Meeting documents

2001/1395/CH

Case Officer:      Neil Higson

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

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Chalfont Common

App Type:     Application for Certificate of Lawfulness - existing use or development

Applicant:      EMERALD  VALLEY NURSERIES

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Unclassified road

Colne Valley Park

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/0022/49     Use for Land for farmhouse and buildings. Approved. Condition 3 states that the farmhouse shall not be occupied otherwise than by a person engaged in farming on the holding comprising 44 acres.

AM/0206/49     Erection of farm dwelling. Condition 2 states that the building shall not be occupied otherwise than by a person engaged in the farming or management of the 44 acres comprising Parcel 81.

CH/2216/78     Single storey extension. Approved but not implemented.

99/785/CH     Alterations to car park, construction of new vehicular access and erection of front entrance gates, piers and wall. Refused but subsequent appeal allowed.

01/0006/CH     Application for Certificate of Lawfulness for An Existing Use relating to the occupation and Use of the Land and Buildings without complying with Condition 3 of Planning Permission AM/ 0022/49 and Condition 2 of Planning Permission AM/0206/49 – Refused.

THE APPLICATION

Application seeks a certificate of Existing Use for the occupation of Rowan Nursery without complying with condition 3 of planning permission AM/22/49 and condition 2 of AM/206/49, both of which relate to the occupancy of the dwelling by a person engaged in farming the 44 acre site. The evidence submitted consists of sworn statements by a Sandy Dolan, who has worked at the site since 1987 and Michael Rose who is the Managing Director and Chairman of Emerald Valley Nurseries. This is a re-submission following a previous refusal.

PARISH COUNCIL

Would accept the officer’s advice.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letters from agent noting,

1)     We have substantially enlarged upon the Affidavit from Sandy Dolan. You will note that she refers to Rowan Farm Bungalow. Throughout her Affidavit she makes it abundantly clear who has occupied Rowan Farm Bungalow and confirms that the occupiers have had nothing whatsoever to do with the 44 acres or indeed with agriculture.

2)     Also enclosed is an Affidavit from Mr. Rose who is the Managing Director and Chairman of Emerald Valley Nurseries. He refers to the occupation of the bungalow from 1997 to 2001.

3)     It should be recalled that we are claiming that the area of land used in conjunction with the bungalow is no more than 3.5 acres and hence condition 3 on permission AM/22/49 and condition 2 of permission AM/206/49 have been breached for more than 10 years.

CONSULTATIONS

Head of Legal Services:

-     The occupancy conditions attached to planning permissions AM/22/49 and AM/206/49 stipulate that the house now known as Rowan Farm Bungalow and located within the area edged red on the application plan (a different property to the other nearby dwelling known as Rowan Cottage) is to be occupied by a person involved agriculturally within the adjoining 44 acres of agricultural land.

-     The holding was subdivided in 1987 when 3.7 acres on which Rowan Farm Bungalow stands was purchased by a Mrs. Burrage who used it for her nursery business. She sold it to Michael Rose who runs Emerald Valley Nurseries.

-     I consider that the evidence before me indicates, on a balance of probability, that there has been a breach of the relevant conditions for the requisite period therefore bringing them outside planning control. The certificate should therefore be granted.

ISSUES

1.     This application seeks to assess the evidence to demonstrate that for a period of 10 years the bungalow and buildings at Rowan Nursery have not been occupied in accordance with conditions 3 of AM/22/49 and 2 of AM/206/49. It is not an application to assess the acceptability in Local Plan terms of the scheme.

2.     Further to the comments made by the Council’s Solicitor it is considered that sufficient evidence has been put forward to state that on the balance of probabilities that the terms of the conditions have not been complied with for the required time.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Certificate of Lawfulness - existing development or use - issued

(1) The Council is satisfied from the evidence submitted that, on a balance of probabilities, the bungalow at Rowan Farm Nurseries has been occupied without complying with the agricultural occupancy conditions under AM/0022/49 and AM/0206/49 for the required period.

(1) INFORMATIVE - The granting of this Certificate of Lawfulness is only in respect of the use of the dwelling and does not convey or imply agreement of a particular size of garden or residential curtilage. In particular it is not agreed that the site edged red equates to the residential curtilage of the dwelling.

