS LUCAS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Chalfont St Giles Conservation Area

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

90/0008/TC     Reduction in height and thinning of three chestnuts and two lime trees in front garden. No TPO made.

THE APPLICATION

Removal of a lime and a hazel.

PARISH COUNCIL

The Tree Wardens recommend removal of both trees, the Parish Council supports this proposal.

REPRESENTATIONS

Agent:       Lime is suppressed and both trees have outgrown position – too crowded for further planting.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Line of three large horse chestnuts on boundary of front garden with School Lane – small multi-stemmed lime about 8m high under canopy of tree closest to house – about 2m from horse chestnut and suppressed by it – hazel about 5m high closer to house – neither tree considered important – also dead willow.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy CA5 

ISSUES

1.     The trees are situated in the front garden on the boundary with School Lane and are visible from the road but are not prominent.

2.     It is considered that the 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

2001/1290/CH

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

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

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Austenwood

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

Applicant:      MR JIM MOORE

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

River Chess & River Misbourne - area liable to flood

Unclassified road

Colne Valley Park

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Tree Preservation Order

Mineral Consultation Area

Northolt Airfield safeguarding zone

Denham Airfield safeguarding zone

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The Bucks County Council (Amersham and Eton Rural Districts) Tree Preservation Order No 6 - 1951 covering an area of parkland at Chalfont Park Estate.

00/0087/CH     Re-development of site including the erection of five three-storey buildings for business use (Use class B1) and associated parking areas, access roads and landscaping (amendment to planning permission 97/1648/CH), extensions and extensive alterations to Chalfont Park House. Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

Plane – lift lower crown 2-3m.

Yews – lift lower crowns 2-3 metres over parking areas.

PARISH COUNCIL

The Council would accept the Forestry Officer’s report.

REPRESENTATIONS

Agent:     Reason for making application is that trees are overhanging parking areas.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     London plane – very large important old parkland tree – possibly planted by Capability Brown – long low branches hanging down into parking places in front of Chalfont House – only minor trimming required to give adequate clearance for vehicles.

Various younger trees, particularly yews, adjacent to recently constructed access roads and parking areas – some trees with low branches interfering with vehicles – some minor crown lifting required to give adequate clearance for vehicles.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy TW2 

ISSUES

1.     The London plane is a large important parkland tree while the other trees in the application are smaller and less visible from public viewpoints.

2.     The proposed work only involves minor trimming of lower branches and would not have a significant effect on the appearance of the trees.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

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

(2) The tree surgery hereby approved shall not exceed crown lifting of the plane tree and the other trees beside the access roads and parking areas on the development to a height of 3 metres to allow vehicular access under the trees.

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

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

(2) INFORMATIVE - I211 Tree Work - Branch Removal                                                  

2001/1319/CH

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

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

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Chesham Bois & Weedon

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

Applicant:      TIM LEWIS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Thames Water - groundwater protection zone

Tree Preservation Order

Biological Notification site

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The Chiltern District Council (Land at 8 Redding Drive, Amersham) Tree Preservation Order 1990 (No 21 of 1990) covering one oak as an individual tree.

90/1181/CH     Alterations and two storey rear extension. Conditional permission.

91/0291/CH     Alterations and two storey rear extension (amendment to planning permission 90/1181/CH). Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

Oak – tip reduction up to 1.5 metres at some points – thin crown up to 15% - remove deadwood.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approve subject to Forestry Officer approval.

REPRESENTATIONS

Agent:     Objective – to reduce crown allowing light through.

One letter of support from a neighbour, who considers that large woodland trees are not suitable for small gardens.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Oak tree situated in fairly small rear garden – once topped at about 10m – consequently developed fairly long side branches – branches about a metre from house and closer to 1 Butlers Close – tree dominates garden - proposed work reasonable.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy TW2 

ISSUES

1.     The tree is situated in the rear garden of the property but it is visible from Butlers Close.

2.     The oak tree is now dominating the fairly small rear garden and the proposed work is considered to be reasonable management.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

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

(2) The tree surgery hereby approved shall not exceed tip reduction by up to 1.5m and crown thinning by 15%.

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

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

(2) INFORMATIVE - I212 Tree Work - Crown Reduction                                                 

2001/1320/CH

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

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

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham the Hill

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

Applicant:      JAMES RICHARDSON

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Tree Preservation Order

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The Chiltern District Council (Land at Raans County Secondary School, Quill Hall Lane/Raans Road, Amersham) Tree Preservation Order 1989 (No 22 of 1989) covering 2 groups of trees and 16 individual trees, including T7, a maple.

