Meeting documents

2001/45/TC

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     30-Aug-01     Decide by Date:     11-Oct-01

Parish:     Great Missenden     Ward:     Great Missenden

App Type:     Work to unpreserved trees in Conservation Area

Applicant:      N F PEARCE

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Great Missenden Conservation Area

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

River Chess & River Misbourne - area liable to flood

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

adj Biological Notification site

Archaeological site

Within curtilage of Listed Building - affects setting

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

92/0008/TC     Removal of one pine and one fir tree. No TPO made.

92/0031/TC     Removal of a branch from a pine tree, cutting back of branches on a maple tree and reduction of branches on three willow trees. No TPO made.

94/0029/TC     Pollarding of a willow. No TPO made.

THE APPLICATION

Removal of a large branch from a willow.

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant:     The branch is falling into the river and its smaller branches and foliage could damage an old boundary wall if it collapses further.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Large old willow beside River Misbourne – previously reduced and pollarded under 92/0031/CH and 94/0029/CH – decay present at base – large side limb gradually collapsing towards old walls and vegetation beside river – sensible to remove to avoid further damage.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy CA5 

ISSUES

1.     The tree is situated in the garden of the dwelling beside the River Misbourne with limited visibility from public viewpoints.

2.     The stem of the willow tree proposed for removal is gradually collapsing towards the river and it is considered that it would be sensible to remove it before it causes significant damage. A Tree Preservation Order would therefore not be appropriate.

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

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

2001/1402/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     16-Aug-01     Decide by Date:     10-Oct-01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Chalfont St Peter Central

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      CLUB SECRETARY

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Class A Road

No road access

Northolt Airfield safeguarding zone

Denham Airfield safeguarding zone

Colne Valley Park

Area of Special Advertisement Control

adj Biological Notification site

Site within 250 m. of active or disused rubbish tip

Mineral Consultation Area

THE APPLICATION

7th Hole’s Pond – the pond would be extended in a south-easterly direction by approximately 5m, the resultant pond would be approximately 1.5m deep.  When approaching from the south the pond would slope away with a gentle 1 in 3 slope, further east the slope would be steeper with a 45 degree incline.  At this hole three trees are indicated to be retained.

9th Hole’s Pond – this hole would be extended to the north by approximately 4m and to the south by approximately 4-5m.  The tee-side banking would be re-graded to 1 in 3, a slight regarding would take place on the eastern bank and further to the south-eastern corner of the pond the steep bank would be retained and would introduce more bankside vegetation.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection

REPRESENTAIONS

The applicant’s have submitted a supporting statement which could be summarised as follows –

1.     The club’s Consultant Ecologist has identified a number of areas for increased wildlife as ecological management principles are incorporated into the management of the site, one of which is the two ponds on the course.

2.     There are two ponds in the northerly part of the site that have been recommended for development for both the benefit of wildlife and the enjoyment of golfers.  One of the ponds is gradually silting up and becoming overgrown, the other is believed to be a shallow bomb crater with very little diversity of species.

3.     The proposals are to extend both ponds by several metres, creating shelving slopes down to the water levels of about 1:3.  Two or three trees would be removed from around ponds on the 7th hole in order to prevent excessive leaf litter and acid leaf drip entering the water body and to reduce shade.

The supporting information submitted with the application included extracts from reports provided by the Club’s ecological advisor (Ecological appraisal (September 1999), First Ecological Monitoring Appraisal (August 2000), Ecological Monitoring Appraisal (May 2001), an extract from a book entitled ‘A Practical Guide to the Ecological Management of the Golf Course’ 1995, the introduction and section covering water features from the Club’s ecological policy (Land Management Policy) 2001, a copy of a report by the Buckinghamshire community Conservation Officer for the Berkshire / Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire wildlife Trust (August 2001).

CONSULTATIONS

Colne Valley Working Party –

1.     Welcome proposals by the Golf Club to enhance the wildlife interest of the site and the detailed explanation of its proposals.  The explanation of the need for the loss of the three trees close to the edge of the pond at the 7th hole, in order to enhance the quality of the pond for its flora and fauna, is noted

2.     Key aim No.3 for the Colne Valley Park refers to the enhancement of nature conservation resources of the Colne Valley Park.

3.     Therefore I have no objection to the proposals subject to there being no objection to the scheme from the Bucks County Museum.  The Museum has been consulted on this application in order to give their advice on the wildlife impact of the proposals, in terms of the nearby Biological Notification Sites.

Bucks County Museum (Biological Notification Site) – No comment to add.

