Meeting documents

2001/1428/CH

Case Officer:      Kathryn York

Date Received:     23/08/01     Decide by Date:     17/10/01

Parish:     Coleshill     Ward:     Coleshill & Penn Street

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      JAMES ADAMS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Coleshill Conservation Area

Green Belt settlement GB4

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

CH/1103/83  Two storey rear extension.  Permitted and implemented.

83/0488/CH  Alterations to fenestration, dormer window and two storey rear extension.  Permitted and implemented.

THE APPLICATION

Proposes single storey side/rear extensions.  The extension partly infills an area between this property and the neighbouring property, and measures 9.3m deep and 3.6m wide across the rear elevation, which also incorporates a covered porch.  The extension has a mono-pitched roof 3.6m high.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections.

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter from neighbouring property – No objection but making the following comments:

1.     The extension seems to rely upon the support of the flank wall of No. 2.

2.     Question whether the wall or the foundations will support the structure.

3.     Would like reassurance that the valley will not cause damp in the wall.

4.     The land upon which the extension is to be built is subject to a covenant stating that there shall be no building upon that land.

5.     The extension would block the right of way over which Nos. 2, 3 and 3a have the benefit.  It will be necessary to revise the siting of the pathway.

One letter from All saints Church Committee: No objection.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC3, GB2, GB12, LSQ1, CA1, H13, H14, H15, H17, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The application site forms part of a Row of Dwellings in the Green Belt within both the Coleshill Conservation Area and the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  There are no objections to the proposed development in principle subject to compliance with the relevant local plan policies..

2.     The extension primarily infills an area between the flank elevation wall of the property and the blank flank elevation wall of the neighbouring dwelling.  There will be no adverse impact on the residential amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring property, and therefore no objections are raised in this respect.  

3.     The proposed extension is relatively small scale, and will not adversely affect either the Conservation Area or the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The design of the extension respects the scale and proportions of the existing dwelling.  No objections are raised in terms of Policies GC1, GB2, GB12, LSQ1 and CA1.  

4.     There is no parking provision within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse, however as the floorspace already exceeds 120sq m, no objections are raised in this respect.

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) C131 All plans amended - by one plan

(1) INFORMATIVE - You are advised that it has been brought to the Council's attention that there may be a covenant on the land precluding any building work, and that the extension may obstruct a right of way.  You are advised to carry out the necessary checks prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted.

2001/1431/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     24/08/01     Decide by Date:     18/10/01

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham the Hill

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS S STAITE

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/959/55     Garage constructed under permitted development.

00/1754/CH     Two storey front extension, approved and remains extant.

THE APPLICATION

The proposed access onto South Road would involve the removal of part of the holly hedge along the front boundary, the existing access would remain to create an ‘in-out’ access way to the property.  The main part of the application is for a two-storey side extension that would extend 3.6m towards the side boundary, the front elevation would be set behind the main front elevation by approximately 2.5m with the rear elevation level with the existing dwelling’s.  The eaves and ridge height would match those of the existing dwelling.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approve.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letter from neighbour at ‘Oakham’ 22 South Road strongly objecting on the following points –

1.     The proposed extension will be very dominating due to its close proximity to our side boundary and the fact that it is three storey’s high.

2.     The extension will have a great detrimental effect on the street scene as the two properties will be so close together and appear as one large built mass.

3.     This part of South Road is characterised by properties in large plots set well in from their boundaries.

4.     This area is within an established residential area of special character and is also opposite the Chesham Bois Conservation Area.  Therefore it is essential that any extensions are in keeping with the spacious character of the area.

5.     The extension is particularly unattractive and poorly designed as apart from being far too bulky and close to the boundary it has a dormer window perched on the hipped end dominating and overlooking our property.  Surely if third floor dormer windows are required they would be far better placed to the roof at the rear.

6.     The double garage is far too close if not almost on our boundary and if constructed would clearly destroy the attractive and established mixed hedge dividing our properties.

7.     When our own home was constructed and given planning permission at the planning officer’s specific request hipped ends to the roof were required.  As opposed to other designs which in his view would be detrimental and too bulky to be given planning permission.

8.     This bulky three storey extension is far too large to this side of the property.

Letter from neighbour at 49 Lexham Gardens stating that the proposals do not affect her in any way.

CONSULTATIONS

Highway Engineers –  No objection subject to conditions and an informative.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1.     Taking firstly the design of the extension, it is considered that the extension has been designed to respect the scale and proportions of the existing dwelling, taking into account the extant permission for a two storey front extension, not resulting in an overdevelopment of the plot to the detriment of the street scene.  Concerns have been raised by the occupiers of the neighbouring property regarding the proximity the extension would be to the mutual boundary, the extension would be approximately 1.8m from this boundary at both ground and first floor.  Although South Road is considered to be an area where more than the minimum 1m distance to the boundary at first floor level is required, having regard to the character of the development in South Road and the nature of this proposal it is considered that no objections are raised under Policy H11.  In this respect it is noted that the extension is set back from the front elevation of the main dwelling and is therefore subordinate in nature to the existing dwelling, it is also noted that there is over 5m from the first floor of the existing dwelling’s western elevation to its boundary with the neighbouring dwelling and consequently it is not considered that the extension would overdevelop the plot’s width.  Although a relatively tall building (9.5m to the ridge) it is not considered that the extension would result in a dwelling that would appear over-dominant in the context of the area.

2.     A further main consideration is the impact upon the neighbouring property, No.22.  It is not considered that the extension would be overbearing to this neighbouring dwelling and nor should it result in any significant loss of light to this dwelling.  The proposed bay windows in the extension at first floor level are noted.  Although the side panes of the rear bay window would face the boundary and therefore the neighbouring dwelling, it is not considered that the impact of these windows would be sufficiently adverse to justify a refusal of the application.  In this respect it is noted that the bay windows are not full depth, and that there is an existing window that faces directly towards the neighbouring dwelling which, albeit further away from the boundary, is considered to permit potentially more overlooking than  the side panes of the proposed bay window at the rear.  The front bay window is to a bathroom and could reasonably be expected to be obscured glass, notwithstanding this it would look towards the front, more public, part of the dwelling.