91/0756/CH     Outline application for residential development with open space. Conditional permission.

94/0524/CH     Erection of 91 houses, garages, parking areas, estate roads and two new vehicular accesses onto Quill Hall Lane (details pursuant to 91/0756/CH). Conditional consent.

94/0823/CH     Felling of a horse chestnut, crown lifting of a Norway maple and remedial work to fifteen Norway maples, a cedar and a horse chestnut. Conditional permission.

95/0834/CH     Crown lifting, crown thinning and reshaping of three horse chestnuts; crown lifting of a maple and a cedar; and cutting back of two horse chestnuts. Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

Maple – remove low branch towards neighbour’s house – also one other projection branch – crown thin 10%.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approve – subject to Forestry Officer approval.

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant:     Reason for application is to allow light into back garden of 2 Malden Close.

One letter of support from a neighbour.

Two letters from neighbours having no objection.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Large Norway maple in rear garden of property – lower branches previously removed up to height of about 7m – two branches at height of about 8m extending beyond general shape of crown, including one over adjacent garden – some minor crown thinning and shaping acceptable.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy TW2 

ISSUES

1.     The Norway maple is situated in the rear garden of the property but part of the crown of the tree is visible from several surrounding public viewpoints.

2.     Several lower branches have previously been removed from the tree but it is considered that minor crown thinning and some minor shaping, including the removal of two lower branches projecting beyond the general shape of the crown, would not have a significant adverse effect on the appearance of the tree.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

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

(2) The tree surgery hereby approved shall not exceed crown thinning by 10% and minor re-shaping of the crown, by the removal of two lower branches extending beyond the general shape of the crown.

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

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

(2) INFORMATIVE - I212 Tree Work - Crown Reduction                                                 

2001/1354/CH

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     21/06/01     Decide by Date:     15/08/01

Parish:     Seer Green     Ward:     Seer Green & Jordans

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

Applicant:      CAPABILITIES LANDSCAPES

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Adjoining Green Belt

Class C Road

North Thames Gas pipeline

adj Biological Notification site

Tree Preservation Order

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The Chiltern District Council (Land at the rear of Long Grove, Bottom Lane and Longbottom Lane, Seer Green) Tree Preservation Order 1987 (No 20 of 1987) covering an area of trees.

00/1230/CH     Redevelopment to provide replacement house with attached double garage. Conditional permission.

01/0630/CH     Re-positioning of vehicular access. Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

Felling of 10 silver birch, 2 cherry trees, 1 field maple, 1 hornbeam and 2 oaks.

Recoppicing of two beech.

Pollarding of an oak at 12 metres above ground level.

REPRESENTATIONS

Agent:     Submitted Arboricultural Report.  Woodland in need of some proactive management to remove the overmature trees that are inhibiting future growth of some fine young beech and hornbeam.  Trees proposed for felling are all overmature – two beech for recoppicing are overmature – oak for pollarding is overmature – mature oak is in sound and healthy condition but has damaged lower lateral at 5m above ground level.  Trees to be removed to be replaced on one for one basis with 4 oak, 4 beech, 4 hornbeam, 2 cherry and 2 field maple.

Further letter from agent stating that in anticipation of receiving approval to carry out works, as works are in accordance with sound woodland management, work scheduled for two months after submission of application – have taken advice and still propose to commence works in accordance with programme.

Three letters objecting to the proposal making the following points:

a) TPO made to protect precious area of woodland and natural habitat of immense amount of wildlife.

b) Reduced privacy for property to rear.

c) No reason for felling so many healthy trees.

d) Tree removal would make house very visible.

e) Tree removal would have large impact on woodland.

f) Drastic pruning of beech and oak would be detrimental to shape and health of trees.

g) Developer trying to gain larger rear garden than would otherwise be possible.

h) All applications for tree removal should be at the same time as the building application.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Area of woodland between properties in Long Bottom Lane and Long Grove – remnant of ancient woodland consisting largely of beech, hornbeam and oak, mainly coppiced, with some birch, cherry and field maple.

Most of proposed work, particularly felling, now carried out – slight erosion of woodland area by regrading for lawn - woodland appears to have been neglected for many years with generally tall, closely spaced trees with limited low branching – birches and cherries have shorter life-span and nearing end of useful lives – work considered reasonable woodland management provided adequate replacement planting to ensure long-term continuity of woodland.

Report also proposes some work under condition of 00/1230/CH – large conifer on front boundary already removed for visibility at new access – proposed removal of conifers close to new house unlikely to have significant effect on screening.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy TW2 

ISSUES

1.     The woodland is situated at the rear of the new house currently nearing completion, with limited visibility from public viewpoints.