District Forestry Officer – Seventh hole:-

     Four ash trees on edge of existing pond

     Appears proposal is to remove just these trees

     Other trees in vicinity including several oaks

     One of supporting documents refers to tree removal within 10 metres of pond

No objection to loss of four ashes but would be concerned about extensive tree loss

     However loss may not be significant in context of whole area

     In any event would hope better quality trees would be retained

Ninth hole - No trees affected

Environment Agency (Waste Regulation) –  No objection subject to a condition.

County Archaeological Service – The scheme is too small scale to have any significant implications in this location.

POLICIES

The Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991 – 2011 Policy NC3

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC3, GC4, GB2, GB28, GB30, R15, NC1, NC2,

ISSUES

1.     The proposal accords with Structure Plan Policy NC3 which supports initiatives leading to the management and enhancement of the nature conservation value of rural areas throughout the County.  No objection under Green Belt Policies.

2.     The scheme would be entirely appropriate in the A.O.N.B., as it would conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the landscape.  From the literature received as part of the supporting information, it is apparent that the proposal would enhance the wildlife and ecological aspect of the ponds.  No objection under GC4.

3.     Given the nature of the works proposed and the siting of the two ponds, no adverse amenity issues are raised.  No objection under Policy GC3.

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

(1) INFORMATIVE - The applicant is advised that the District Forestry Officer has raised concerns as to the extent of the tree loss refered to in the supporting documents, namely the reference to the removal of trees within 10 metres of the pond on the 7th hole.  Although the loss may not be significant in the context of the whole area, it is hoped that the better quality trees would be retained.

2001/1412/CH

Case Officer:      Iwan Jones

Date Received:     20-Aug-01     Decide by Date:     14-Oct-01

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham Town

App Type:     Application for Listed Building Consent

Applicant:      SIMON BRIDBURY DEVELOPMENTS (ST ALBANS) LTD

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Amersham Old Town Conservation Area

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

Ground floor residential use Amersham Old town and Chalfont St Giles

Traffic calming scheme for Amersham Old Town

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Thames Water - groundwater protection zone

Grade 2 Listed Building

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The site has been subject to numerous planning applications in the past, none of which relate to this application.

THE APPLICATION

An application has been submitted for listed building consent for the replacement of casements to three dormer windows and replacement of defective sashes to first floor windows with replicas to match existing. The building is of Grade II status.

TOWN COUNCIL

Approve.

CONSULTATIONS

Historic Buildings Officer: The dormer casements to be replaced are recent and poorly constructed, with a pattern of glazing bars that does not accord with the sash windows below. The simpler proposed casements will be an improvement. Repair or replacement of the first-floor sashes has become necessary as many of the joints are rotten. The complex key refers to the fact that full extent of replacement has yet to be determined, depending on the structural viability of the sashes once they have been removed and investigated. ‘Replacement to match existing’ should be understood as including the exact replication of the profile of the existing glazing bars. No objections to the application.

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 the new dormer casements proposed would replace those of poor construction hence representing an improvement. No objection is raised in relation to Policy LB1 to new dormer casements or to replacement of first floor sashes.

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) C437 Listed Building Materials - Affecting Interior and Exterior

2001/1421/CH

Case Officer:      Ray Martin

Date Received:     22-Aug-01     Decide by Date:     16-Oct-01

Parish:     Penn     Ward:     Penn

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      GUY HAIGH

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Class B Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/1656/60  Alterations.  Permitted development, implemented.

94/1231/CH  Demolition of existing house, erection of detached house with integral garage and elderly relatives annex and construction of access.  Withdrawn.

95/0425/CH  Alterations, pitched roof to existing dormer windows in north, south, east and west elevations, single storey extension to north and east elevations, two storey extension on west elevation to provide elderly relatives annex and detached domestic garage.  Permitted, but never implemented.

95/1013/CH  Demolition of existing house, garage and outbuildings, erection of detached house with integral garage and elderly relatives annex and construction of vehicular access. Refused, replacement dwelling substantially larger than the existing together with its approved extension and would erode the openness of the Green Belt and be visually intrusive in the landscape.  Appeal dismissed (ref: T/APP/X0415/A/96/264641/P7).

96/0226/CH  Demolition of existing house, garage and outbuildings and erection of detached house with elderly relatives annex and detached domestic double garage, closure of existing and construction of new vehicular access.  Permitted, but not implemented.

96/0898/CH  Demolition of existing house, garage and outbuildings and erection of detached house with elderly relatives annex and detached domestic double garage, closure of existing and construction of new vehicular access.  Permitted, but not implemented.

97/1304/CH  Erection of detached 3 storey house incorporating elderly relatives annex and basement, together with detached domestic double garage.  Closure of existing and construction of new vehicular access (amendment to planning permission 96/0898/CH).  Permitted, but not implemented.

