Meeting documents

2001/48/TC

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     21/09/01     Decide by Date:     02/11/01

Parish:     Chenies     Ward:     Chenies

App Type:     Work to unpreserved trees in Conservation Area

Applicant:      MR AND MRS D W LOCKYER

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Chenies & Latimer Conservation Area

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Grade 2 Listed Building

THE APPLICATION

Leyland cypress – either removal complete or major lopping, awaiting advice from tree surgeon

Small group of beech hedge – remove a small group of existing beech hedge.

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant:     Mature Leyland cypress – completely outgrown its position and is overshadowing the garden – taking valuable moisture from the surrounding area which we intend to landscape.

Intend to remove small section of beech hedge to allow access for off private road parking.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Small triangular garden area separated from house – grassed with hedge and trees around edge.  Large Leyland cypress on one side – although fairly prominent not native species or characteristic of area – not considered important.  2m length of beech hedge 2m high adjacent to access road – only 2 stems out of eight above notifiable size – not directly linked to other hedges.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy CA5 

ISSUES

1.     The trees are situated in a small garden area separated from the house. The cypress is fairly prominent in views from the road but there is limited visibility of the beech hedge.

2.     Although the cypress is fairly large it is considered that it does not make a significant contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. Similarly the short length of beech hedge is not considered to be important.  A Tree Preservation Order would therefore not be appropriate.

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

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

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

2001/49/TC

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     02/10/01     Decide by Date:     13/11/01

Parish:     Chesham Bois     Ward:     Chesham Bois & Weedon

App Type:     Work to unpreserved trees in Conservation Area

Applicant:      MR M L PADWICK

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Chesham Bois Conservation Area

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

Within 500m of Heritage Woodland (all SINCS) TW5 & TW6

Unclassified road

within 500m of a SINC - NC1

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

96/0015/TC     Felling of six yews and lopping of one yew. No TPO made.

THE APPLICATION

Felling of ten yews.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant:     Firstly asking for reissue of permit for felling of yew hedge containing six yews – first issued on 20/6/96 (96/0015/TC) and no time limit included in letter – however on starting work recently was stopped and told there was a time limit that had passed.

Secondly requesting permission to fell four other yews in same hedge.

Wish to remove yew hedge because trees are overgrown and in poor condition - wish to level and replant this area of garden, which will include new tree planting - in the five years since gaining permission for the original felling have planted nine specimen trees both deciduous and evergreen – planning on planting more hedging and will incorporate yew trees if this is required.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Appears to have been old yew hedge at edge of lawn about 5m from side boundary of rear garden – neglected at one time for many years – now developed into line of 4m trees with some gaps – multi-stemmed trees in poor condition – five recently cut close to ground level – propose to remove whole line of trees, extend lawn area and replant – considered reasonable.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy CA5 

ISSUES

1.     The line of yew trees is situated in the rear garden of the property with very limited visibility from public viewpoints.

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

3.     It is considered that some replacement planting would be useful and should be requested.

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

RECOMMENDATION: That a TPO shall not be made; multiple replacement trees requested

2001/50/TC

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     04/10/01     Decide by Date:     15/11/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Giles     Ward:     Chalfont St Giles

App Type:     Work to unpreserved trees in Conservation Area

Applicant:      MR DAWSON (CURATOR)

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Chalfont St Giles Conservation Area

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Adjoining Green Belt

Historic Park or Garden

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Archaeological site

Mineral Consultation Area

Within curtilage of Listed Building - affects setting

THE APPLICATION

Crown reduction of a mulberry.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections.

REPRESENTATIONS

Agent:     Reason for application is to allow light on to property.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Mulberry about 8m high in garden beside Miltons Cottage – multi-stemmed at height of about 0.5m – feature tree in small garden – branching about 2m from listed building – some crown reduction reasonable.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy CA5 

ISSUES

1.     The mulberry tree is situated in the small garden beside the house and is clearly visible from Deanway.

2.     The tree is an important feature of the garden but it is considered that some crown reduction would be reasonable management. 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

2001/1562/CH

Case Officer:      Mark Spragg

Date Received:     19/09/01     Decide by Date:     13/11/01

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

App Type:     Application under Advertisement Regulations

Applicant:      TRIDIUM EUROPE LTD

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

92/1423/CH - Alterations, part continued use and part change of use of 4 former agricultural buildings to business use with ancillary parking. Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

Advertisement consent is sought to retain two non-illuminated company name signs at 100 Lodge Lane.

The signs which are located either side of the main entrance are 1.8m high and comprise each of a timber board (0.9m x 1.1m) with lettering and a white background.  

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection

REPRESENTATIONS

2 letters of objection have been received. The comments are summarised as follows:

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policy A1, GB2 and LSQ1.

ISSUES

The application site is located within the Green Belt and Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Two signs have been erected either side of the entrance to 100 Lodge Lane to ensure that they can be seen by drivers approaching the site from both directions along Lodge Lane.  The signs are however considered to be of a sympathetic design and  materials and appropriate within the context of their location at the entrance to a commercial premises.

In addition to the signs the subject of this application is a small name sign set further back, identifying the other properties served by the access road. It is not considered that the signage which is sought to be retained results in any significant clutter to the detriment of the visual amenities of the area. Whilst it appears that additional tenants are being sought for the premises any further applications for advertisement consent would need to be considered on the basis of any other signage existing at that time.     

The signs are screened from distant views by mature trees/hedging to the east and it is not considered that they are either detrimental to the appearance of the surrounding Chilterns AONB or the openness of the Green Belt.   

The signage is non-illuminated and located 30m+ from the closest residential property. Whilst the signs do face obliquely towards the residential properties on the other side of Lodge Lane, it is not considered that they have any significant impact upon the amenities of those residents.  

It is not considered that in view of their siting that the signs have any impact on public safety.