2.     The proposed woodland work has now largely been carried out and would be considered to be reasonable management provided there is adequate replacement planting as proposed in the Arboricultural Report.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

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

(2) A replanting scheme consisting of feathered standards of four oak, four beech, four hornbeam, two cherry and two field maple shall be carried out in the wooded area to the rear of the dwelling as proposed in the Arboricultural Report submitted with the application not later than the end of the first planting season following the date of implementation of this consent and shall be maintained thereafter in accordance with the provisions of the existing Tree Preservation Order unless any variation to this requirement has previously been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to maintain the special character of the area, which was the reason for the making of the Tree Preservation Order.

(1) INFORMATIVE - You are advised that the other trees included in the application are not protected by a Tree Preservation Order but are covered by a condition of the planning permission for the development (ref: 2001/1230/CH) which requires the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority for any work to the trees or hedges on the site for a period of five years from the date of implementation of the permission. In this case there would be no objection to the proposed works as specified in your application provided the group of cypress are replaced by eight feathered standard beech.

2001/1375/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     13/08/01     Decide by Date:     07/10/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Giles     Ward:     Seer Green & Jordans

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR J LEWIS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt settlement GB5

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Mineral Consultation Area

THE APPLICATION

A single storey rear extension infilling the 4m wide and 1.5m deep so as to bring flush the rear elevation. Aloft this extension is proposed a flat roof, with railings at 3.6m above the terrace below, forming a balcony area. A doorway will be opened up in the dormer window, which overlooks this platform, and a gable will be constructed over the flat roofed dormer (2.5m wide and 1.6m high).

To the front of the property is a 4m wide flat roofed dormer, the applicant proposes to complete the new build by raising the centre section of this window (2m wide) up by a further 2.5m to a gabled roof.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, GB5, H13, H13, H14, H15, H17, H18, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The application seeks approval for a number of alterations in the renovation of a modest detached house in the Green Belt Settlement of Jordans. Most of the alterations are to the rear of the property, leaving the alterations to the front dormer window the only works visible from a public viewpoint. Currently a flat roofed structure, the wide low window had few architectural merits, contributing little to this facade. The elevation of its central section and pitching it up to an unusual gable is an original and acceptable addition to the property and the wider street scene. Although the resulting structure is fairly large, the roof on which it sits is also very large (and steep) and as such the new build is considered well proportioned and not out of character. Local Plan Policy H18 is not in breach.

2.     The gable to the rear dormer window likewise is acceptable on the rear roof slope and complies with Local Plan Policy.

3.     To the rear of the property the infill extension replaces that of a canopied area and will not greatly alter the elevation or raise any amenity or design issues. The balcony above though does give the occupants an elevated position from which to view over the rear garden dropping to the fields beyond. The boundaries to either side are at great enough distances with hedging between 2 and 3m in height so as to inhibit any invasion of privacy to neighbouring gardens from this platform.

4.     The general alteration to the rear elevation is subtle and smallscale, raising no concerns over its design in terms of Local Plan Policy GC1 and H15.

5.     The property has a single integral garage and can cater for two carparking spaces on the front driveway, satisfying Local Plan Policy 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

2001/1377/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     10/08/01     Decide by Date:     04/10/01

Parish:     Amersham - Little Chalfont     Ward:     Little Chalfont

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR W BUNTING

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Class A Road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

(Plotting card missing)

93/1333/CH     Satellite dish in rear garden, approved.

THE APPLICATION

The proposed conservatory would be 6m deep, 5.35m in width and to a height of 3.76m.

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 conservatory is acceptable and although a large and deep projection to the rear of the dwelling it is not considered that any objections could be raised to the impact upon the character of the area.

2.     Despite being relatively deep, the alignment of the neighbouring properties is such that it is not considered that any significantly adverse impact upon the neighbouring property would result.

3.     No adverse car parking issues arise, no objections are raised under Polices 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) C403 Landscaping - retain hedge on eastern bndy at 2m. Height

2001/1380/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     13/08/01     Decide by Date:     07/10/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Giles-Little Chalfont     Ward:     Chalfont St Giles

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS STUART

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Adjoining Green Belt

Class C Road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/618/69     Garage, approved.

CH/1797/76     Single storey side extension, approved.

THE APPLICATION

The rear conservatory has a maximum width of 5.58m and a maximum depth of 5m, its ridge height would be 4m.

PARISH COUNCIL

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, TR11 & TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The design of the conservatory is considered acceptable, respecting the scale and proportions of the existing dwelling and being at the rear of the dwelling would not have an adverse effect upon the character of the area.