98/0952/CH  Erection of detached house and basement and detached triple garage.  Closure of existing and construction of new vehicular access. Permitted, but not implemented.

98/1981/CH  Erection of detached house and basement including separate entrance to basement and linked triple garage.  Closure of existing and construction of new vehicular access (amendment to planning permission 98/0952/CH). Refused because would erode the openness of the Green Belt and be visually intrusive in the landscape.  Appeal allowed (ref: T/APP/X0415/A/99/1017825/P4), but not implemented.

98/1983/CH  Erection of detached house and basement with wall enclosure including link to triple garage.  Closure of existing and construction of new vehicular access (amendment to planning permission 98/0952/CH). Refused because would erode the openness of the Green Belt and be visually intrusive in the landscape. Appeal allowed (ref: T/APP/X0415/A/99/1017827/P4), but not implemented.

00/0820/CH  Erection of detached house, closure of existing and construction of new vehicular access.  Permitted and under construction.

00/1714/CH  Construction of earth bunds.  Permitted, but not yet implemented.

THE APPLICATION

Proposal comprises erection of detached triple garage and car port at the front (north western corner of the dwelling.  The garage building would be 10.6 metres wide and 6.5 metre deep, with a pitched roof to 5.5 metres in height. The side elevation of this building would be facing the front boundary of the site, but would be some 36 metres back from it.  The structure would be about 20 metres from the side boundary.  The garage would be 6.7 metres in front of the house, with this space comprising a covered car port, with a flat roof to a height of 3.1 metres.  The corner of this flat roof would be adjacent to the corner of the dwelling.  The proposal also includes the lopping of a tree in front of the dwelling and the removal of another close to the proposed garages.

PARISH COUNCIL

No comment.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser: No tree loss directly related to construction of garage.  Propose removal of major branch of walnut close to house.  Removal of branch would give tree more upright shape and improve relationship with house.  Would result in large cut with consequent risk of infection, however work considered reasonable.  Propose removal of yew tree to rear of proposed car port.  Close to three other yew trees, positions relative to house different from plan.  Useful amenity tree but not important for screening or prominent in public views.  Would hope could be retained but would not object to loss.

County Archaeological Officer: Penn is known to have been the centre of an important medieval and post-medieval pottery and tile manufacturing industry.  Remains are widespread in and around the village.  Given the scale of the development, in this case any consent should be subject to a condition requiring a programme of archaeological work to be undertaken.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GB2, GB15, LSQ1, GC3, TR11, TR16, TW4.

ISSUES

1.     The application site lies within the Green Belt and the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, wherein it is the Council’s policy to maintain the open and rural character of the countryside and the scenic beauty of the landscape.  In this context, ancillary residential outbuildings can be acceptable provided they are small and subordinate to the scale of the original dwelling to which they relate and are of a siting, design and appearance that would not be visually intrusive.

2.     In this case, the proposed garages would be in a building, which in isolation may not be described as small, but in the context of this site and house are not excessive.  The floor area of the building and its height is very much subordinate to the house and is well clear of the boundaries of the site.  Moreover, it would be the narrow side of the building which faces the road and visually the proposal would not significantly add to the bulk of buildings on the site.  The design is acceptable and provided matching materials are used the development would not be visually intrusive.

3.     The covered link to the house would maintain a visual gap between the garages and the dwelling in that it would be open sided and if maintained in this form would not be objectionable.

4.     The development is well clear of the neighbouring property, which in any event is extremely well screened from this property.  As such the proposal would not be detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of that property.

5.     There is more than adequate space within the site to provide car parking to meet the Council’s standards, without the proposed garages.

6.     The District Forestry and Landscape Adviser notes that the proposals to lop and remove trees are not related to this development.  However, such works require written consent in view of the condition requiring the retention of trees on the site when the new dwelling was granted planning permission under reference 00/0820/CH.  Therefore, an informative addressing this matter is considered appropriate.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

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

(3) C197 Ancillary residential buildings at Frascati - building other than garage

(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3(1) of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order), the development hereby permitted shall only be constructed in accordance with the details on the approved plans unless written consent to any variation is first given by the Local Planning Authority. Specifically, the front, rear and southern side elevations of the carport shall not be enclosed.

Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority can properly consider whether any alteration to the scheme would be detrimental to the openness and rural character of the Green Belt.

(5) No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, have secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason:  Because important archaeological remains are known to exist in the immediate vicinity of this development and it is important that investigations are carried out before the site is disturbed by excavation or obscured by the proposed building.

(6) This permission shall relate to the submitted application form and plans as subsequently amended by your letter dated 12 October 2001 stipulating that drawing number A2.5 is deleted and does not comprise part of the approved development.