On the basis of the above the proposal complies with the relevant Local plan policies and is therefore recommended for consent.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional consent

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C118 5 Year Limited Period - Adverts

(2) C261 Standard Advert Conditions

2001/1566/CH

Case Officer:      Mark Spragg

Date Received:     20/09/01     Decide by Date:     14/11/01

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham Town

App Type:     Application under Advertisement Regulations

Applicant:      TAYWOOD HOMES LIMITED CENTRAL REGION

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Identified Housing Site - Local Plan H2

Adjoining Green Belt

Traffic calming scheme for Amersham Old Town

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Thames Water - groundwater protection zone

Affects setting of Grade II Listed Building

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

00/1190/CH  Alterations to and conversion of three existing buildings to provide 32 residential units, together with new access road and parking areas. Permitted and under construction.

00/1191/CH  Application for listed building Consent for alterations and conversion of two existing buildings to provide 25 residential units. Granted consent.

00/2088/CH  Erection of replacement building to provide 11 residential units.  Permitted.

01/0336/CH  Redevelopment to provide 68 flats including underground and surface parking, served by extensions to existing driveway, detached refuse store and five pergolas.  Refused.

01/650/CH     Erection of single storey building to provide temporary show flat and cabin. Refused. The building was considered to be excessive in size, prominent and harmful to the listed buildings and Conservation Area. The building has been constructed but has not been completed and is not in use. Appeal allowed

01/1439/CH     Erect 4 x 6.5m high flag poles. Refused

01/1540/CH     Retention of temporary portable sales cabin. Refused

THE APPLICATION

Advertisement consent is sought for the retention of 4 non-illuminated signs in positions around the southern corner of the former Amersham Hospital site, advertising the ongoing residential development.  Originally permission was sought to retain 4 signs, but 2 have been deleted from the application by the applicant.

Signs 1, 2, 5 and 6 are white plastic and attached to white metal uprights.

Signs 7 and 8 have been deleted from the application by the applicant following the refusal of the application to retain the portable sales building  as these signs are attached to its front and side elevations.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approval

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter of objection and one raising no objections have been received . The  letter of objection makes the following points:

- The applicants have failed to honour previous assurance regarding the construction of the development

CONSULTATIONS

Historic Buildings Officer – No objections as long as the signs are temporary. They do not have any long-term effect on the setting of the listed buildings, and the large sign has been sited away from the listed building, which is screened by the “show home”.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies A1, LB2 and CA2

ISSUES

1.     The signage clearly relates to the development being carried out.  

2.     The signs are considered to be modest, and acceptable in terms of their size, colour materials and design.  

3.     In view of the siting of the signs around the perimeter of a construction site it is not considered that they result in significant visual clutter nor appear unduly prominent within the streetscene or from views out of or into the adjacent Conservation Area.

4.     Whilst the signs are not appropriate for long term retention, particularly given their proximity to the adjoining Grade 2 Listed Building, they are considered acceptable in the short term as a means of advertising the current development.  

5.     It is not considered that the signage has any significant impact upon the amenities of immediate neighbours or on public safety.

6.     As such the signage complies with the Councils relevant Local Plan policies.

7.     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) C119 Limited Period Until 31/12/2002  - Adverts

(2) C261 Standard Advert Conditions

(3) C136 Plans amended by letter dated 6 November 2001.

2001/1568/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     19/09/01     Decide by Date:     13/11/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Austenwood

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS C PHELPS

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

CH/356/81     Single storey extension, approved.

CH/1752/84     Loft conversion, approved.

86/430/CH     Front porch and single storey side and rear extension, approved.

THE APPLICATION

The application involves removing the existing front porch and replacing it with a front extension that would be between 2.25m and 2.7m deep, extending across the full width of the dwelling, the porch extension would project a further 0.9m with a pitched roof over.  The roof extension would involve building over this front extension and also part of the existing dwelling.  The result would be a building with flank elevations of 11.3m and 11.8m in depth.  The roof over would reach a ridge height of approximately 8.6m (when measured from the front), the ridge at 4.4m long would run at right-angles to the road.

PARISH COUNCIL

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 application site is located in the built-up area of Chalfont St. Peter wherein residential extensions are acceptable in principle subject to issues regarding its impact upon the character of the area, impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring properties and compliance with the Counicl’s car parking standards.

2.     There are no objections to the overall design of the extension, the resultant dwelling is not considered to have an adverse impact upon the character of the area.

3.     The proposal should not have an adverse impact upon the amenities currently enjoyed by the occupants of No.27 School Lane.  In this respect it is noted that this dwelling does not have any windows in its flank elevation and has a single storey rear extension adjacent to the boundary with No.25.  Although the roof extension would be clearly visible from the first floor of No.27, the orientation of the properties together with the design of the roof is such that the extension should not appear overbearing to No.27.  The proposed extension would have a greater impact upon the amenities of No.23.  This dwelling is set at a lower level than the application site, although it should be noted that this dwelling does not have any windows in its flank elevation.  The proposed front extension would not have any impact upon No.23, however the roof extensions towards the rear of No.25 would have some impact, given that the rear elevation of No.25 is set behind that of No.23.  Notwithstanding this it is not considered that the proposal would appear overbearing to such a significant amount that would justify a refual, in this respect it is noted that the roof extension has been hipped and pitches away from No.23 in an attempt to minimise its impact.  The orientation of the two dwellings is such that No.23 may suffer some overshadowing from the extension, again however, this is not considered to be significant enough to warrant a refusal on these grounds.  The proposal would not have an adverse impact upon the dwellings at the rear fronting onto Ashlea Road.  As such no objections are raised under Policies GC2, GC3, H13 and H14.

4.     Sufficient car parking is provided 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: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

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

(3) C174A No additional windows in first floor or above in both flank elevations of extension.