2001/1663/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

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

Parish:     Latimer     Ward:     Ashley Green & Latimer

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS WOODRIFFE

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt settlement GB4

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

adjoining Historic Park or Garden

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/976/70     Notification of construction of 40 houses and garages by MoD.

Current application at No.27-

01/1664/CH     Single storey rear extensions, current application.

Application at No.28 –

88/2459/CH     Single storey rear extension, approved and implemented.

THE APPLICATION

The proposal is for two rear extensions, one would be 2.95m deep by approximately 2m, the other 2.95m by 3.2m.  A single storey side extension is also proposed 2.75m in width by 4.95m, this would have a pitched roof over to a ridge height of 3.3m

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, GB4, GB12, LSQ1, LSQ4, H13, H14, H15, H17, TR11 & TR16.

ISSUES

1.     It is not considered that any objections are raised with regard to the design of the extensions and to their impact upon the neighbouring dwellings and the character of the area.

2.     No adverse car parking implications occur, the gross floorspace of the existing dwelling is over 120m2.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

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

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

(1) INFORMATIVE - Notwithstanding the granting of the planning permission, this approval does not permit the erection of any part of the development on land outside the ownership of the applicant without the prior approval of the owner of that land.

(2) INFORMATIVE - For the aviodance of doubt as to what is permitted, this approval relates only to the plans received on the 3rd October 2001 and not to the amended plans received on the 26th October 2001.

2001/1664/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

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

Parish:     Latimer     Ward:     Ashley Green & Latimer

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS S RILLSTONE

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt settlement GB4

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

adjoining Historic Park or Garden

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/976/70     Notification of construction of 40 houses and garages by MoD.

Current application at No.26-

01/1663/CH     Single storey side and rear extensions, current application.

Application at No.28 –

88/2459/CH     Single storey rear extension, approved and implemented.

THE APPLICATION

The proposal is for two rear extensions, one would be 2.8m deep by approximately 2m, the other 2.95m by 3.05m.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, GB4, GB12, LSQ1, LSQ4, H13, H14, H15, H17, TR11 & TR16.

ISSUES

1.     It is not considered that any objections are raised with regard to the design of the extensions and to their impact upon the neighbouring dwellings and the character of the area.

2.     No adverse car parking implications occur, the gross floorspace of the existing dwelling is over 120m2.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

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

(3) C137 Selected plans amended by one unnumbered plan received on 26/11/01

(1) INFORMATIVE - Notwithstanding the granting of this planning permission, this approval does not permit the erection of any part of the development on land outside the ownership of the applicant without the prior approval of the owner of that land.

2001/1669/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

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

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham Town

App Type:     Application for Certificate of Lawfulness - existing use or development

Applicant:      MR T A JAMES

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Class A Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Thames Water - groundwater protection zone

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

87/3630/CH   Change of use from agricultural to residential land in connection with Bury House.   Refused permission.

90/0711/CH   Change of use from residential to office.   Refused.

93/0283/CH   Continued of use of dwelling for offices. Refused.

97/1263/CH   Single storey side extension for office use.   Conditional permission.

99/1714/CH   Detached double garage.   Withdrawn.

THE APPLICATION

Certificate of Proposed Lawfulness for an existing use relating to the use of land as part of residential curtilage.

The application includes four sworn statements as follows.

Mr. I. T. James 28 September 2001):

I, Terrence A James, purchased Bury House, London Road West including the land outlined in red on the location plan on drawing no. 02B, on 9th September 1999 and have lived here since that date. Throughout that period of time I have used the plot outlined in red on the location plan on drawing no. 02B, and signed by me, for parking my own and visitors’ cars, and for other residential purposes ancillary to the use of my house. I therefore attest to this fact with my signature.

     I further attain that Mrs. Milner, the previous owner, was using the same plot of land for the same purpose during my visit prior to purchase of the property.