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

(1) INFORMATIVE - It is noted that in conjunction with the application for garaging that you have submitted details for proposed tree works requiring the written approval of this Authority under condition 5 of planning permission 00/0820/CH.  In this respect I would advise that no objections are raised to the removal of the branch of the walnut tree close to the house as specified, or to the removal of the yew indicated.  With regard to the latter however, the District Forestry and Landscape Adviser is not persuaded that the removal of the tree is essential and considers that it would be preferable for it to be retained.

2001/1422/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     22-Aug-01     Decide by Date:     16-Oct-01

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham the Hill

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      BANNER HOMES LTD

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Adjoining Green Belt

Unclassified road

Dwellings

Total New Dwellings - proposed:          2

Total Dwellings - displaced/demolished:     0

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

THE APPLICATION

The application seeks to install two rooflights into each of the rear elevations of the dwellings on Plots 2 & 3.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approve.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, GC4, H3, H11, H12, TR2, TR11, and TR16.

ISSUES

1.     Given that the application is for the insertion of rooflights into the rear roofslope of the dwellings on Plots 2 and 3, it is considered that the main issue is whether the proposed windows would result in any significant loss of amenity and privacy to the occupiers of the neighbouring properties.  It is, however, considered that the proposed changes would not be materially worse than the extant approval.  No objections are therefore raised to the proposal’s impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring properties.

2.     Given the extant approval it is not considered that any adverse issues regarding the highway and design aspects of the application are raised.

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) C433 Materials - General Details

(3) C298 Exclusion of Permitted Development in Classes A - C, Part 1

(4) C454 Garaging/Parking as specified on plan no. 565/EW1 received on 22/8/01

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

(6) The windows at first floor level in the northern and southern elevations of the dwellings on plots 2 and 3, shall not be obscured other than with obscured glass at any time.

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

(7) C173A  No additional windows in first floor of N & S elevation of plots 2 & 3

(8) C406 Landscaping Scheme to be Submitted

(9) C407 Landscaping Scheme to be Implemented

(10) C414 Landscaping - No Felling Except Specified Trees and Hedges

(11) C415 Landscaping - Tree Protection

(12) The development shall not begin until details of the alterations to Chestnut Laneand its junction with the site access road have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no dwelling shall be occupied until the modified junction has been laid out and constructed in accordance with the approved details.

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

(13) The development shall not begin  until details of the modified site access road have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no dwelling shall be occupied until the site access road which provides access to it from the existing highway has been laid out and constructed in accordance with the approved details.

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

(14) No other part of the development shall begin until the visibility splays shown on the approved drawings have been provided on both sides of the access and the area contained within the splays shall be kept free of any obstruction exceeding 1metre in height above the nearside channel level of the carriageway.

Reason: To provide adequate intervisibility between the access and the existing pubilc highway for the safety and convenience of users of the highway and of the access.

(15) The development shall not begin until details of the disposal of surface water from the site access road have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no dwelling shall be occupied until the works for the disposal of surface water have been constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To minimise danger and inconvenience to highway users.

(1) INFORMATIVE - You are advised that the boundaries of ownership of land adjacent to the access road at its junction with Chestnut Lane, and adjacent to the front garden of No.13 Chestnut Lane, are subject of disagreement as regards ownership: the granting of planning permission does not convey or imply the right to encroachment on land not within the applicant's ownership.

(2) INFORMATIVE - Further to Condition 13 above, details of the surface of the access road should incorporate a quiet surafcing material, not including shingle or gravel.

(3) INFORMATIVE - Further to Condition 8 above, details of landscaping should include proposals to retain as much laurel hedging as is possible, and to prune some substantial trees which currently overhang adjacent properties.

(4) INFORMATIVE - You are requested to ensure that no construction materials are stored and no contractors vehicles are parked either on the access road serving the site or on Chestnut Lane, during the carrying out of this development.

(5) INFORMATIVE - The applicant is advised that a licence must be obtained from the Highway Authority before any works are carried out on any footway, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the highway.  A period of 28 days must be allowed for the issuing of the licence, please contact the Area Manager at the following adress for the information:-

Environmental Services Department, Chiltern and South Bucks Area Office, 29 Windsor End, Beaconsfield, Bucks HP9 2JJ. Tel (01494) 586600.

(6) INFORMATIVE - Your attention is specifically drawn to conditions 12 and 15 above.  These conditions require the submission of details, information, drawings etc. to the LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE.  Failure to observe these requirements will result in a contravention of the terms of the permission and the Councl may seek necessary Enforcement action.