3.     No objections are raised to the new access that would not affect the character of the area and with regard to the Highway Engineer’s comments, no objections are raised to the highway safety aspects of the development, subject to conditions.

4.     Sufficient parking space is provided within the 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: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) This permission shall relate to the submitted application form and plans, as subsequently amended by the plans Nos.278/5a and 278/15a received by the Local Planning Authority on the 21st September 2001.

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

(2) C108 General Time Limit

(3) C501 Access Layout - Adopted Road : Access to new Dev - Plan Approved

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

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

(6) C561 Surface Water

(7) A fence or wall not less than 1.8m and not more than 2m in height shall be erected along that part of the eastern boundary of the site, from a point level with the rear of the existing garage to a point level with the rear main wall of the propsed two-storey side extension.

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

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

2001/1445/CH

Case Officer:      Neil Higson

Date Received:     28/08/01     Decide by Date:     22/10/01

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

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR C CLARKE

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

CH/0447/75     Erection of house and garage – approved.

CH/0124/83     Garden room, changing and plant room – approved.

92/0607/CH     Single storey front extension and part two storey part single storey side extension incorporating garage and single storey rear extension incorporating roof terrace, ballustrading and spiral staircase - approved.

THE APPLICATION

It is proposed to erect a detached triple garage on land previously part of the curtilage of “Maytrees” which has now been brought within the curtilage of “Springhurst”. The garage building would measure 9.5m wide by 7.3m deep with a flat-topped roof hipped to all elevations to a maximum height of 4.4m. Additional landscape planting is proposed at various points along this north east boundary. The building has been constructed to slab level.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser – Involve the loss of two cypresses about 8m high and some shrubs for the new access. No objection.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policies GC1, GC3, H13, H14, H15, H20, TR2, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1)     The application site is located within a residential area where there are no objections to the proposed development in principle, subject to compliance with the relevant local policies.

2)     The style and design of the proposed garage is considered acceptable in terms of relating to the existing dwelling. It is contended that there will be no adverse visual impact upon the dwellings to the north and east as the building will be single storey and this boundary is already quite well planted with hedgerows and mature trees which it is intended to add to a various points.

3)     The building would be hidden in views from Harewood Road by the garage that is being constructed as part of a scheme of additions recently granted permission at “Maytrees”.

4)     The garage would respect the scale and proportions of the existing dwelling and neighbouring properties and would not be out of character with the surrounding area. The proposal would not appear obtrusive when viewed from the nearby properties or result in an unacceptable degree of overlooking to the neighbouring properties. It is considered that the proposal therefore meets the requirements of GC1, GC3, H13, H14, H15, and H20.

5)     Works have already been undertaken to construct the foundations to slab level.

6)     There is sufficient parking in accordance with the council’s standards. No objection under Policies TR11 and TR16.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order, with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows other than those expressly authorised by this permission, or as subsequently agreed in writing by the local planning authority, shall be inserted or constructed at any time in any elevation of the building hereby permitted.

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

(3) C196 Ancillary residential buildings at "Springhurst" - garage

(4) C306 Garage Not to be Converted to be Part of Dwelling

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

2001/1446/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     30/08/01     Decide by Date:     24/10/01

Parish:     Ashley Green     Ward:     Ashley Green & Latimer

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR R MURRAY

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Ancient Woodland

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Biological Notification site

Tree Preservation Order

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/7/72     Garage (replacement), approved.

AM/12/73     Erection of garden room to replace garage, approved.

85/1483/CH     Workshop extension, between garage and garden room, approved.

THE APPLICATION

The side extension is 5.165m in width, 6.97m in depth and would extend the existing eaves and ridge line across.  There would be a dormer window in the front elevation, this would be 2m in width and would protrude by 0.8m with a pitched roof over.  The conservatory would be 5.6m deep and 5.3m in width, its eaves would be at approximately 2.2m to a ridge at 3.6m.  The pitched roof over part of the garage’s existing flat roof would reach a ridge height of 4.9m.

From the Council’s records the dwelling does not appear to have been previously extended.  The proposed floorspace is approximately 104m2, the existing floorspace of the dwelling is approximately 268.6m2.  The increase in floorspace is therefore approximately 38%.

PARISH COUNCIL

CONSULTATIONS

Biological Notification Site  -

District Forestry Officer  - Extension fairly close to beech tree,

                      Some minor branch trimming,

                      No significant root damage.         

                      Some shrub loss.

                      No objection.    

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC3, GB2, GB13, GB15, H11, H13, H14, H15, H16, H18, TR11 & TR16.

ISSUES

1.     Policy GB13 states that extensions to dwellings in the Green Belt will be permitted where the extensions are (a) subordinate to the size and scale of the original dwelling,  (b) are not intrusive in the landscape and (c) comply with Policies H13 to H17.

2.     As noted in the application section above, the existing dwelling has a floorspace of approximately 268m2 with the extension adding a further 104m2, this equates to roughly a 38% increase in the gross floorspace over that of the existing dwelling.  This is considered to be subordinate to the size and scale of the original dwelling and noting its location, would not appear intrusive in the landscape.  No objections under Policy GB13.

3.     The location of the dwelling is such that there are no objections under Polices GC3, H13 & H14.

4.     The roof extension over an existing flat roofed part of the garage is not considered to raise any objections.

5.     No objections are raised under Polices TR11 and TR16 as sufficient car parking provision is provided on site to comply with Policy.

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

2001/1448/CH

Case Officer:      Kathryn York

Date Received:     28/08/01     Decide by Date:     22/10/01

Parish:     Little Missenden - Holmer Green     Ward:     Holmer Green

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR & MRS DAVIES

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Class C Road

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Grade 2 Listed Building

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

89/2416/CH  Two storey rear extension.  Refused: plans grossly inaccurate.

89/2418/CH  Listed building consent for development as above.  Refused: plans grossly inaccurate.