2001/1590/CH

Case Officer:      Kathryn York

Date Received:     24/09/01     Decide by Date:     18/11/01

Parish:     Little Missenden - Holmer Green     Ward:     Holmer Green

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR & MRS S RUSSELL

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Article 4 Direction

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

CH/1411/74  Two storey extension.  Refused: cramped appearance in street scene; precedent; insufficient amenity space.

CH/105/75  Rear extension.  Permitted - Not implemented.

THE APPLICATION

Proposes part two storey, part single storey rear extension measuring 3.85m x 6.95m at ground floor level, 3.85m x 4.4m at first floor level, with a pitched roof 7.25m high; adjoining this extension is a small rear porch measuring 1.5m x 2.05m with a pitched roof 3.5m high; single storey front extension measuring 2.8m x 3.45m, with a small flat roofed dormer above, and a roofline continuing the existing.

PARISH COUNCIL

Approve.  

REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters received from occupiers of 34 Winters Way: stating no objection to the actual proposal, making the following comment:

1.     The extension will adjoin the wall of No.34, and the owners shall not consent to any fixing to their property by no. 36 Winters Way.  No. 36 may request permission at a later date, once the construction company carrying out the above work submits a guarantee to no.34.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1.     The application site is located in 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 does not cut the forty five degree line taken from the midpoint of the two storey window in the adjoining property.  It is not considered that the extension will appear either visually intrusive or overbearing to the occupiers of this property. A public footpath separates the house from the other neighbouring property, and as such it is not considered that the extension will have an adverse impact on the residential amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties, and therefore no objections are raised in this respect.

3.     The rear garden of the property is unusual in that there is a public footpath dividing the garden in two.  Although the extension will be highly visible from the footpath, it is considered that the overall appearance of the rear of property will be considerably improved.  The extension maintains a minimum gap of 1.25m to the site boundary, in accordance with the requirements of Policies H11 and H16.  The dormer window infills an existing flat roofed section to the front, and is small scale and subordinate to the roof slope in which it is sited.  It is not considered that the extensions will detract from the appearance of the street scene, and therefore no objections are raised in this respect.

4.     As a result of the proposed extensions, the floor space of the dwelling increases from 99sq m to 147sq m.  There are currently no parking spaces provided within the curtilage of the site, and therefore in accordance with the requirements of Policies TR11 and TR16, one parking space would need to be provided within the curtilage of the site.  There is space within the front garden to provide one car parking space and therefore 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) 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 at first floor level or above in either the north west or south east elevations of the extension hereby permitted.

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

(4) The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied or brought into use until one parking space, measuring 2.44m x 4.88m, has been provided within the curtilage of the site, in accordance with a plan which shall have previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The parking space shall thereafter be permanently reserved for parking purposes.

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

(1) INFORMATIVE - You are advised that a licence from Buckinghamshire County Council Highways Department will be required for the dropped kerb/crossover necessary to gain access to the required parking area.  For further information on this matter, contact Buckinghamshire County Council Highways Department, 29 Windsor End, Beaconsfield, Bucks, HP9 2JL.  Telephone: 01494 586600.

(2) INFORMATIVE - You are advised that the permission of the occupiers of the neighbouring property - No.34 Winters Way, will be required prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted.

2001/1594/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     24/09/01     Decide by Date:     18/11/01

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham Common

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR N THOMAS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Unclassified road

Thames Water - groundwater protection zone

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

CH/2154/83     Single storey rear extension, approved.

91/320/CH     Single storey side extension, approved but not implemented.

92/903/CH     Dormer window in north side elevation, approved, not implemented.

99/720/CH     Single storey side extension, approved

THE APPLICATION

The application would involve the removal of the existing garage and its replacement with an extension that would project approximately 4.5m to and would be between 9.1m and 10.1m deep.  Over part of this ground floor extension additional first floor accommodation is proposed.  This part of the proposed scheme would involve extending the existing ridge across by approximately 4.4m and having its eaves level at the front and rear of the dwelling to match that of the existing with the eaves to the side of the proposed extension at approximately 2.5m.  In this long sloping roofline a dormer window is proposed, this would be 3m in width, 1.5m in height with a pitched roof over adding a further 1.2m (to its ridge).

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approve.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, H4, H11, H13, H14, H15, H16, H17, H18, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The design of the extension is considered acceptable and should not appear unduly obtrusive within the general character of the area.  No objections are raised under Policies GC1, H11, H13, H15, H16, H17 & H18.

2.     The impact of the extensions upon the amenities of neighbouring properties is confined to No.2 Westanley Avenue.  It is not considered that the extensions would lead to any significant loss of amenity.  In this respect it is noted that No.2 has some windows in its flank elevation, however, noting the relative position of the existing dwelling, it is not considered that the proposed extensions would lead to a significant loss of amenity for the neighbour.

3.     Sufficient car parking is provided within the curtilage of the site to comply with Policies TR11 and TR16.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

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

(3) C174A No additional windows in southern elevation of extension.

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

2001/1596/CH

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     20/09/01     Decide by Date:     14/11/01

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

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

Applicant:      J H TAYLER

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Tree Preservation Order

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The Amersham Rural District Council (St Heliers, Little Chalfont) Tree Preservation Order, 1967 covering 2 individual trees and 4 areas of trees at Birkett Way, Little Chalfont.

91/0640/CH     Alterations, single storey rear extension and dormer window in front elevation above garage. (18 Birkett Way). Conditional permission.

91/0814/CH     Removal of two branches from an oak tree. (18 Birkett Way). Conditional permission.

97/0010/CH     Crown reduction of an oak tree. (16 Birkett Way). Conditional permission.

01/1076/CH     Pruning of a horse chestnut and an oak. Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

Removal of an oak tree, pruning of an oak tree and lopping of a leaning branch of a horse chestnut.

PARISH COUNCIL

The Parish Council has no objections to the pruning already permitted but without photographs is unable to fully appreciate the reasons for the applicant’s request to fell the oak tree nearer the house and is seriously concerned by this proposal to fell a healthy oak tree protected by a TPO.