(7) INFORMATIVE - The applicant is advised that if it is intended to use soakaways as the method of dealing with the disposal of surface water then the permission of the appropriate Water Authority  and  / or the Environment Agency may be necessary.

2001/1423/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     22-Aug-01     Decide by Date:     16-Oct-01

Parish:     Chalfont St Giles     Ward:     Chalfont St Giles

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS A WEINEL

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Class C Road

Unclassified road

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/196/66     Double garage, approved.

AM/320/66     Convert existing garage to playroom, approved.

AM/750/67     Extensions to lounge, approved.

THE APPLICATION

The first floor extension would be over the existing garage, this would be approximately 6.25m in width and would be level with both the existing front and rear elevations.  The existing ridge and eaves lines would be extended across with a gable formed in both the front and rear elevations.  A mono-pitched roof over an existing single storey front projection is proposed, together with a single storey rear extension that would be 2.95m in depth and 11.15m in width, this would also have a mono-pitched roof over.

PARISH COUNCIL

The Parish Council objects to this proposal which constitutes overdevelopment of an existing backland development.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letter from neighbours at 35 Albion Crescent –

1.     The proposed extension is in full view at the bottom of our garden.  Whilst there are a number of mature trees in ours and adjoining gardens (all of which are deciduous species).  These do little to mask the full view of the building as existing whilst the trees are in leaf.  There will be no effective cover during 5 months of the year.

2.     The distance from out mutual boundary to the wall of the existing garage varies and at one end is as little as 550mm.  The proposal would bring the flank wall at first floor level to within 550mm of our boundary and would have a significant impact in terms of visual encroachment.

3.     We do not object in principle of extension.  However, we believe that the scheme should be recessive from our mutual boundary to minimise encroachment.  There appears to have been no effort made to lessen the impact of the extension when viewed from our property which is most affected by the scheme.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1.     The design of the application is considered acceptable, respecting the scale and proportions of the existing dwelling.  Although within 1m at first floor level to the boundary of the plot, the characteristics of the site is such that the first floor side extension falls within the stated exceptions under Policy H11, allowing in principle, extensions at first floor level to be within 1m of the boundary.  The comments of the Parish Council are noted, however, although the proposal would effectively fill the plot’s width, it is not considered that the proposal would be overdevelopment, noting the depth of the rear garden, and given the dwelling’s location, would not have a detrimental appearance upon the street scene.

2.     No objections are raised to the pitched roof over the front projection and to the single storey rear extension.  The design and impact upon the neighbouring properties is considered acceptable.

3.     The proposed extension would mainly impact upon the properties in Albion Crescent, in this respect the comments of the neighbour at No.35 have been noted.  The occupiers of this neighbouring dwelling at present view the existing flank elevation of No.11 at the rear of their garden.  At present the first floor of the existing dwelling is approximately 7m from the rear boundary of No.35 Albion Crescent (at its closest point), the proposal to build over the existing flat roofed garage would bring the first floor flank elevation to less than 1m at its closest point. This would have an impact upon the enjoyment of their property, it is considered that the impact would be sufficiently adverse to justify a refusal in this instance.  In this respect it is noted that there is a deciduous tree which would provide some screening during the summer months at the rear of No.35’s garden, however for a considerable part of the year the tree would not provide a great deal of screening.  Although the distance from the rear elevation of No.35 to its rear boundary with No.11, approximately 27m at ground floor level, has been noted, it is considered that the extension would have a particularly dominating impact upon No.35, it is considered that this is a sufficiently adverse impact upon the amenities of No.35 to justify a refusal.  It is not considered that the proposal increase the levels of overlooking towards No.9 that would warrant a refusal, in this respect it is noted that this dwelling has no flank elevation windows facing No.11.

4.     Parking provision is available on site to comply with 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: Refuse permission

For the following reasons

(1) The proposed extension, by reason of its height and proximity to the rear boundary with No.35 Albion Crescent would have an unacceptably overbearing and dominating appearance, detrimental to the amenities of adjoining occupiers. As such, this is contrary to the requirements of Polices GC3, H13(i) and H14 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997.

2001/1434/CH

Case Officer:      Iwan Jones

Date Received:     24-Aug-01     Decide by Date:     18-Oct-01

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham Common

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      COLUMBIA MARKETING LTD

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Adjoining Green Belt

Employment Area for Business , General Industry, Storage or Distribution

Unclassified road

Floor Space

Codes:     WH

Proposed (m2):     522

Displaced (m2):     0

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

Numerous planning applications have been previously submitted for the site of which none are of direct relevance to this current application.