89/3352/CH  Two storey rear extension.  Permitted and implemented.

89/3353/CH  Listed building consent for development as above.  Granted.

01/0191/CH  Erection of steel framed building to provide covered arena for horse riding.  Refused: inappropriate development in the Green Belt; detrimental to both Green Belt location and Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

THE APPLICATION

Proposes replacement raised rear conservatory, incorporating a small side projection.  The rear conservatory measures 6.75m x 4.9, with a flat roof incorporating a lantern measuring a maximum of 5.6m high; side projection measures 1.6m x 2.5m, with a flat roof incorporating a lantern measuring 4.95m high.

The floorspace of the original dwelling measures approximately 495sq m.  A previous two-storey extension added another 67.2sq m of floor area, representing an increase of 13.6% over and above the floorspace of the original dwelling.  The current application proposes to replace the existing building with a slightly larger one, adding only a further 6.4sq m.  The total increase in floorspace measures 73.6sq m, representing an increase of 15% over and above the floorspace of the original dwelling.

PARISH COUNCIL

Approve.

CONSULTATIONS

District Historic Buildings Officer: The conservatory proposed replaces an existing conservatory that has been constructed on the far side of an extension to the listed house of c.1729.  It stands adjacent to one side of the listed building but is not immediately attached to it.  It will stand on the same base as the existing, and the overall dimensions will remain much the same, but it is proposed to add a glazed porch to one side.  As this is the side away from the listed building there are no objections.  There are also small changes in style: the base will be built up above the existing basement with brick and flint panels (to harmonise with the flint work on the house) in place of the wooden panels at present below the windows; a timber fascia and cornice will be introduced, and the glazing pattern will be altered to echo the design of the 18th-century sashes.  In my opinion these changes should improve the appearance of the conservatory by making it look more solid and convincing than at present.  There are therefore no objections from the listed building point of view.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC3, LB1, GB2, GB13, LSQ1, H14, H15, H17, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The application concerns a Grade II listed building sited within the open Green Belt, whereby domestic extensions may be acceptable provided that they are small scale and subordinate to the size of the original building, and are not visually intrusive in the landscape.  The site is also located within the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

2.     The floorspace of the original dwelling measures approximately 495sq.  A previous two-storey extension added another 67.2sq m of floor area, representing an increase of 13.6% over and above the floorspace of the original dwelling.  The current application proposes to replace the existing building with a slightly larger one, adding only a further 6.4sq m.  The total increase in floorspace measures 73.6sq m, representing an increase of 15% over and above the floorspace of the original dwelling.  The proposed extension is subordinate in both size and scale to the original dwelling, and therefore no objections are raised in terms of Policy GB13.

3.     There are no neighbouring properties within the immediate vicinity of the application site, and accordingly no objections are raised in this respect.

4.     The proposed replacement conservatory will improve the overall appearance of the property, and will not adversely affect the character of the listed building.  No objections are raised in this respect.

5.     The conservatory is to replace an existing slightly smaller building and will not be any more intrusive in the landscape.  No objections are raised.

6.     Adequate parking space exists within the curtilage of the site.

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) C433 Materials - General Details

(3) C137 Selected plans amended by one unnumbered plan received on 24/09/01

2001/1449/CH

Case Officer:      Kathryn York

Date Received:     28/08/01     Decide by Date:     22/10/01

Parish:     Little Missenden - Holmer Green     Ward:     Holmer Green

App Type:     Application for Listed Building Consent

Applicant:      MR & MRS DAVIES

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Class C Road

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Grade 2 Listed Building

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

89/2416/CH  Two storey rear extension.  Refused: plans grossly inaccurate.

89/2418/CH  Listed building consent for development as above.  Refused: plans grossly inaccurate.

89/3352/CH  Two storey rear extension.  Permitted and implemented.

89/3353/CH  Listed building consent for development as above.  Granted.

01/0191/CH  Erection of steel framed building to provide covered arena for horse riding.  Refused: inappropriate development in the Green Belt; detrimental to both Green Belt location and Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

THE APPLICATION

Listed building consent for a replacement raised rear conservatory, incorporating a small side projection.  The rear conservatory measures 6.75m x 4.9, with a flat roof incorporating a lantern measuring a maximum of 5.6m high; side projection measures 1.6m x 2.5m, with a flat roof incorporating a lantern measuring 4.95m high.

PARISH COUNCIL

Approve.

CONSULTATIONS

District Historic Buildings Officer: The conservatory proposed replaces an existing conservatory that has been constructed on the far side of an extension to the listed house of c.1729.  It stands adjacent to one side of the listed building but is not immediately attached to it.  It will stand on the same base as the existing, and the overall dimensions will remain much the same, but it is proposed to add a glazed porch to one side.  As this is the side away from the listed building there are no objections.  There are also small changes in style: the base will be built up above the existing basement with brick and flint panels (to harmonise with the flint work on the house) in place of the wooden panels at present below the windows; a timber fascia and cornice will be introduced, and the glazing pattern will be altered to echo the design of the 18th-century sashes.  In my opinion these changes should improve the appearance of the conservatory by making it look more solid and convincing than at present.  There are therefore no objections from the listed building point of view.

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 application concerns an extension to a Grade II Listed Building.  The proposed replacement conservatory and side projection will be an improvement on the existing situation, and will not adversely affect the character of the Listed Building.  No objections are raised in terms of Policy HE1 of the Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991, or Policy LB1 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan, 1997 (including the Adopted Alterations May 2001).

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) C435 Listed Building Materials - Affecting Exterior

(4) C433 Materials - General Details

(5) C137 Selected plans amended by one unnumbered plan received on 24/09/01.

2001/1450/CH

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     28-Aug-01     Decide by Date:     22-Oct-01

Parish:     Great Missenden     Ward:     Great Missenden

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

Applicant:      MRS E B STALLWOOD

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Great Missenden Conservation Area

Identified Housing Site - Local Plan H2

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

River Chess & River Misbourne - area liable to flood

Unclassified road

Tree Preservation Order

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The Chiltern District Council (Land at Buryfield Lane, Great Missenden) Tree Preservation Order 1989 (No 19 of 1989) covering 4 individual trees.