The Clerk states this is not an objection but rather a comment by non-professionals who are not familiar with the details of the situation.

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant:     When obtained quotes for tree work was advised:

Horse chestnut - the deep split in one of its branches of the horse chestnut is a sign of distress –if it is not lopped off, it would sooner or later come crashing down by itself – poses potential danger to safety of children playing in garden, pedestrians using pavement and neighbour’s property.

Oak tree growing leaning towards house – in a big storm it could cause enormous damage to our property – it is suggested that the tree be removed.

Oak tree in garden needs pruning – tree is very overgrown – cutting light from coming into garden and affecting aerial reception of television set.

Two letters from neighbours having no objections to the proposals.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Belt of trees at rear between houses – one oak at rear corner of dwelling with slight lean to house – about 2m from house - some low branches removed – branches growing over single storey extension and touching both roof of extension and house – some reduction approved under 2001/1076/CH - now propose removal of tree – other trees in vicinity so would not create visual gap.

Area of trees on corner of road – includes large horse chestnut about 3m from neighbours’ garage and extension – some branches touching roof – large secondary stem growing forwards with branches over road – divides into two close to ground – removal of secondary stem would leave more balanced upright tree.

Large oak tree on corner beside house – branching close to house – unbalanced crown with main part on side away from house – some crown reduction reasonable.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy TW2 

ISSUES

1.     The horse chestnut and the oak proposed for reduction are large prominent trees near the corner of the road while the oak proposed for felling is less visible, being situated in a belt of trees at the rear of the house.

2.     The oak proposed for felling is a large leaning tree close to the house with branches over the roof of the extension and very close to the roofs of both the house and the extension. It is considered that the removal of the tree would have a limited effect on the amenity of the area as there are other trees in the immediate vicinity.

3.     The horse chestnut has a secondary stem leaning towards the road and the removal of this would leave a more balanced and upright tree.

4.     The other oak is a large tree beside the house on the corner of the road and some crown reduction is considered to be reasonable management.

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) C109 Time Limit for Consent under Tree Preservation Order

(2) The tree surgery hereby approved shall not exceed:

a) the felling of the leaning oak tree beside the house

b) the removal of the leaning secondary stem of the horse chestnut tree

c) the crown reduction and re-shaping by 25% of the oak tree on the corner of the road.

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

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

(2) INFORMATIVE - I212 Tree Work - Crown Reduction                                                 

2001/1597/CH

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     21/09/01     Decide by Date:     15/11/01

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham the Hill

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

Applicant:      SAVILLS TREE SERVICE

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Tree Preservation Order

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The Chiltern District Council (Land at former Hyrons Nursery, Orchard Lane, Amersham) Tree Preservation Order 1994 (No 7 of 1994) covering a horse chestnut and a cypress as individual trees.

94/0684/CH     Erection of 11 detached dwellings with double garages and 4 detached bungalows with garages. Conditional permission.

95/1196/CH     Trimming and reshaping of a horse chestnut tree. Conditional permission.

96/1218/CH     Crown thinning and crown reduction of a horse chestnut tree. Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

Crown lifting and crown thinning of horse chestnut by 20%.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approval, subject to Forestry Officer approval.

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter from a neighbour having no objection to the proposal and commenting that would prefer to see horse chestnut felled as it is growing very fast and blocks out a great deal of light in its vicinity.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Large horse chestnut in garden beside house – about 7m from house and from garage – reduced under 95/1196/CH and 96/1218/CH – main stem divides into two at height of about 3m – also two side branches at same height – both previously lopped – now propose removal - proposed crown thinning considered reasonable – proposed work would have little effect on amenity value of tree.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy TW2 

ISSUES

1.     The horse chestnut tree is situated in a garden beside the house with some visibility from the road.

2.     The proposed work is considered to be reasonable management that would have little effect on the amenity value of the tree.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

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

(2) The tree surgery hereby approved shall not exceed crown thinning by 20% and the removal of two side branches growing at a height of about 3 metres.

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

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

(2) INFORMATIVE - I212 Tree Work - Crown Reduction                                                 

2001/1603/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     24/09/01     Decide by Date:     18/11/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Giles     Ward:     Chalfont St Giles

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS A VOS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

THE APPLICATION

The proposed porch would be 1.8m by 1m in floor area with a pitched roof over to a height of 3.2m.  The extensions at ground floor level would project 0.75m to the side of the existing dwelling and would be 4.5m in depth, being level with the existing rear elevation of the house.  The first floor extension would be the same depth, however, its flank elevation would be set in 1m from the boundary (a projection of 0.4m from the side of the existing elevation).  The pitched roof over would reach a height of approximately 5.95m.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letters received from No.18 & 24 noting the following points –

1.     Disruption to and restriction of, right of way.

2.     Loss of privacy to No.18 as four windows would be overlooking our property, the ground floor windows being about 4ft from our kitchen window.

3.     Severe loss of light as the building would be very close to our main kitchen window.

4.     Orientation of building on plans is incorrect – kitchen window faces south and would therefore have no sunlight all day should the proposed extension be allowed.

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.     There are no objections raised to the design and impact of the proposed extensions upon the character of the area.  

2.     It is considered that the main issue is the impact upon the amenities of No.18, the neighbouring property to the north of the application site, in particular attention is raised to the positioning of the kitchen window and door in the southern flank wall of the No.18.  At present this window looks out upon a substantial hedge situated on the boundary between properties, with the existing flank wall of the dwelling at No.20 beyond.  The proposal, would bring this wall closer to the mutual boundary and as such closer to the window in question.  It is not considered that any objections are raised to the single storey element of the proposal, however, concerns are raised to the impact the extension at first floor level would have upon the amenities of the neighbouring property.  Although the neighbouring property has further windows that provide light to this room, the conservatory at the rear of the dwelling, it is considered that the light provided by this window is important, given its aspect.  Having due regard to the fact that the existing rear of No.20 blocks some light and already appears obtrusive, it is considered that the proposal would worsen the situation further, in this respect it is considered that the refusal of the application on these grounds would be justified.  The comments of the neighbour regarding the potential for overlooking are noted, however, given the positioning of the existing windows of No.20, together with the substantial hedge on the boundary (negating the impact of the ground floor window) and the facT that the window to the first floor bedroom could reasonably be required by a condition to be obscured glazed, it is not considered that any objections could be raised to this aspect of the scheme.