THE APPLICATION

The application relates to the erection of a first floor extension for the use as a sorting room for books. The extension would measure 37m deep, 12m wide and to the same height as the existing warehouses on either side. This would provide additional floorspace of 522sq m representing an increase of 17% over and above the existing. External alterations are also proposed in the form of introducing additional windows at first floor level in the front elevation of the adjoining warehouse to the north. This would be achieved by reducing the height of the existing doorway. All proposed materials would match those of the existing.   

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approval.

CONSULTATIONS

Head of Engineering – Highways: No objection subject to a condition.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1.     The application site is located within a designated Area for Business, General Industrial, Storage or Distribution as defined by the proposals map of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 where there are no objections in principle to the proposed development subject to compliance with the relevant local plan policies.

2.     The site is located within the industrial area of Raans Road where such areas are in limited supply within the District. As there is scarcely any vacant land available within existing curtilages of these areas a scope for expansion is through modest extensions to existing buildings.  The proposal would constitute an infilling form of development between a pair of existing two storey warehouse buildings that also form part of the application site. A uniform building height would be achieved whilst its depth would not be at variance with either existing adjoining warehouse. Furthermore, the proposed external alterations would improve the existing visual appearance of the whole building. No objections raised in relation to Policies E2 and GC1.

3.     As the extension would be constructed within the existing envelope of the premises the amenities of enjoyed by the occupants of surrounding properties would not be affected. No objection raised in relation to Policy GC3.

4.     One car parking space per 100sq m gross floor area or part thereof is required for additional floor space over 240sq m floor area. As 522sq m of new floor space is proposed, 6 additional parking spaces are required. These would be provided by removing the existing sub station at the north western corner of the site. No objections raised in relation to Policies TR11 and TR16.   

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

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

(3) C454 Garaging/Parking as specified on plan no. 1282/2/4743 received on 24 August 2001.

2001/1435/CH

Case Officer:      Iwan Jones

Date Received:     24-Aug-01     Decide by Date:     18-Oct-01

Parish:     Chesham Bois     Ward:     Chesham Bois & Weedon

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS M F EGAN

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

adjoining Public Amenity Open Space

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

Ch/127/81: Single storey front extension. Permitted and implemented.

THE APPLICATION

The application relates to the erection of a single storey front extension measuring 4.5m wide, 2.5m deep and to a flat roof height of 2.8m.  It would replace an existing single storey flat roof front extension that is slightly smaller in footprint. All materials would match those of the existing.

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

2.     It is not considered that the flat roof of the proposed extension would be prominent within the street scene having regard to the fact that the extension would replace an existing flat roof extension, the level of screening, that the extension would be set back from Green Lane by 12m and that it has three flat roof dormers within the roof slope in the front elevation. No objection raised in relation to Policies GC1, H13(ii) and H15.

3.     The proposed extension would not have an impact upon the neighbouring properties. As such, no objection raised in relation to Policies GC3 and H14.  

4.     Ample space is provided within the site for parking. No objections raised in relation to Policies TR11 and TR16.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

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

2001/1438/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     24-Aug-01     Decide by Date:     18-Oct-01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Gold Hill

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS ELLISON

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Adjoining Green Belt

Mineral Consultation Area

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

91/0733/CH   Erection of four elderly persons bungalows and parking spaces.   Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

The property was constructed under application 91/0733/CH, which included Condition (9) stating that:

Notwithstanding the provision of Article 3(1) of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1988 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that order) no development falling within Classes A to H of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the said Order shall be erected, constructed, or placed within the application site unless planning permission is first granted by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority can properly consider whether any further proposals will constitute overdevelopment of the site or will in any other way be detrimental to the character of the locality.

As such the applicants propose a conservatory on the south east elevation, 3.1m deep and 4.7m wide, with a mono pitch roof at 3m.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1.     The application is in the built up area of Chalfont St. Peter where it is located to the side of a bungalow, behind 1.8m close board fencing, which obscures most of it from the street scene. As the flank wall of No. 20b has no windows overlooking the site, then no issues of amenity are raised either. The garden although not large will still have a depth of 11.5m, which is considered acceptable in terms of private amenity space. As such no other objections are raised in relation to this proposal in terms of Local Plan Policy.

2.     The two parking bays to the side of the property are adequate in terms of Local Plan Policy TR11 and TR16 as the property remains under 120sq.m. habitable floor space.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

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

2001/1464/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     29-Aug-01     Decide by Date:     23-Oct-01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Austenwood

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS N HARRIS

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

86/233/CH     Convert garage to playroom, permitted development.

99/1818/CH     Single storey front and two-storey side / rear extension, refused.