00/0096/CH     Erection of nine terraced houses and two flats with access from Buryfield Lane (amendment to planning permission 99/0313/CH). Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

Walnut – raise crown to approx 25 feet (3 feet above gutter) not low branch over neighbours.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections.

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant:     Reason for application is safety to persons and property precautions.

A letter from the Church Street Residents Association objecting to the proposal commenting that the work is not needed and only for the convenience of the owner.

Three letters of objection from adjacent properties in Church Street making the following points:

a) Walnut tree is mature specimen that forms part of attractive skyline.

b) Tree is one of most beautiful and oldest walnut trees in area.

c) Regrettable that work proposed so soon after construction work completed.

d) Suggest no work should be carried out for five years.

e) Crown lifting would result in large wound on one of main trunks – could lead to infection and decline of precious tree.

f) Suggest crown trimming would be less detrimental to tree.

g) Concerned that debris from work would block culvert in river and cause further flooding.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Large walnut tree in rear garden of property – general level of crown is 4-5m – eaves level about 5m – some branching within a metre of roof – larger branch over river and neighbouring property proposed for retention – some minor crown lifting would have little effect on tree and considered to be reasonable management.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy TW2 

ISSUES

1.     The walnut tree is situated in the rear garden of the property but it is visible from Buryfield Lane.

2.     It is considered that some minor crown lifting would have little effect on the health and 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 lifting, by the removal of small secondary branches, to a height of a metre above the eaves level of the house.

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 - I211 Tree Work - Branch Removal                                                  

(3) INFORMATIVE - You are reminded that this consent relates only to the planning aspects of your application and that the separate permission of the relevant landowners would be required for any work beyond your boundary.

(4) INFORMATIVE - You are advised that concern has been expressed by a neighbour that debris from the approved work should not be allowed to fall into the river and block the nearby culvert causing flooding.

2001/1453/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     28/08/01     Decide by Date:     22/10/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Chalfont St Peter Central

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      DERBY WISE BOOKMAKERS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

River Chess & River Misbourne - area liable to flood

Class C Road

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/729/63     Use of shop as licensed betting office, unconditional permission.

AM/1609/63     Box sign, refused.

AM/2050/63     Double sided projecting clock sign, withdrawn.

AM/1766/64     Conversion of residential to offices, unconditional permission.

CH/1856/84     New shop front, conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

The proposed shop front would have painted pilasters approximately 0.2m in width to a height of approximately 2.7m on either side of the shop front.  The stallriser would be to approximately 0.6m in height.  The scheme incorporates a partially glazed and partially panelled door.  The window would be approximately 2.3m in width by 1.6m in height.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections but the colour scheme should be in keeping with the location.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC3, S11.

ISSUES

1.     The proposed shop-front’s design is not considered to detract from the existing varied range of shop-fronts within Chalfont St. Peter.  Subject to a condition requiring the colour that is to be used in the painting to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to installation, no objections are raised under GC1 and S11.

2.     No objections under Policy GC3, the proposed shop-front should not have an adverse impact upon the amenities of the pedestrians and those living in close proximity to the shop.

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) The materials to be used in the external construction of the development hereby permitted shall only be constructed in the materials specified on the plans hereby approved.  However, the coloured finishes to be used shall previously have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

(1) INFORMATIVE- You are advised that separate consent will be required for the display of any illuminated sign on the new shopfront.

2001/1462/CH

Case Officer:      Mike Evans

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

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham Common

App Type:     Application under Advertisement Regulations

Applicant:      BP OIL (UK) LTD

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Class A Road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/1104/68     Re-development of existing garage and repair workshop to form service and accessories sales areas, car wash bay, two offices, workshop and managers flat – Outline planning permission granted.

AM/2027/68     Details pursuant to planning permission AM/1104/68 – Approved. Implemented.

97/1305/CH     Re-development and change of use of land to provide restaurant with ancillary parking and conveyor car wash and valet bays with ancillary office/waiting room and parking. Withdrawn (30/10/1998).

98/1512/CH     Demolition of petrol service station, erection of sales building, forecourt canopy and petrol pumps, car wash and plant room, three 4.7m high floodlights, underground petrol tanks, air/vac/water bay, altered and new vehicular access. Withdrawn.

98/1513/CH     Demolition of service station, erection of conveyor car wash building and pre-washing bay, sales building, canopy providing 3 valetting bays and four 4.7m high floodlights. Withdrawn.

99/ 0479/CH     Re-development of site to provide sales building, forecourt canopy and petrol pumps, car wash and plant room, three 5m high floodlights, underground petrol storage tanks, altered and new vehicular access. Approved but not implemented.

00/0078/CH     Re-development site to provide sales building, car wash and plant room, six 3 m high floodlights, underground fuel storage tanks, altered and new vehicular access (amendment to planning permission 99/0479/CH). Withdrawn.

00/0876/CH     Internally illuminated 5.5m high goal post sign, canopy and car wash fascia sign and freestanding signs. Approved.

00/1338/CH     Re-development of site to provide sales building, car wash, plant room, four 3 metre high floodlights, underground fuel storage tanks and alterations to vehicular access (Amendment to planning permission 00/0078/CH). Withdrawn.

00/1761/CH     Re-development of site to provide sales building, car wash and plant room, five 3 metre high floodlights, underground fuel storage tanks, altered and new vehicular access (amendment to planning permission (99/479/CH). Approved subject to legal agreement. Implemented.

00/0184/CH     Retention of internally illuminated 5.5 m high free standing sign, canopy, shop and car wash fascia signs and non-illuminated car wash fascia signs. Approved and implemented.