2.     No objections are raised with regard to the impact upon the neighbouring properties.

3.     No adverse car parking issues arise.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

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

2001/1381/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     13/08/01     Decide by Date:     07/10/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Chalfont Common

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS DURNING

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Mineral Consultation Area

THE APPLICATION

A single storey side extension, 10.4m long (flush with the front and rear elevation) and 2.1m wide. A hipped roof is proposed over the entire structure including the existing single-storey flat roofed front projection at 3.6m in height.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter from neighbouring residents raising the following comments:

Neighbours to the above mentioned property, support the proposed application as detailed above. We are of the view that the proposed plans will enhance the visual aspect of the house and thus the road, thereby improving the value of the property.

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 to the side of a modern detached property in the built up area of Chalfont St. Peter. The extension is relatively small scale when viewed from the front and therefore has little impact on the street scene. Furthermore an open pillared storage area exists in this position and therefore the proposal will not be much larger in volume than that currently standing in this position (only longer and with a shallow roof).

2.     The property is one of five identical houses along this section of Nortoft Road, to which others have extended in this position (along the right-hand flank) including the immediate neighbour (No. 72) at two-stories.

3.     No flank windows exist to the left-hand side of No. 72, so as to gain a view over the new build. Therefore the structure is considered to be acceptable in terms of Local Plan Amenity Policy GC3, H13 and H14.

4.     The integral single garage and forecourt space leading to it amply cater for the off street 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) C431 Materials of Development to Match Those of Existing Building

2001/1382/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     13/08/01     Decide by Date:     07/10/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Chalfont St Peter Central

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS C EDMONDS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Northolt Airfield safeguarding zone

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/2508/72     Alterations and additions.

CH/2270/78     Two-storey rear extension, approved, ground floor only implemented.

CH/675/83     Erection of replacement garage, approved and implemented.

THE APPLICATION

The single storey rear extension would have a floor area of 3.5m in width by 3.12m in depth.  The eaves would be at approximately 2.2m with a pitched roof over to a ridge at 3.5m.

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.     No objections are raised to the design of the proposal which would not have an adverse impact upon the character of the area and has been designed to respect the scale and proportions of the existing dwelling.  

2.     The proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring properties.  The dwelling most affected would be No.13 Joiners Close, this bungalow is set at a lower level than the application site and at the rear of its garden is a number of sheds and greenhouses, these together with the fence in between and the minimal size of the proposal should prevent the extension having an adverse impact upon the amenities of this dwelling.

3.     No adverse car parking implications result, 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

2001/1384/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     13/08/01     Decide by Date:     07/10/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Giles     Ward:     Chalfont St Giles

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS J SPENCER

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

94/1045/CH   Part two-storey, part single-storey rear extension, single storey extension linking house to garage.

THE APPLICATION

Currently the property has a detached garage sited at a 1m distance to the south, sited at 45 degree to the house. The proposal is for a single storey rear extension that projects 2.1m to the rear and across the right-hand side of the property by 3.7m. This structure is then angled back towards the garage to infill the void between the two. A pitched roof sits aloft at 4.7m (measured to the ground to the front elevation).

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections.

REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters from neighbouring residents raising no objections to the application.

The lie of the land where construction would take place, is such that intrusion on public view would be virtually negligible.

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 discrete extension to the rear and side of a property in the built up area of Chalfont St. Giles. Lower Cottage is sunken down from the road by 2.5m and therefore in conjunction with the nature of the extension (an infill to the rear of the property) the application is considered small scale and subordinate on the front aspect of the property. Local Plan Policy GC1 and H15 have been taken into consideration in the conception of this scheme.

2.     The site falls from east to west and therefore the extension (which is on the western elevation) appears slightly more prominent. The structure can only really be seen clearly from the rear of No. 36 Kings Road and ‘Steppes’ (Stylecroft Road). But in neither case is it considered to be detrimental to these neighbours current amenity.

3.     Although the extension will use up the majority of space between the property and the western boundary, it preserves a reasonably sized garden to the north and is smaller than the extensions across the entire rear of the property granted conditional permission under application 94/1045/CH.

4.     The single garage and forecourt, which can cater for two cars, satisfies 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) C431 Materials of Development to Match Those of Existing Building

(3) Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, the existing fence on the western boundary of the site shall be increased in height by the addition of trellis to an overall height of 2.3m in accordance with the plans hereby approved. Reason: In order to ensure the privacy of the occupiers of the adjoining properties.