THE APPLICATION

At ground floor level the extension involves extending by approximately 2.15m for a depth of 11.6m, of which 3.45m is to the rear of the existing dwelling and would be 8.6m in width (the entire width of the dwelling).  The first floor element would the same depth although only 1.25m in width, at the rear it would be 4m in width.  The height of the eaves would match those of the existing dwelling with the existing roof extended up to a height of 8m when viewed from the rear.

PARISH COUNCIL

Objection on the grounds that adequate parking space should be provided for three cars with turning space so that vehicles could exit in a forward position into the road.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letter of objection from No.23 School Lane –

1.     School Lane is a very rare lane with individual houses without overcrowding.

2.     The right to light for us would be taken away by the overpowering proposal with a significant loss of light to the only window in our kitchen and also to the only window in the bedroom above which both look towards No.21, causing an adverse impact on the amount of natural day and sunlight reaching us.

3.     At present their kitchen window is a double window, the proposal is for a longer window area and another window opposite our first floor bedroom.  These would both be very intrusive not only in the quantity of window area but also the very close proximity of the windows to our property.  The proposal would completely obscure any sunlight or views from out windows.  The kitchen is a room in use a lot of the time and the loss of the natural daylight to it would be very detrimental.

4.     Because of the close proximity of the windows the increased level of overlooking would be obtrusive and overbearing.

5.     Their drive is very narrow with limited car parking area.

6.     Non-planning comments.

CONSULTATIONS

District Engineer – The development makes use of an existing highway access on to School Lane, a ‘U’ Class road.  There is adequate space for parking three cars on the existing drive to the front of the dwelling.  No objections.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1.     The previous application on the site (ref: 99/1818/CH), was refused for two reasons.  The first of which stated, ‘The proposed two-storey side / rear extension by reason of its size, scale, height, bulk and close proximity to the common site boundary with No.23 School Lane would be excessively obtrusive and overbearing relative to the principal flank windows of this neighbouring property...It would also have a particularly adverse impact upon the amount of day and sunlight reaching the ground floor principal kitchen window of No.23...’.  It is not considered that the current proposal has overcome this objection.  The bulk of the extension, its height and its proximity to the common site boundary have essentially remained unaltered, as such it is considered that similar objections are raised in respect of this current application.

2.     The second reason for refusal stated that ‘The windows (clear glazed) in the south west flank elevation of the proposed two-storey side / rear extension and their close proximity to the flank site boundary would increase levels of overlooking towards No.23 School Lane to an unacceptable degree...’.  The Officer’s report on the previous application (99/1818/CH) noted that there is at present some degree of mutual overlooking between both properties occurs due to the existing property currently having several windows facing No.23, which itself has principal habitable room flank windows.  It was considered that the additional glazing proposed, due to its proximity to the common site boundary, would increase the levels of overlooking to an unacceptable degree.  It is however considered that the reduction in fenestration and the nature of the rooms that the windows are to serve, together with the high-level nature of the windows at ground floor level and their positioning in relation to the windows in the flank of No.23 is such that it considered, on balance, that the reason for refusal in terms of overlooking has been overcome.

3.     No objections are raised to the impact of the proposal upon the street scene.  The minimum 1m gap to the boundary is maintained at first floor level to the flank boundary of the application site, this is considered acceptable given the mixed layout and character of the locality.

4.     On site parking provision for three vehicles can be provided.  The comments of the Parish Council are noted, however, the District Engineer has raised no objections to the highway safety aspects of the scheme.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse permission

For the following reasons

(1) The proposed two-storey side / rear extension, by reason of its size, scale, height, bulk and close proximity to the common site boundary with No.23 School Lane would be excessively obtrusive and overbearing relative to the principal flank windows of this neighbouring property.  It would also have a particularly adverse impact upon the amount of day and sunlight reaching the ground floor principal kitchen window of No.23 School Lane.  As such the proposal would be contrary to Polices GC1(a), GC2, GC3, H13(i), H14(i) & H14(ii) of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997.

2001/1469/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     30-Aug-01     Decide by Date:     24-Oct-01

Parish:     Latimer     Ward:     Ashley Green & Latimer

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS WOLSTENHOLME-WILLIAM

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt settlement GB4

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

01/0989/CH   Roof extension and dormer window in north side elevation.

THE APPLICATION

A roof extension to gable the front and rear hipped roof of a bungalow so as to form a ridge of 10.2m in length from the front to back of the property at 5.8m above the ground. On the north side roof slope are proposed two dormer windows, both are 2.2m wide and 2.5m high to the pitch of their gables, which sit level with the ridge of the dwelling.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, GB4, H11, H13, H14, H15, H16, H17, H18, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The application is situated in the Jasons Hill existing row of dwellings within the Green Belt (GB4 Policy Area), where residential development is considered acceptable when it is small scale and subordinate to the existing property. The extensions to the roof to gable the front and rear hip were considered acceptable under the previous application (01/0989/CH) as neighbouring property ‘Polperro’ stood as an acceptable precedent for the development. Local Plan Policy GC1 and H15 have been complied with.