THE APPLICATION

The application relates to the retention of 7 advertisement signs on the site. The signs are: -

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend Approval

REPRESENTATIONS

A supporting letter making the following points has accompanied the application: -

1.     The signs display information relating to goods and services available at the sales building.    

2.     There can be no objection to the signs on grounds of public safety. Those located towards the entrance of the site offer only a fleeting glance to motorists passing by, and do not distract the attention of motorists from other road safety signage.  The signs towards the northern end of the site are only visible in the context of the site as a whole, and are largely obscured by the forecourt canopy/pumps. They can only be seen to any significant extent by customers at the filling station.

3.     Consider that the impact of signs on amenity is negligible. The signs are placed for the benefit of customers to the service station – either adjacent to parking places, the entrance to the shop building or customers using the car wash.

CONSULTATIONS

County Highways Engineer – All the signs lie within the garage site/forecourt and are unlikely to present a hazard to motorists using the public highway.  Do not wish to raise any objection on highway grounds. Do not recommend conditions, as there are no alterations proposed within the highway.

POLICIES

The Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991 – 2011 Policies

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC3, A1, and A2.

ISSUES

1.     The site has planning permission for use as a petrol filling station. Consent has been granted under 01/0184/CH for various illuminated and non-illuminated signs at the premises. The present proposal relates to signs that promote the sale of goods available from the sales building.

2.     It is considered that the signs are well positioned in relation to the sales building and to the site, are of suitable size, colour, materials and design, are not unduly prominent and do not result in an unacceptable level of visual clutter in the street scene. The signs are not considered to significantly intrude upon the amenities of immediate neighbours because of the relatively low height of the signs, their location and orientation, the distance to neighbouring properties and the screening effect of existing buildings, fuel pumps, landscaping and screen fencing.  

3.     The proposal to retain the signs subject of this application is considered to be acceptable in terms of the amenities of the locality and public safety.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional consent

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C118 5 Year Limited Period - Adverts

(2) C261 Standard Advert Conditions

(3) The internally illuminated single sided promotional sign marked HD 6 on Drawing No. 10475/29A and as shown on the additional plan dated 27 September 2001 shall have a luminance not exceeding 864 Cd/sq.m.

Reason: To prevent glare and minimise danger and inconvenience to highway users and to protect the amenities of neighbouring residents.

(4) C137 Selected plans amended by one unnumbered plan received on 27 September 2001.

2001/1463/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

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

Parish:     Seer Green     Ward:     Seer Green & Jordans

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR C O KAVANAGH

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Mineral Consultation Area

Tree Preservation Order

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

00/0772/CH     First floor rear extension, approved and implemented.

00/1967/CH     Rear conservatory, approved.

THE APPLICATION

The garage extension would be approximately 2.8m deep and approximately 3m wide, the pitched roof over would be hipped to a ridge at approximately 3.6m.  The porch would extend beyond the front ‘dining room’ elevation by 0.9m (1.8m in front of the existing front door.  The canopy over would project by a further 1m to be within approximately 1.25m of the front of the proposed garage extension.

REPRESENTATIONS

Three letters received, one of which is signed by an additional three signatories (two of whom also wrote separate letters), objecting on the following grounds –

1.     Unacceptable visual impact – the evenly stepped building line currently followed by the houses at 8, 9 and 10 is a visually pleasing feature of this pleasantly designed road.  This feature would be spoilt by the proposed extension.

2.     The garage extension would restrict light to the front of No.10 and significantly diminish it’s overall setting.

3.     Concern regarding the potential to raise the extension by the addition of a second storey at a later stage as has happened at the rear of the property.

4.     The current garage is used as living space and the development would reduce parking spaces.  A garage space has been incorrectly shown on the plans...this area is a living space behind an internal wall built a short distance behind the present up and over door.

5.     The garage extension would be very unlikely to be used as a parking space (it may not even meet the minimum requirement, given the presence of the internal wall).  Hence the proposed development would reduce parking space within the curtilage.

6.     Obstruction of the turning area at the end of Raeside Close.  The reduction of parking space on the drive of No.9 would displace vehicles onto the road.  Turning at the end of the cul-de-sac would be much more difficult or impossible.

7.     No.9 has already been extensively extended, increasing living space by a great deal.  This has already resulted in significant pressures on parking.  Vehicles belonging to the occupants and their visitors regularly obstruct the turning area outside the house.

8.     The internal garages are too narrow for most vehicles.  Several properties have increased the parking space within their curtilage by widening their drive.  The present application goes against the efforts of most other neighbouring households who have actively tried to reduce obstruction of the highway by their vehicles.

A letter has been received from the applicant in response to a letter from No.10 –

1.     We feel this to be an unreasonable objection as the proposed garage is adjacent to his garage and will not overlook any windows, therefore there will be no light restriction to his property.  

2.     The proposed extension is purely single storey and we will not be applying in the future to make it a double storey.

3.     The architect that prepared our plans made sure that with this extension we had room for one car in the garage and two vehicles on the driveway.  He also pointed out that the extension would improve the appearance of our property.

4.     Regarding the turning area in front of our property, we do not need to use this area for parking as we have sufficient room on our driveway.  The addition of the garage extension will improve the parking space since we will be able to put one car in the garage with one car in front and room for visitors cars as set out on our planning application.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry Officer – Well clear of Oak in adjacent property – no objection.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1.     The application site is located within a residential area wherein there are no objections in principle, subject to its compliance with the relevant local policies relating to its appearance within the street scene, its effect on the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties and level of car parking provision within the curtilage of the site.

2.     Although projecting forwards of the existing dwelling it is not considered that the extension would appear intrusive within the context of the street scene, provided suitable materials are used, which could be required by condition, it is considered that the extension could blend in with the existing property and not be detrimental to the character of the area.

3.     Having regard to the comments of one of the neighbouring property, it is not considered that the garage extension would adversely affect the amenities of the neighbouring property to such an extent that would warrant refusing this application on amenity grounds.  In this respect it is noted that the extension is single storey and that No.10 has a garage adjacent to the boundary, albeit set back approximately 5m behind the front elevation of the proposed garage.  It is not considered therefore that the garage would appear overbearing and given its height would not result in any significant loss of light.