2001/1386/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     13/08/01     Decide by Date:     07/10/01

Parish:     Amersham - Little Chalfont     Ward:     Little Chalfont

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS N DIXON

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Adjoining Green Belt

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

00/0797/CH   Dormer window in front elevation and extension to dormer windows in rear elevation.   Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

A single storey extension in the angle between the flank of the property and the front of the garage, 2.85m wide (flush with side of garage) and 3.1m deep (flush with front elevation of property). The side garage currently has a single storey rear arrangement of brick structures, this ad hoc development is proposed to be demolished and replaced by another single storey structure 4.4m deep and 3.45m wide. The whole of the garage and its subsequent additions will be capped by a hipped roof between 4.1m and 4.7m high (varying due to the fall in land). To the rear right-hand side of the property is a sun lounge, which is to be demolished and replaced by a conservatory 5.2m wide and 3.1m deep with hipped roof at 3.3m high.

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 site is located in the built up area of Little Chalfont, in a semi rural environment of varied but modest detached properties. Other than the side extension to the front of the garage, the extensions are largely replacing existing structures and only marginally increasing their size. Both developments to the rear of the property are intended to improve the decaying structures currently in place and in the case of the extension to the rear of the garage, to co-ordinate it with the proportions of the main body of the garage. As such the new build has considered Local Plan Policies GC1 and H15 in terms of design and will generate no real increased impact over neighbours.

2.     The conservatory has a solid, blank flank, which will generate no overlooking towards No. 74. Likewise the flank of the garage is without fenestration and therefor neighbours at No. 70 will also preserve their privacy. The fencing and hedging to the remainders of the rear garden boundaries ensures that the amenity currently enjoyed by the neighbourhood will largely remain the same. As such Local Plan Policy GC3, H13 and H14 are satisfied.

3.     The relocation of the integral garage forwards in line with the main elevation both satisfies the street scene and Policy TR11 and TR16. The garage is accessed via the gravelled over front garden and provides adequate off street car parking.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

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

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

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

2001/1391/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     14/08/01     Decide by Date:     08/10/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Chalfont St Peter Central

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS S DOWLER

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Unclassified road

Northolt Airfield safeguarding zone

Mineral Consultation Area

THE APPLICATION

The two-storey extension would replace the existing flat roofed structure.  The proposal would extend by 1m at ground floor level in front of the main front elevation and would be approximately 12.3m in depth while at first floor level the extension would be 9.7m deep with a dormer window in its front elevation.  The eaves would match those of the existing dwelling, with the ridge at 6.5m (for reference the existing dwelling’s ridge is at 7.3m).  The proposed conservatory would be 4.3m in depth and 3.1m in width, not extending further to the rear than the main two-storey extension.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letter from occupier of ‘Fingest’ registering full support for this application, stating that it should improve the look and amenities of this property.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1.     The flank wall at first floor level would be within approximately 1m of the boundary with ‘Simla’.  While the wider area of Chalfont Heights is considered to be characterised by spacious layouts with large gaps between dwellings and their respective flank site boundaries.  However, a number of properties in the vicinity, (e.g. Simla, Edgehill & Tall Trees), do not reflect this spacious character.  It is therefore considered that, on balance, that the proposal would not appear significantly cramped or overbearing in the street scene, as such, no objections are raised under Policies H11 & H16.  In this respect it is noted that the proposed extension is clearly subordinate to the scale of the existing dwelling, with its front elevation, in this instance a dormer window, being set behind the front elevation of the main dwelling.

2.     The extension is not considered to adversely impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring properties.  In respect of ‘Simla’, to the east, although the extension would project beyond its rear elevation, it is not considered to be especially overbearing.  No objections are therefore raised under Policies GC2, GC3, H13 and H14.

3.     Sufficient car parking is provided off-street to comply with Polices 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 first floor of both flank elevations of extension.

(4) C176 Obscure glass in single first floor level window in NE elevation

2001/1393/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     14/08/01     Decide by Date:     08/10/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Chalfont St Peter Central

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR A MCCANN

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

95/0741/CH   Alterations and first floor rear extension.   Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

A 3m deep and 5.9m wide first floor extension (the full width of the house) pitched into a gable 7m above the slab (continuing the ridge and roof slope of the main body of the house).

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1.     The application is to the rear of a detached property in the built up area of Chalfont St. Peter. The proposal is not considered to adversely affect the amenity of adjoining properties, given the spacing which exists between them. There should be no significant increase in current levels of overlooking. Furthermore an identical scheme received approval under application 95/0741/CH and similar extensions have taken place at No’s. 10 and 18.

2.     The single garage and driveway cater for Local Plan Policy TR11 and TR16, which require three off street car parking spaces.