3.     Although no car parking off street is provided, no objections can be raised under Policies TR11 and TR16 as the proposed extensions do not raise the gross floorspace of the dwelling over the threshold of 120m2 contained in the Policy.

4.     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 extension, by reason of its height and close proximity to the mutual boundary with No.18 Albion Road, would appear unduly obtrusive and overbearing to that property, and reduce the amount of natural daylight that would reach the kitchen window of this neighbouring property.  Consequently the proposal would be detrimental to the amenities at present enjoyed by occupiers of No. 18 Albion Road, and be contrary to Polices GC3,  H13(i) and H14 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 (including the Adopted Alterations - May 2001).

2001/1609/CH

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     25/09/01     Decide by Date:     19/11/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Austenwood

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

Applicant:      MR K TAYLOR

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Chalfont St Peter-Firs Estate Conservation Area

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Unclassified road

Northolt Airfield safeguarding zone

Tree Preservation Order

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The Chiltern District Council (Land at The Firs, South Side, Chalfont St Peter) Tree Preservation Order 1987 (No 21 of 1987) covering 3 individual trees including an oak at 1 Firs End, two sycamores at The Firs, Southside.

92/0829/CH     Lopping and crown thinning of two sycamore trees. Conditional permission.

92/0025/TC     Felling of a Scots pine. No TPO made.

97/1175/CH     Crown reduction of two sycamore trees. Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

Crown reduction of two sycamore trees.

PARISH COUNCIL

Would accept Forestry Officer’s report.

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant:     Reasons for application – too close to house – insurance condition - we reduce every four years and work done in 1997 – tops now too big and a concern.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Two large sycamore trees in prominent positions on road frontage opposite common – quite heavily reduced under 92/0829/CH and 97/1175/CH after concerns about possible effect on foundations – crown spread now about 4m – only minor reduction required.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy TW2 

ISSUES

1.     The two sycamore trees are situated in prominent positions at the front of the house opposite the common.

2.     Crown reduction was carried out under 92/0829/CH and 97/1175/CH because the insurers were concerned about the possible effects of tree roots on the property. There has been some re-growth since the last reduction but only very minor reduction work is considered to be justified.

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 reduction and crown thinning by 15%.

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

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

(2) INFORMATIVE - I212 Tree Work - Crown Reduction                                                 

2001/1610/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     25/09/01     Decide by Date:     19/11/01

Parish:     Seer Green     Ward:     Seer Green & Jordans

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS VROOBEL

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Mineral Consultation Area

Dwellings

Total New Dwellings - proposed:          1

Total Dwellings - displaced/demolished:     1

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

99/0580/CH   Application for a certificate of Lawfulness for an existing use relating to the vehicular access on to Chalfont Road.   Established Use.

00/1873/CH   Replacement detached house.   Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

Planning permission under No. 00/1873/CH has already been granted for a house 17.5m by 8.2m with a ridge running at 7.7m. This application is to amend this approved scheme to include a slab and cantilever canopy above the door on the south west elevation 2.2m by 0.7m and an oriel bay window 3.1m wide by 1.2m in depth and 3.2m in height. A conservatory is also proposed on the north east elevation, 5.5m wide and 2.5m deep, with a hipped roof at 3.5m.

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter from a Parish Councillor on behalf of the Parish Council raising the following comments:

We consider that the house finishes should remain as the earlier application approved (00/1873) i.e. red multi-facing bricks, plain red clay tiles etc. This has the merit of maintaining the vernacular style of the other large houses in the immediate area, namely: Princess Marina Centre, Ponds Farm, Rawlings Farm and Newbarn Farm etc., The coloured rendering now proposed would make the house rather suburban and incongruous with its neighbours.

CONSULTATIONS

Building Control – Fire Fighting Access:

Access OK.

District Engineer – Highways:

Comments remain the same as those for the original application 00/1873/CH.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC3, GB7, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The site is located within the open Green Belt where the property in principal was considered acceptable in terms of Local Plan Policy GB7. This policy states that the replacement of an existing habitable dwelling will be acceptable in principle provided that the new dwelling is not materially larger than the dwelling to be demolished. The existing dwelling has a floorspace of 273sq.m. while the application granted permission under 00/1873/CH has a floorspace of 276sq.m. The additional 16sq.m. will bring the floorspace to 292sq.m. which is only a small increase from the original floorspace of the property when viewing the total floorpace in question.

2.     The general massing and height of the building has already been considered and this is not proposed to change. The introduction of the conservatory and bay window will not be easily viewed from outside the curtilage, both being at ground floor level. The general character of this mock ‘Arts and Crafts’ property will not be disrupted from the previous application. The concerns of the Parish Council over the proposed rendering of the elevations (being detrimental to the character of the surrounding area) has been deleted as revised plans return the fascia to brickwork.

3.     Neighbouring property at ‘Pond Farm’ will be unaffected by these incremental additions and as such Local Plan Policy has been complied with.

4.     Adequate parking space exists on site for at least three cars to park clear of the highway.

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) C433 Materials - General Details

(3) The dwelling hereby approved shall only be constructed in accordance with the levels set out on plans 1228 14.

Reason: In order to prevent the dwelling appearing visually intrusive in the landscape.