4.     Having regard to the representations made by the neighbouring properties in terms of the level of off-street parking, it is considered that as the applicants can provide the three spaces required under Policy TR16, then no objections could be raised in this respect.  Taking into account the partition wall that has been erected in the original garage, the proposal would leave a garage of 5m in depth, sufficient to satisfy Policy.  In part the garage is too narrow to comply with current standards, however, the part that is below standard is part of the original integral garage.  Given that this width was acceptable at the time and would have had to be included as a space had the partition wall not been in place, it is considered that it would be unreasonable not to count this as a space in this instance.  As two further parking spaces could be situated within the front of the dwelling, it is not considered that any objections could be raised to the car parking aspect 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: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

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

(3) C306 Garage Not to be Converted to be Part of Dwelling

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

2001/1465/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     30/08/01     Decide by Date:     24/10/01

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham the Hill

App Type:     Application under Advertisement Regulations

Applicant:      BAKERS OVEN

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Shopping Area PSF - Prop Alts - (all PSF deleted)

Shopping Area - Rear Servicing - AOTHill S12 - Proposed Alts

Class B Road

Thames Water - groundwater protection zone

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/522/63     New shopfront, approved.

AM/1443/71     Erection of building for cold store.

THE APPLICATION

The proposed internally illuminated fascia sign would have an illuminated logo of 2.16m in width by 0.6m deep.  It would protrude by up to approximately 100mm from the main brown fascia.  The logo would be predominantly a maroon aluminium face panel with a green aluminium drop-shadow.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approve.

CONSULTATIONS

County Highways Engineer –

1.     The site lies within a ‘lit zone’ as defined in The Institution of Lighting Engineers Report – ‘Brightness of Advertising Signs’.  The sign is one of many within this area and is unlikely to present a hazard to passing motorists.

2.     I would therefore advise you that I would not wish to raise any objections on highway grounds to this proposal but would recommend a condition.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC3, A1 & A2.

ISSUES

1.     It is considered that the sign complies with the criteria as laid out in Policy A1 and in light of the requirement of Policy A2(iii) and the comments of the Highways Engineer, a condition could be included to ensure the degree of luminance does not detract from the amenity of the locality or adversely affect public safety.

2.     The proposed sign would not affect the amenities of the passers by, no objections under Policy GC3.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional consent

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C118 5 Year Limited Period - Adverts

(2) C261 Standard Advert Conditions

(3) C265 Adverts - intensity of illumination not to exceed 800 Cd/sq. m.

2001/1466/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     29/08/01     Decide by Date:     23/10/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Chalfont Common

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MRS SWEET

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Mineral Consultation Area

Dwellings

Total New Dwellings - proposed:          1

Total Dwellings - displaced/demolished:     0

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

This application was at the adjacent dwelling, ‘Haseley’-

THE APPLICATION

The scheme is an amendment to the previously approved planning permission 01/332/CH.  The footprint of the proposed dwelling has remained the same, the change being the dormer window on the north-eastern elevation of the previous application is to be replaced by a larger more substantial structure which incorporates a larger bathroom and bedroom.  The variation would involve an additional first floor element that would be approximately 6.4m in depth which would be level with the main ear elevation.  Its eaves would be at approximately 5m with a hipped roof over with a ridge to match that of the previously approved dwelling.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection but the Parish Council are concerned that the current sewage system would be unable to cope with additional development.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1.     No objections are raised to the design of the dwelling, although bulkier than that previously approved, its design is similar to that of the dwelling on Plot 2.  

2.     With regard to the impact upon the neighbouring property, ‘Haseley’, it is noted from the letter from the agent accompanying the application, that this application has resulted from the recent approval under reference 2001/1123/CH for extensions to this neighbouring dwelling.  Although these extensions have not yet been implemented, they are a material consideration when determining this application.  Notwithstanding this approval it is considered that the impact upon the existing dwelling is acceptable and should not result in such a significant impact upon its amenities, over that which would result from the extant scheme, to warrant a refusal.  Should the extension at ‘Haseley’ be constructed the proposed dwelling would have an impact upon the light entering the flank windows of the neighbouring dwelling, however noting the fact that the impact would be upon what are considered to be either secondary windows or windows to non-habitable rooms and given the extant approval for a dwelling on this plot no objections are therefore raised in this respect.

3.     No further parking implications occur.  No objections 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) C433 Materials - General Details

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

(4) C406 Landscaping Scheme to be Submitted

(5) C407 Landscaping Scheme to be Implemented

(6) The windows at first floor level in the north eastern elevation of the development hereby approved on Plot 3 shall not be glazed other than with obscured glass at any time.

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

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

2001/1478/CH

Case Officer:      Mark Spragg

Date Received:     31/08/01     Decide by Date:     25/10/01

Parish:     Great Missenden     Ward:     Ballinger & South Heath

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR D S RICHARDS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt settlement GB4

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

97/1225/CH     Alterations and erection of detached domestic garage. Conditional Permission

99/1351/CH      Part first floor/part two storey rear extension. Conditional Permission.

01/0397/CH     Part first floor/part two storey rear extension (amendment to planning permission 99/1351/CH). Conditional Permission

01/1160/CH     Detached garage (amendment to planning permission (97/0125/CH). Refused.

THE APPLICATION

Planning permission is sought for the retention of a timber summerhouse (3.1m x 3.9m x 2.2m high) with a shallow pitched roof, in the rear garden of Richwood House. The existing patio has been extended with brick supporting piers upon which the summerhouse has been sited.

Whilst the summerhouse has been moved 1.2m to the East from its original position no planning permission existed for the outbuilding in its previous location..  

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, GB4, GB15, LSQ1, H14, H15,

ISSUES

Belt, where detached domestic outbuildings are acceptable under the terms of Policies GB4 and GB15 of the Local Plan. The application site is also located in the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

RECOMMENDATION: Unconditional permission

2001/1480/CH

Case Officer:      Mark Spragg

Date Received:     31/08/01     Decide by Date:     25/10/01

Parish:     Great Missenden     Ward:     Prestwood

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS P EDWARDS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt settlement GB5

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

THE APPLICATION

Planning permission is sought to retain a glazed walkway, an external staircase, and  railings on top of a flat roof garage, forming a roof garden, at the rear of The Hawthorns, Nags Head Lane.