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) C174 No additional windows in north and south elevations of extension

2001/1394/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     15/08/01     Decide by Date:     09/10/01

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham Common

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS N CARROLL

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Thames Water - groundwater protection zone

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

85/294/CH     Single storey front and side extension including garage. Approved and implemented.

00/0637/CH     Conversion of garage into living accommodation. Approved but not implemented.

01/0187/CH     Part first floor , part two-storey side / front extension.  Refused by reason of its size, height, forward projection and roof design, which does not integrate well with the main roof of the house,  would appear as an incongruous addition to the front of this dwelling and detract from the appearance of the house. The scheme would therefore result in the dwelling having an adverse effect on the street scene.

THE APPLICATION

The proposal involves the demolition of the garage and the erection of an extension that would be approximately 4.5m wide and projecting forward of the main front elevation by 2.45m.  The first floor side extension would extend to the rear to be level with the main rear elevation, at this point the extension would be 2m in width.  The eaves would match those of the existing dwelling with the main ridgeline extended across to enable the roofline to blend in with the forward part of the extension, the ridgeline over which is to be 7m in height.

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, H16, TR11, and TR16.

ISSUES

1.     With reference to the reason for refusal noted above, and to the officer’s report in connection with the previously refuse application, which noted that ‘in view of the design of the extension it would appear as an incongruous addition to the dwelling, appearing ‘separate’ to the main dwelling and not as an integral part...it is therefore considered that the extension would have an adverse effect on the character of the dwelling, which would adversely affect the street scene’, it is considered that the amended design has overcome the previous objections to the scheme.  Although deeper than that previously refused, it is considered that the extension does not now appear as an incongruous addition, as such it would not have an adverse effect on the character of the dwelling and the street scene.

2.     The proposed extension would be clearly visible from the adjacent property No.12. This property has four windows in the flank facing the application site however none of these windows appear to serve habitable rooms. It is not considered that it would have an adverse effect on the amenities enjoyed by these neighbouring residents.  It is noted that this was not raised as a reason for refusal under the previous application.

3.     Adequate on site parking space for three cars.

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 first floor of eastern elevation of extension.

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

2001/1401/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     20/08/01     Decide by Date:     14/10/01

Parish:     Chesham Bois     Ward:     Chesham Bois & Weedon

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      G D FINN ESQ

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

91/0345/CH   Single storey and rear extension.   Withdrawn.

91/0699/CH   Single storey front and rear extension.   Conditional permission.

96/1454/CH   Part two-storey part single storey front extension.   Conditional permission.

98/0660/CH   Detached dwelling house served by new access from Amersham Road.   Refused.

THE APPLICATION

A part two-storey and part single-storey rear extension. A 4m deep extension is proposed across the rear of the property (from flank to flank), the first 4.6m to the left-hand side is at two-storey, while the remainders is at single storey. The two storey hipped roof is at 6.75m in height while the single storey element is only 3.6m in height.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters from neighbouring residents raising no objections:

Should this permission be granted, I ask that a condition be imposed that no further windows shall be inserted or constructed at any time at first floor level or above in the southern elevation of the building in order to protect the privacy of the adjoining property, Woodbury.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1.     The application seeks approval for development to the rear of the property. The house is situated on a ‘T’ shaped plot of land fronting both Chiltern Road and Amersham Road. The property backs onto Amersham Road and a well treed garden ensuring that the extension will not be visible from any public viewpoint. As such the townscape of Chesham Bois and the Established Residential Area of Special Character in which the property sits will not be affected.

2.     The application site has dense trees to the southern boundary and 4m high laurels to the northern boundary. Although the neighbouring property ‘Lorien’ has a degree of visibility into the rear garden of the applicant, it will not be affected by the extension, and light and privacy will continue as before.

3.     Application 91/0699/CH granted permission for a single storey extension across the rear of the property varying between 3 and 4m in depth. Therefore the only real difference between this and the current application is the first floor element which is well distanced from any neighbouring property and as such complies with Local Plan Policy GC3, H13 and H14.

4.     The detached double garage and double breadth forecourt more than cater for 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) C431 Materials of Development to Match Those of Existing Building

(3) The extension to the rear (eastern) part of the house hereby permitted shall not have any additional windows in any of its three elevations installed at any time. Reason: To protect the amenities and privacy of the adjoining property.