2.     Application 01/0989/CH was refused on grounds of the side dormer being excessively large and flat roofed. Although ‘Polperro’ had a south facing flat roofed dormer this proposal was larger and out of character with the property and the street scene. This application proposes two rather than one dormer, each with a well proportioned gabled roof, and although they are not particularly subordinate or even small on the elevation, they are not out of character with the design merits of Jasons Hill. When viewing the property from the front elevation, much of the dormer visible is the pitched roof, which reduces its impact and makes it appear more in keeping with the area. As such Local Plan Policy GC1, H15 and H18 have been complied with.

3.     The dormer windows will be a little over 4m from the side dormer window of ‘Polperro’, the same distance as the window previously refused. This proposal positions the dormers either side of this neighbouring dormer and although the structures are not so off-set from this third dormer that overlooking will be eradicated, the degree of overlooking will be acceptable. As such the dormer windows will not be in breach of the amenity standards set out under Local Plan Policy GC3, H13 and H14.

4.     The detached single garage accessed from the front/side/rear driveway fully 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) C175 Obscure glass in multiple windows in north elevation

2001/1472/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     29-Aug-01     Decide by Date:     23-Oct-01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Austenwood

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR R M HUTCHINSON

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 first floor side extension 1.5m wide and 3.2m deep, stepped back from the front elevation by 0.23m and capped with a hipped roof at 6.7m above the ground.

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, H11, H13, H14, H15, H17, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The application is sited in the built up area of Chalfont St. Peter, in a spacious suburban road where it is part of the only block of flats. The extension is particularly small and inoffensive in the street-scape of Bull Lane where it has both a side window and rear door, which access the existing balcony. It overlooks the front garden of its neighbour garden, but no private amenity space. No objections are raised in terms of Local Plan Policy.

2.     The large forecourt caters for adequate car parking as required under Local Plan Policy 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

2001/1473/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     30-Aug-01     Decide by Date:     24-Oct-01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Gold Hill

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS WALSH

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Mineral Consultation Area

THE APPLICATION

A two-storey rear and single storey side/rear extension incorporating garage. The two-storey rear extension reaches the full width of the house (8.2m) and is 3.05m in depth. To the left hand side of the house is proposed a single storey extension 9.2m in length and 3.25m in width. This is attached to the side of the two-storey extension 2.6m from the rear elevation. The two-storey extension has two hipped roofs fused together to form a rear facing valley feature level with the main roof ridge (7.5m). This roof continues down across the side extension, resulting in a hipped roof at 4m in height.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection but rear elevation is shown incorrect as kitchen window and door should be transposed.

CONSULTATIONS

District Engineer – Highways:

It is understood that the proposal involves the replacement of an existing garage with a new one in approximately the same position. Due to a lack of adequate turning spaces within the site most of the vehicles would need to reverse on to the highway. The visibility for vehicles out of the site in either forward or reverse gear is substantial.

I would have recommended refusal for a new development of the type shown. However, in this case the vehicular access to the site is already in existence. Hence, I am unable to recommend refusal.

No objection subject to C454; 20/01, 30 August 2001.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1.     The application is for a radical extension to the rear and side of a modest two-storey property in the built up area of Chalfont St. Peter. Local Plan Policy H11 states that extensions should be inset by 1m from the boundary and the distance should be commensurate with the character, relationship, siting, layout and average distance at first floor level between existing dwellings. The existing house built on the boundary it shares with ‘Cransdene’ and the two-storey rear extension, continues the flank wall further down the boundary, therefore this extension is acceptable as it replicates the existing built form.

2.     The integral garage proposed is positioned in the general location of the previous detached garage, preserving a 1m gap to the boundary. This is the only element of the extension that will be clearly seen from the street and being subordinate, the development is considered acceptable in terms of Local Plan Policy GC1 and H15.

3.     The rear garden is secluded with a mixture of fencing and hedging to avoid neighbouring residents overlooking of being overlooked by the extension. Only from ‘Cransdene’ will the extension be seen. This additional 3m of flank wall along the boundary is in the rear corner of ‘Cransdene’s’ garden and therefore not considered detrimental to the amenity of this neighbour. As such Local Plan Policy GC3, H13 and H14 have been satisfied.

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 south elevation of extension

(4) C454 Garaging/Parking as specified on plan no. 20/01 received on 30 August 2001.

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