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

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

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

(7) C182 Demolition of dwelling (Penny Oaks) in rural area

2001/1617/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     26/09/01     Decide by Date:     20/11/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Chalfont St Peter Central

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR CALLAGHAN

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Northolt Airfield safeguarding zone

Site within 250 m. of active or disused rubbish tip

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

01/1074/CH     Two-storey side extension with conservatory at rear.  Refused less than 1m to boundary from flank elevation at first floor level.

THE APPLICATION

It is proposed to construct a side extension to the southern end of the existing dwelling.  It would measure 3.2m wide by 7.65m deep continuing the line of the existing ridge with a half-hipped roof.  It would provide two bedrooms at first floor level served by 1.2m by 1m pitched roof eaves dormer windows in both the front and rear elevations.  The flank wall would be 1m from the common boundary to the south.  It is also proposed to construct a single storey rear extension attached to the side extension to provide a conservatory measuring 3.8m wide by 3.5m in maximum depth with the roof to a maximum height of 3m.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, GC4, H11, H13, H14, H15, H16, H17, 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.     As noted in the planning history section above, the previous application was refused as there was less than 1m between the flank elevation at first floor level and the boundary with the neighbouring property.  This application has been amended to overcome this reason, a 1m gap between the boundary and first floor flank elevation is now provided.

3.     Although there was only one reason for refusal on the previous application there have been other material changes to the proposed extension which require further consideration.  One such change is to the design of the roof, whereas the previous application had a fully hipped roof, the current application has a ‘half-hipped’ roofline.  Although this would not match that of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling, it is considered that due to the variety of differently designed buildings in the vicinity, that the proposed roofline would not appear to be unduly intrusive in the street scene, as such is not considered a refusal on these grounds could be justified.  The other alteration to the plans is the proposed window at first floor level facing ‘Downland’, in the previous application there was no such window proposed.  However, it is noted that there is a clear glazed window in the first floor flank elevation of the existing dwelling, together with windows, (both clear glazed and obscured), in the first floor flank elevation of ‘Downland’.  Although this could potentially lead to a loss of amenity for the occupiers of the neighbouring property, it is considered that a condition requiring the window in question to be both fitted with obscure glass and fixed shut, would preserve the amenities of the neighbouring dwelling.

4.     Three parking spaces could be provided within the curtilage of the property in compliance with the requirements of Policy TR16m2.

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) C174A No additional windows in first floor of southern elevation of extension.

(4) The window in the first floor south facing flank elevation of the development hereby approved shall be permanently fixed shut and shall not be glazed other than with obscured glass at any time.

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

2001/1633/CH

Case Officer:      Iwan Jones

Date Received:     26/09/01     Decide by Date:     20/11/01

Parish:     Amersham - Little Chalfont     Ward:     Little Chalfont

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MRS A LLOYD

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

THE APPLICATION

The application relates to an extension to the existing rear dormer window. This extension would measure 1m deep along the whole width of the existing dormer. A dummy pitched roof is also proposed.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approval.

REPRESENTATIONS

Five letters of objection received from the occupiers of the neighbouring property and its associated family submitting;

Side windows of No.89 will be deprived of natural light.

Loss of privacy.

Proposal out of keeping with surrounding properties.

Precedent.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

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

2.     As the existing dormer would only be enlarged by 1m deep and as the existing rear elevations of both neighbouring properties project beyond that of the property subject of this application, it is considered that any additional effect on the amenities of the occupiers of these neighbouring properties would be minimal. No objection raised in relation to Policies GC2, GC3 and H14.

3.     It is considered that the height and width of the proposed extended dormer would not appear excessively large within the roof in which it would be constructed. The proposal also relates to the rear of the property. No objection is raised in relation to Policies H13(ii) and H18.  

4.     The proposal has no implications in terms of parking provision. 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

2001/1638/CH

Case Officer:      Thomas Gabriel

Date Received:     28/09/01     Decide by Date:     22/11/01

Parish:     Penn     Ward:     Penn

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR GILES ROBINSON

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Penn & Tylers Green Conservation Area

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Class B Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Archaeological site

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

01/0775/CH   Vehicular access. Conditional permission – not implemented.

THE APPLICATION

The application is for a two storey rear extension measuring part 3.35m/ part 5.9m wide and part 3.5m/ part 6.25m deep. The floorspace of the dwelling (it has not been extended before) is 118.9sq. m. The floorspace of the proposed extension is 59.5sq.m, which represents 50.1% of the floorspace of the dwelling.

PARISH COUNCIL

No comment.

CONSULTATIONS

Wycombe District Council – No objections.

Bucks County Archaeologist: Objection – No information has been provided concerning the archaeological impact of this proposal.  An evaluation should be provided prior to the determination of the application.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, GB13, LSQ1, H14, H15, TR11, TR16, AS2, AS3, CA1 and CA2.

ISSUES

1.     The application site is located within the open Green Belt where domestic extensions should remain small and subordinate in size and scale to the original dwelling, and should not impinge upon the openness of the Green Belt. The site is also located within the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty where it is the Council’s policy to preserve the natural landscape beauty of the area. The other relevant local plan policies should also be complied with.

2.     The proposed extension would add 59.5sq. m. to the floorspace of this previously unextended dwelling, which represents 50.1% of the floorspace of the dwelling, and would considerably increase the bulk of the dwelling. However, the extension is located to the rear of the dwelling and would be screened from the north by the attached stable block and tack room (which is within the curtilage of Yonder Lodge), such that it would not appear visually prominent. Furthermore, the site is located on the boundary between the Green Belt and the adjacent Established Residential Area of Special Character such that the dwelling would not appear distinct from the Established Residential Area. Given these factors, it is not considered that the proposed extension would have an adverse impact upon the openness of the Green Belt. On balance, no objections are raised in terms of Policy GB13.   