2001/1415/CH

Case Officer:      Iwan Jones

Date Received:     21/08/01     Decide by Date:     15/10/01

Parish:     Amersham - Little Chalfont     Ward:     Little Chalfont

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      AMERSHAM PLC

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Employment Area for Business , General Industry, Storage or Distribution

Class A Road

Floor Space

Codes:     MF

Proposed (m2):     30

Displaced (m2):     0

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

Numerous planning applications relate to the site although none are of direct relevance to this application.

THE APPLICATION

The application relates to the stationing of a portacabin to support existing laboratories to building 23 for a temporary period of two years. It would measure 3m wide, 10m long and 3.5m high above ground level.

TOWN COUNCIL

Approve.

CONSULTATIONS

District Principal Environmental Health Officer: Enquiries confirmed portacabin only. Satisfied Health Physics will control off site material.

Nuclear Installations Inspectorate:

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1.     Having regard to the siting of the portacabin at the heart of the site and to its scale and height, it would not be visible from outside the site. No objection raised in relation to Policies GC1 and GC3.

2.     The portacabin would be sited adjacent to Building 23 where its duty would be to support existing laboratories within this building. As such, the building would not result in increased employment on site. No objections raised in relation to Policies TR11 and TR16.       

3.     An amount of planting in the form of two trees and some shrubs would be lost due to the siting of the portacabin. However, it is considered that this would be minimal and is indicated on the submitted plan that the trees and shrubs would be replanted after completion.     

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) C112 Limited Period Until two years from the date of this permission - building or structure

2001/1418/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     22/08/01     Decide by Date:     16/10/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Chalfont Common

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS D MURPHY

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Adjoining Green Belt

Unclassified road

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

00/0618/CH   Part two-storey, part single-storey rear/side extension.

THE APPLICATION

The current bungalow is 9.1m wide and 9.7m deep with a hipped roof to 6.3m in height. A flat roofed garage abuts the south western flank, flush with the front elevation (3.1m wide and 4.7m deep).

The proposal is to extend the entire rear elevation of the property by 6m, including the section across the rear of the garage (itself to be rebuilt to the same width of 3.1m). The current ridge, which runs across the front of the property, will be extended to 3.1m in length so as to extend over the garage. The roof will then be extended to the rear of the structure with a flat roof constructed above the ridges. The new roof space will house a first floor with two dormer windows in the front elevation, each 2m wide and 2.3m to the ridge of the hipped roofs. The development will be completed by a single storey flat roofed rear extension 9m wide and 3.2m deep (flush with the north east flank).

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1.     The application seeks approval for the renovation of a modest bungalow in the built up area of Chalfont St. Peter into a chalet type dwelling amending the permission granted under application 00/0618/CH. The application is the same height as this previous approval (6.7m in height) but shorter and wider in footprint. The proposal fills the width of its plot more than before but preserves a 1m gap to the south west and a 1.7m gap to the north east boundary so as to comply with Local Plan Policy H11 and H16. The length of the main part of the property has been reduced by 3.3m and side window arrangements have changed little. As such local amenity issues have not worsened since the previous application. Local Plan Policy GC3, H13 and H14 have been complied with.

2.     The conservatory and front windows of No. 14 are beyond a 1.8m fence and partial hedging therefore preserving current light availability and privacy, while No. 10 only has a secondary window to the side. Both neighbours have higher roof ridges and will not be subject to loss of amenity.

3.     This amended scheme involves a flat roof at first floor level. As this roof is concealed aloft the front and side roof slopes, the property appears to be pitched from all public angles, it is not until the property is viewed from the rear its true structure is revealed. Local Plan Policy H15 states that the roof of a two-storey extension should normally be hipped or pitched, and integrated into the existing roof. Due to the long roof slope the flat roof being well disguised it is not considered detrimental to the street scene.

4.     The two dormer windows to the front elevation are not small, but do respect the scale of the roof slope on which they are positioned. They generate no overlooking to neighbouring private amenity space and comply with Local Plan Policy H18.

5.     Parking provision for three vehicles clear of the highway would be maintained. No objection under Policies TR11 and TR16.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

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

(3) C177 Obscure glass in multiple windows in east elevation - 1st floor only

(4) C196 Ancillary residential buildings at 12 Nortoft Road, Chalfont St. Peter - garage

2001/1419/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     21/08/01     Decide by Date:     15/10/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Chalfont St Peter Central

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      WADDINGTON HOMES LTD

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Unclassified road

Northolt Airfield safeguarding zone

Mineral Consultation Area

THE APPLICATION

A single storey side extension to the replace the existing carport and extend backwards of it. The extension will be 9.1m deep and 3.1m wide (flush with the front elevation and projecting 0.4m to the rear). A fake-hipped roof is 3.7m above the ground and caps the structure. To the front elevation will be the new garage door and the existing right-hand garage door will be bricked up.