PARISH COUNCIL

Object to the application on the basis that they consider the development would be visually unattractive and intrude on the privacy of the neighbour at Chenies.

REPRESENTATIONS

3 letters objecting to the application have been received and one letter of support.

The letters of objection are summarised as follows:

- overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring properties

- the structure is out of keeping with the area

- the staircase is “dominant and unsightly”

- any permission should be restricted to maintenance purposes only

The letter of support from the occupiers of the adjoining property April Cottage makes the following point:

-  “as the modifications are in existence and as we have full view of them we do not find them to be any problem”

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1.     The main issues in considering this application are:

-     Impact on the amenity and privacy of the occupiers of adjoining properties

2.     The erection of a staircase leading from the garden of The Hawthorns on to the flat roofed garage makes use of the flat roof more accessible. In addition the erection of railings around the side and the provision of decking has created a roof garden/amenity area. In order to maintain the plants it would be necessary for the occupants to go on to the roof and it is likely that at other times the area would be utilised as an additional amenity area.

3.     The two adjoining properties are Chenies to the West and April Cottage, attached to the East. Chenies has a flank living room window and kitchen window, both located approximately 15m from the closest part of the roof garden. Although a fence exists along the boundary in addition to a 3m high garage within the curtilage of Chenies, the development still result in significant overlooking of the side windows of Chenies and also of a large part of their garden area, including that immediately to the rear of the property.   April Cottage has a clear glazed bathroom window at first floor level, in line with the newly formed roof garden. However, given the acute angle from the useable amenity area it is not considered that any significant loss of privacy to April Cottage would result.  Notwithstanding this the proposal is considered unnaceptable by virtue of its impact on the residential amenity of the occupiers of Chenies.  

4.     Given their siting and height above ground level (4m) the timber railings are clearly visible between Chenies and The Hawthorns. Although some other flat roofed garages in the locality have railings, those appear to have been there for a considerable period of time and have not been granted planning permission. Notwithstanding this they are modest and not as dominant within the streetscene as those at the application site. Whilst clearly the railings could be painted or stained to reduce their impact it is still considered that they would be out of character with the character of the locality also being within the Chilterns AONB.

5.     The glazed walkways are sited at the rear of the property behind the main house and car port, and are not considered to be prominent when viewed from Nags Head Lane, with no adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties or the character of the AONB.  

6.     In view of the reasons given above in relation to the staircase and railings the application is considered to be contrary to the relevant Local Plan policies and is therefore recommended for refusal.

7.     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 retention of this development would result in the potential for an increased use of the flat roof garage, which would lead to the overlooking of the neighbouring property Chenies, such as that the occupants privacy would be significantly affected. As such the development is contrary to policies GC3 and H14 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan.

(2) The roof garden enclosure by reason of its siting and design,  appears incongruous and out of character with the locality, which is set within the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The  proposal is therefore contrary to policies GC1 and H15 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan.

2001/1486/CH

Case Officer:      Kathryn York

Date Received:     03/09/01     Decide by Date:     28/10/01

Parish:     Great Missenden     Ward:     Ballinger & South Heath

App Type:     Application for Listed Building Consent

Applicant:      MR J SHARPE

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Class C Road

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Grade 2 Listed Building

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

01/636/CH  Single storey rear extension, pitched roof over existing single storey flat roofed projection and front porch canopy.  Refused: significant increase in floorspace, altering character and resulting in a dwelling disproportionately larger than the original.

01/637/CH  Listed building consent – details as above.  Granted.

01/1088/CH  Single storey rear extension.  Permitted.

THE APPLICATION

Application is for proposed works to a Grade II Listed Building, and is an amendment to application 01/637/CH.  The works comprise of a single storey rear extension, infilling around an existing single storey rear projection.  The extension projects 5.05m from the main rear elevation of the property, and measures 6.2m wide, with a pitched roof 5.2m high.  The extension adjoins a single storey rear projection, which is to have a pitched roof of the same height.  A pitched roof, measuring 3.45m high will replace a flat roof over an existing side projection, and a front porch canopy measuring 2.9m high is also proposed.  A new door and an alteration to an existing window is included as part of the application.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections.

CONSULTATIONS

Historic Buildings Officer: This application addresses planning concerns by reducing the size of the extension proposed in 2001/637/CH.  In listed building terms it improves on the previous application by reducing the bulk of the extension in relation to the small listed granary.

My comments on the style and form of the new work remain the same as those formerly put forward by Mr. Evans:  no structural alteration is proposed to the granary itself; the new pitched roof to the rear would be a visual improvement on the existing flat one; the new canopy over the doorway would be in keeping.  As long as matching tiles are used for the new roofs there need be no objection from the listed building point of view.

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 application concerns extensions to a Grade II Listed Building, and is an amendment to application 01/637/CH.  No structural alterations are proposed to the granary itself; the new pitched roof to the rear would be a visual improvement on the existing flat one; the new canopy over the door would be in keeping.  Provided matching tiles are used, there need be no objection.  No objections are raised in terms of Policy HE1 of the Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan, 1991, or Policy LB! Of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan, 1997 (including the Adopted Alterations May 2001).

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) C431 Materials of Development to Match Those of Existing Building

(4) C435 Listed Building Materials - Affecting Exterior

2001/1487/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     04/09/01     Decide by Date:     29/10/01

Parish:     Chesham Bois     Ward:     Chesham Bois & Weedon

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      DR AND MRS W PAGET

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/1082/60     14 houses and 6 bungalows, approved.