3.     It is not considered that the proposed extension would have any significantly detrimental impacts upon the neighbouring dwelling, Green Hurst. Though it will increase the depth of the flank elevation of the dwelling by 6.25m approximately 4m from the boundary with Green Hurst, and will extend to the rear of the Green Hurst by approximately 3m, it will be not appear overbearing or visually intrusive as the two dwellings are separated by approximately 9m. This distance is considered sufficient to reduce the impact of the proposed extension to an acceptable level. Overlooking to the ground floor habitable room windows of Green Hurst from the proposed kitchen window of the extension will not be an issue as the boundary treatment prevents this. Overlooking from the remaining windows in the south elevation of the extension can be overcome through the use of obscure glazing.

4.     The design of the extension matches the existing dwelling and respects the scale and proportions of the building. It is not considered that the extension will have an adverse impact upon the Penn and Tylers Green Conservation Area.

5.     As a result of the extension, the floorspace of the dwelling will exceed 120sq. m, thereby requiring a parking space to be provided within the curtilage of the dwelling to accord with the Council’s Adopted Carparking Standards. This can be provided. No objections are raised in terms of Policies TR11 or TR16.  

6.     Notwithstanding that the proposed extension is acceptable in terms of the Green Belt criteria, the impact upon the Penn and Tylers Green Conservation Area and the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring property, and the Council’s Adopted Carparking Standards, the site is considered to be potentially significant from an archaeological perspective. However, the applicant has not acknowledged this possibility and has not undertaken any preliminary investigation of the site with regard to the impact of the proposed development. In the absence of such information in respect of a site that could contain important artefacts, objections are raised with regard to Policy HE1 of the Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991 –2011, and Policies AS2 and AS3 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997.     

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 site is located within the medieval and post- medieval pottery and tile manufacturing village of Penn. It is unclear whether the proposal would harm the potential interest of the site because the applicant has not submitted any information relating to the archaeological impact of the proposal, or demonstrated how any significant remains could be preserved if discovered. In the absence of an archaeological assessment of the site, it is not possible to estimate the damage that the proposal may cause to any archaeological features/ remains present within the site. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy HE1 of the Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991- 2011, and Policies AS2 and AS3 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan, 1997.

2001/1646/CH

Case Officer:      Thomas Gabriel

Date Received:     01/10/01     Decide by Date:     25/11/01

Parish:     Little Missenden - Holmer Green     Ward:     Holmer Green

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      TERRY GROVE

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

THE APPLICATION

The application is for a single storey front extension including a pitched roof over the existing garage. The extension is to measure 5.6m wide and part 1.5m/ part 2.1m deep. The pitched roof over the garage is to measure 3.65m high to the pitch and 5.6m deep. It is to extend across the front of the dwelling, over the extension and is to be 9.45m wide in total. Where it extends across the front of the dwelling, it is to be 2.2m deep.

PARISH COUNCIL

Approve.

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 proposed front extension and pitched roof will not detract from the appearance of the dwelling or that of the street scene, will not adversely affect either of the neighbouring dwellings and will not result in the loss of privacy for the occupiers of those dwellings. The extension will respect the scale and proportions of the dwelling. No objections are raised in these respects.

3.     As a result of the extension, the floorspace of the dwelling will exceed 120sq. m, thereby requiring three carparking spaces within the curtilage of the dwelling to accord with the Council’s Adopted Carparking Standards. There is sufficient space to accommodate three vehicles within the curtilage of the dwelling. A condition can be used to ensure the provision of a third space. No objections are raised in terms of Policies TR11 and TR16.  

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

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

(3) The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until a third parking space has been provided within the curtilage of the dwelling in accordance with plans which shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.

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

2001/1652/CH

Case Officer:      Kathryn York

Date Received:     02/10/01     Decide by Date:     26/11/01

Parish:     The Lee     Ward:     Cholesbury & The Lee

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS N BARTON

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt settlement GB4

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

90/0393/CH Single storey front extension.  Permitted and implemented.

98/1387/CH  Alterations, single storey front and rear extensions and two storey side/front/rear extension incorporating double garage and balcony at rear.  Permitted – Not implemented, but remains extant.

THE APPLICATION

Proposes part single storey, part two storey rear extension and first floor side/front extension.  The extensions comprise a part first floor/part two storey extension above and to the rear of the existing garage, measuring 7m x 6.4m at ground floor level, and extending above both the existing garage and the rear projection at first floor level, although the rear projection is 1.3m shorter at first floor level.  The extension has a part hipped/part pitched roof 7.2m high, incorporating a small dormer window in both the front and rear elevations.  Two single storey rear infil extensions are also proposed.  The first adjoins the proposed two storey extension and an existing rear projection, continues the ridgeline of the existing projection and extends no further towards the rear of the property than the existing single storey rear projection.  The second rear extension comprises the erection of a glazed pitched roof 3.3m high, again extending no further towards the rear than the existing rear projection.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC3, GB2, GB12, H11, H13, H14, H15, H16, H17, H18, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The application site is located within both a GB4 area in Lee Common 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.  the extension is similar in size and scale to that granted under planning permission 98/1387/CH, which remains extant.

2.     The adjoining properties are sited a sufficient distance away such that the extension will appear neither visually intrusive nor overbearing to the occupiers of these properties.  There are already a number of second storey windows in the rear elevation of the property, and the addition of the rear dormer will not generate a significant amount of additional overlooking.  No objections are raised in this respect.

3.     The two storey element of the extension is sited at least 2.5m from the eastern site boundary, in accordance with the requirements of Policies H11 and H16.  The property is set well back from the road with a high level of screening on the front boundary.  It is not considered that the extension will have a detrimental impact on either the street scene or the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  No objections are raised in relation to Policies GB2, GB12, LSQ1 or H15.

4.     The dormer windows are suitably small scale and subordinate to the roof slope in which they are sited, and therefore no objections are raised in this respect.