Above the single storey rear element (in the angle to the rear right-hand side of the house) is proposed a 5.2m wide and 3m deep extension, to sit flush with the two-storey rear and side elevation). A rear facing gabled roof will be pitched to match the existing gable to the rear elevation at 8.2m.

The works will be completed by a 0.9m deep canopy will link the garage 5.4m across over the existing porch.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections.

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter from neighbouring residents raising the following comments:

1.     Front elevation of property on plans is not commensurate with the existing property, drawn instead to show how it will finish up.

2.     My predecessors with the permission of the then owner some forty years ago, actually constructed brick wall, which is a retaining wall along the boundary and in so doing constructed a brick arch and gateway that is bonded into the brick piers of the current carport. Clearly any change to this structure will have severe impact on this arch and gateway.

3.     If the new build is built up to the alleged boundary line, then the roof and guttering etc will overhang our property.

4.     The buildings future work and maintenance etc clearly leads to the need for access to our land and can not be an acceptable option.

5.     Five years ago the previous owner took it upon himself to dispute this boundary, a situation that was never fully resolved, the owner moving away at this time leaving the house empty to the present day. He did employ surveyors who measured the whole site and I believe that outcome showed that the true line of the boundary moved further into his property.

6.     Has been suggested to the agent that the new build line be moved to the right slightly to enable a small maintenance access way between the resulting building and the existing boundary wall, thereby also removing the overhang problem.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1.     The application seeks approval for extensions to the side and rear of a property as part of a project to renovate a derelict house in the Chalfont Heights Estate in the built up area and Established Residential Area of Special Character of Chalfont St. Peter. The site boundary is defined by 1.8m fencing, which encloses a secluded rear garden and therefore the first floor extension will not be visible to the neighbouring residents or the street scene.

2.     Amended plans indicate the side extension to be located 0.4m in from the boundary. The new garage will marginally reduce the volume of the current carport, when viewed from the front elevation, and the single storey addition to its rear will follow along this line, inset from the boundary. The extension as such will be considered acceptable in terms of Local Plan Policy H17. As the flank to ‘Toplars’ is without windows then the structure can not be seen to encroach on the privacy or diminish the light availability to this neighbour and Local Plan Policy GC3, H13 and H14 are complied with.

3.     The drawings state that alterations will be made to the front elevation of the property, including the introduction of a canopy from the porch across the integral garages. This will not be considered out of character with the property and will not detrimentally affect the appearance of the street scene. Local Plan Policy GC1 and H15 has be considered in the design of this project.

4.     The conversion of the existing right-hand garage into habitable floor space and the conversion of the carport into an integral garage secure a double integral garage in the property and will be accessed by a large forecourt. As such adequate off street parking in provided 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) C431 Materials of Development to Match Those of Existing Building

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

(4) C135 Single plan amended by plans (nos 1A) received on 18/09/01

2001/1424/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     22/08/01     Decide by Date:     16/10/01

Parish:     Amersham - Little Chalfont     Ward:     Little Chalfont

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS HORTON

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

92/0661/CH   Single storey front extension.   Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

A single storey rear side extension in the angle between the existing flank and the rear of the integral garage, 4.6m wide and 4.2m deep (projecting beyond the side of the garage but flush with the rear elevation). A further 7m is also proposed to the rear of this, 5.5m wide and inset from the corner of the previous element by 1.1m. The whole structure is capped by a hipped roof continuing that over the garage at 4.5m to the ridge.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approve.

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter from neighbouring resident raising no objections, only enquiring as to why approval is being sought for work which commenced at least a fortnight ago and is still in progress.

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 a single storey side rear extension in the built up area of Little Chalfont although not considered small, is not so large that it substantiate refusal on grounds of its size in relationship to the rear elevation of the property. The depth of the extension constitutes a significant extension to the property, but is located on the south west side of the rear garden, where it is not adjacent to a neighbour but rather the road. The neighbour at No. 85 has no windows from which to view the extension and the neighbour to the rear is screened by mature leylandii. As such the structure does not threaten the current amenity enjoyed by the residents of the neighbourhood. Local Plan Policy GC3, H13 and H14 have been complied with.

2.     The 1.8m wall that runs to the boundary of the property abutting the highway and will obscure all but the top 0.7m of the flank wall and roof of the extension. Therefore the new build will not greatly alter the appearance of the street scene in ‘The Retreat’.

3.     The property currently has a side integral garage and forecourt space in front. As the property already exceeds 120sq.m. habitable floor space, then an additional off street parking space can not be requested 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