THE APPLICATION

The extension involves the demolition of the existing garage and utility room at the side of the property.  This would be replaced by a single storey side extension, incorporating a replacement garage, that would project by approximately 3.9m and would be 11.5m deep (projecting 3m beyond the rear elevation of the existing main dwelling).  A rear extension is also proposed that would be up to 3m deep, although part of which would only be approximately 1.3m deep.  A gable ended roof extension is proposed over the deeper part of the rear extension, the ridge height of which is approximately 5.85m in height.  A pitched roof over the replacement garage extension

is proposed to a height of approximately 5m.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry Officer –

Proposed kitchen extension at rear close to two sycamores on boundary with adjacent land-

          Root damage likely and possible loss of trees

          Trees not in good condition but do provide some screening

          Ownership of trees not clear

Trees to rear of garden covered by TPO

          Not directly affected by proposal but would give some shading

          One smaller leaning beech in poor condition from squirrel damage

No objection

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1.     No objections are raised to the design of the extensions which are considered to respect the scale and proportions of the existing dwelling and would not appear intrusive when viewed in the context of the street scene.  As noted by the Forestry Officer, the kitchen extension is close to trees on the boundary and their loss may result.  Although these trees provide some screening, the neighbour that the trees screen is a considerable distance away and their potential loss is not considered to be a justifiable reason for refusal given their location away from the street scene and set amongst a group of other trees.

2.     It is not considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring dwelling to the south.  Although the proposal would be visible when viewed from this neighbour it is considered to be sufficiently far away from the boundary not to appear overbearing nor result in any loss of light.  No windows are proposed in the elevation facing the neighbour, no objections are therefore raised with regard to issues regarding privacy.

3.     The gross floorspace of the existing dwelling is over 120m2, as the existing level of parking provision is maintained, 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) C174A No additional windows in SW facing roofslope of extension.

(4) C306 Garage Not to be Converted to be Part of Dwelling

(1) INFORMATIVE - The applicant is advised that this consent does not permit any part of the extension hereby approved to be constructed on or over land which is not within their ownership. Prior  consent should be sought from the owner of that land before construction commences.

(2) INFORMATIVE - Given the proximity of the kitchen extension to the trees within the adjacent Conservation Area, it may be necessary to obtain both Conservation Area Consent and permission from the owners of the trees (if not within the ownership of the applicant's) should works to any of these trees need to be  undertaken.

2001/1490/CH

Case Officer:      Thomas Gabriel

Date Received:     03/09/01     Decide by Date:     28/10/01

Parish:     Little Missenden - Holmer Green     Ward:     Holmer Green

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR A PICKET

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Class C Road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

92/1146/CH   Rear conservatory. Conditional permission – implemented.

95/1333/CH   Alterations, 2 dormer windows in the rear elevation and 1 dormer window in the north east side elevation. Conditional permission – implemented.

THE APPLICATION

The application is for a single storey rear extension measuring 4.6m by 3.5m and 4m high to the top of the pitched roof. It is to replace an existing rear projection and is to be of the same depth and approximately one metre wider with a pitched roof approximately 500mm higher than that it is replacing.

PARISH COUNCIL

Approve.

CONSULTATIONS

Wycombe District Council – No objections.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

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

2.     The extension will only have a marginally greater impact on the neighbouring dwelling, no.17 Wycombe Road, that the current rear projection (which is sited adjacent to a single storey rear projection at no.17) and no impact upon the other neighbouring dwelling, no.13 Wycombe Road, or the dwelling to the rear. It will respect the scale and proportions of the existing dwelling and will not represent overdevelopment of the site. Overlooking will not be an issue. No objections are raised in these respects.

3.     The floorspace of the dwelling already exceeds 120sq. m. There are therefore no objections in terms of Policies TR11 or 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

2001/1491/CH

Case Officer:      Kathryn York

Date Received:     03/09/01     Decide by Date:     28/10/01

Parish:     Great Missenden     Ward:     Great Missenden

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      NORTHAMPTON RC DIOCESE TRUSTEE

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Great Missenden Conservation Area

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

Adjoining Green Belt

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Class C Road

Floor Space

Codes:     NR

Proposed (m2):     200

Displaced (m2):     0

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/963/61  New church, presbytery and car park.  Outline permission granted.

AM/817/62  Erection of Roman Catholic Church.  Approved and implemented.

AM/701/63  Erection of Presbytery.  Approved and implemented.

00/1760/CH  Single storey front extension and two storey side/rear extension.  Permitted.

THE APPLICATION

Proposes an amendment to planning permission 00/1760/CH, and comprises two additional windows/doors in the north elevation, and the enlargement of the narthex on the north elevation.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections, but comment that they were disappointed that the opportunity had not been taken to develop a more striking elevation fronting onto the High Street.

REPRESENTATIONS

Agent:

The three new windows to the sacristy are to be obscure glazed and are in lieu of the rooflight to the sacristy.  To maintain access to the presbytery and Damien Hall while construction works are in progress the retaining wall supporting the driveway below the existing external steps is to be kept.  This will result in a narrower extension reduced by the thickness of the existing retaining wall, approximately 225mm.  The narthex needs to be enlarged by incorporating the external raised planting bed to accommodate the revised internal planning.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC3, LSQ1, CA1, CSF1, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1.     Within the built up area excluded from the Green Belt, development for community facilities is acceptable in accordance with the requirements of Policy CSF1, provided that the proposal would not be detrimental to the character and amenities of the area in which it would be located by reason of its appearance, layout, noise, traffic generation, vehicle, loss of landscaping or general disturbance.  The application site is also located within the Great Missenden Conservation Area, and proposals for development are required to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.  The principle of a single storey front extension and two-storey side/rear extension to the church has been established by the granting of planning permission 00/1760/CH.  The enlarged sacristy and three new windows serving the sacristy do not require planning permission, and therefore the only issue for consideration is whether the enlarged narthex is detrimental to the residential amenities of the neighbouring residents, or to the character of either the Conservation Area of Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  

2.     It is not considered that the proposed alteration will adversely affect the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties, and therefore no objections are raised in this respect.

3.     The small-scale nature of the proposed alterations means that there will be no adverse impact on either the character or appearance of the Conservation area or the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

4.     The proposed alterations are relatively minor, and will have no implications for parking provision.

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