5.     Adequate parking space exists within the curtilage of the site.  No objections are raised in terms of Policies TR11 and TR16.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

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

2001/1653/CH

Case Officer:      Thomas Gabriel

Date Received:     02/10/01     Decide by Date:     26/11/01

Parish:     Little Missenden - Holmer Green     Ward:     Holmer Green

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS A J MELHUISH

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Adjoining Green Belt

Class C Road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

94/0488/CH   Demolition of timber shed and erection of single storey side/ rear extension. Conditional permission – implemented.

THE APPLICATION

The application is for a single storey front extension measuring part 850mm/ part 4.3m wide and part 950mm/ part 3.1m deep. It is to extend the existing roofslope of the dwelling. The highest part of the extension is to be 5.1m high.

PARISH COUNCIL

Approve.

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

2.     The proposed extension represents a minor addition to the dwelling that will not detract from its appearance or that of the street scene, will not adversely affect the neighbouring dwelling, no.69 Watchet Lane, or result in the loss of privacy for the occupiers of that dwelling and will not represent overdevelopment of the site. No objections are raised in these respects.

3.     Six parking spaces exist within the curtilage of the dwelling. There are therefore no implications for the Council’s Adopted Carparking Standards.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

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

2001/1655/CH

Case Officer:      Sarah Moss

Date Received:     02/10/01     Decide by Date:     26/11/01

Parish:     Little Missenden - Holmer Green     Ward:     Holmer Green

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:     

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

CH/779/82     Front extension to garage. Conditional Permission. Implemented

87/3107/CH     Single storey rear extension. Conditional Permission. Not Implemented

THE APPLICATION

The application is to retain a single storey rear / side extension. The extension measures 6.1m in width, 3.1m in depth on the east elevation and 4.55m in depth on the west elevation. The extension has a flat roof on the western part of the extension adjacent to 22 Glebe Close measuring 3.7m in height and a pitched roof on the eastern part of the extension measuring 3.7m in height to the eaves and 4.2m in height to the ridge.

PARISH COUNCIL

Approve

REPRESENTATIONS

Letter from owners:

1. The need for this extension became apparent when our daughter discovered she was expecting a child, unfortunately she cannot afford to raise a child and continue to pay her mortgage.

2. The extension is for our daughters use and has been designed to revert to one large bedroom and changing room / shower at a later date.

3. The extension will always be an integral part of the main building.

1 letter of support from neighbour:

1. I consider that the rear extension has been built in a sympathetic form and materials wit the extension being kept as low as possible with a flat roof. Considering the size of the garden I have no objections to the application.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies  GC1, GC2, GC3, H13, H14, H15, H17, H19, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The property is located within the built up area of Holmer Green wherin domestic extensions will be considered acceptable subject to there being no significant detriment to the amenities of neighbours and the character and appearance of the street scene.

2.     The extension is sited immediately adjacent to the boundary with 22 Glebe Close. The part of the extension adjacent to this boundary has no windows in the side elevation and has a flat roof. The extension is well screened by an existing mature hedgerow and the flank wall of an existing outbuilding in the rear garden of 22 Glebe Close. Although the extension is only 0.1m from the boundary with the neighbouring property, the extension is well screened and is not considered to have an overbearing impact upon the neighbouring property. The extension is over 10m from 24 Glebe Close and is well screened from this property by mature hedging. No concerns are therefore raised in respect of the impact of the extension upon the amenities of neighbouring properties. It is noted that one half of the extension has a pitched roof measuring 4.2m in height to the ridge. Although this is fairly high it is considered to be subordinate to the original house. No concerns are raised in respect of polices GC2, GC3, H13, H14, H17

3.     The side element of this extension is visible from the street. The part of the extension that is visible measures 1.95m in width, and 2.7m in height with a flat roof, and is set back at least 15m from the front of the property. The portion of the extension that is visible is partially screened and is set well back from the road. As such although it has a flat roof it is not considered to be prominent in the street scene. No concerns are therefore raised in respect of policies GC1, H15.

4.     It is noted that the extension is to be used as a self contained residential annexe for the owners daughter, however the annex has an internal link to the main house and is subordinate in size and scale to the existing dwelling. As such provided a condition is imposed limiting the occupation of the annexe to a relative no concerns are raised in respect of policy H19.

5.     As least three car parking spaces can be provided on the application site, as such no concerns are raised in respect of policies TR11 and TR16.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1)The extension hereby permitted shall only be occupied by a relative of the occupier (s) for the time being of the property now known as 23 Glebe Close. If and when such occupation is no longer required, the extension shall become an integral part of the existing dwelling and shall not be occupied as an independent unit of accommodation.

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

(2) C174 No additional windows in western elevation of extension

2001/1660/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     03/10/01     Decide by Date:     27/11/01

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Chesham Bois & Weedon

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS NORRIS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Adjoining Green Belt

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

CH/1761/83     Single storey front extension, approved.

95/0274/CH     Alterations and single storey front / side / rear extension, approved, only the front extension was implemented.

01/1149/CH     Single storey rear extension and two-covered areas on side elevation, approved.

THE APPLICATION

The proposed rear extension would be 4m deep by 9.5m in width, 2.45m high flat roof with a ‘lantern’ style rooflight over, this window would have a height of 0.8m in height, 2.2m deep and 7.7m in width.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approve.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1.     Noting the previously approved application for a rear extension of similar dimensions in a similar position, together with the extant permission for a rear conservatory and extension to the dining room area, no objections are raised to the design of the proposal and its impact upon the character of the area.

2.     As noted above, permission was granted for extensions in a similar position to that subject to this application.  Given this and the substantial screening on both boundaries, four metre high cypress screen adjacent to No.22 and a 2m high Laurel hedge with a 3m high conifer screen behind on the boundary with No.24, it is not considered that the proposal would adversely affect the amenities of the neighbouring properties.  The proposed extension would be relatively close to the cypress hedge on the boundary with No.22, however the District Forestry Officer in his comments relating to the previous application is of the opinion that the work is unlikely to have a significant effect on the roots is reasonable care is taken.  As such no objections are raised under Polices GC2, GC3, H13 and H15.