Mrs. J. Muir (28 September 2001):

I, Mrs June Muir, have lived at Bury Cottage, London Road West, Amersham from February 1992 to the present day and I hereby attest that, to my knowledge, during the period from 9th September 1999 to the present day, Mr Terrence James has used the plot outlined in red on the location plan on drawing no. 02B, and signed by me, for parking his car and for other residential purposes ancillary to the use of his house. And that, during my first six years at Bury Cottage, I used the plot for parking my car also.

     I further attest that the same plot of land was used for the same purpose between 6th March 1998 and 9th September 1999 during which period it was, together with Bury House, in the ownership of Mrs. Milner.

Mr. T. D. Jarvis (4 August 2001):

I hereby confirm that to my knowledge the building outlined in red in the accompanying plan (“Location Plan” drawing no. 02A) and indicated with a black arrow in the accompanying aerial photograph (document no. 3) was built and used as a private lock-up garage. The garage was certainly in use in 1940. It was built by Mr. Arthur Lane, who was well known to me, to accommodate his privately owned Austin 7 motor car. (Mr. Lane taught me to drive, enabling me to obtain my driving licence in 1939).

Mr. R. W. Robinson (19 June 2001):

I am the Managing Director of Belgrave Estates Limited of 9 Manor Court Yard Hughenden Avenue, High Wycombe, Bucks. HP13 5RE (“the company”) which position I have held since 1986. All maters herein set out are within my personal knowledge.

     As a result of my employment with The Company I am familiar with the property delineated edged red on the Location Plan 02B and thereon edged blue (“Bury House”) which was purchased by the Company on 9th March 1990.

     I confirm that the Company was in undisputed possession and ownership of Bury House from 9th March 1990 until 6th March 1998.

     During the Company’s ownership of Bury House from 9th March 1990 until 6th March 1998 the Property was often used for the parking of vehicles by ourselves and others as hard standing was available and it was understood a garage had been built where the concrete base remained.

     And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the Statutory Declaration Act 1835.  

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approve.

REPRESENTATIONS

A further statement from Mr. Terry James that reads as follows:

Thank you for your letter of 25th October. I have answered the questions to the best of my knowledge, based on extensive research before and since our ownership.

‘Others’, during our ownership, refers to visitors to our house for parking their cars. (The previous owner was using the land for the same purpose during our pre-purchase visits).

Yes to both specific questions. Before Belgrave Estates became the owner, the land was unfenced, and the part containing the hard standing was used by Mrs. Muir of Bury Cottage for parking her car and the cars of her visitors. Part of the land had attracted the dumping of rubbish. Belgrave Estates cleared, landscaped and fenced the site prior to letting Bury House and the land to a family. The occupants enjoyed full use of the land and, in fact, always used it as their vehicular access to Bury House.

Evidently the change in use actually occurred in 1939 when the previous garage was erected. The use continuing over the years.

Burry House was certainly a residence for the whole of the time. It underwent a period of refurbishment, including floor and window replacements, etc., immediately prior to our purchase, during which time we believe it was not actually occupied.

CONSULTATIONS

Corporate services – Legal:

The application as worded is use ‘part of residential curtilage for parking private motor car’. Going through the Statements piecemeal, my comments are as follows.

He states, the application site forms part of the original premises known as ‘Bury House’ which was owned by Belgrave Estates Ltd from 1990 to 1998. His statement adds little to the application as he merely confirms that the “Property was often used for the parking of vehicles by ourselves and others as hardstanding was available and it was understood a garage had been built where the concrete base remained”.

Mr. James confirms that he purchased Bury House, including the Application Site in September 1999 and has used the Application. Site for parking his own and ‘visitors vehicles’.

Query:

He does not confirm if Bury House has reverted back entirely to residential use or if it is in mixed business and residential use. Also, the reference to ‘visitors cars’ should be clarified.

She basically confirms what Terence James states and is a little clearer on Mr. James’ residential use.

Opinion.

Based on the application as it now stands I am not content to recommend issue of the Cleu at this stage which you can either refuse now due to inadequate details or request the following details:

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GB2 and GB16.

ISSUES

1.     This proposal affects a piece of land in the open Green Belt in Old Amersham. The plot sits south of Bury House and backs onto a bridleway that separates it from Bury Farm. Bury House itself is in the built up area of the Old Town. The land in question has been fenced off from the bridle-way with post and rail fencing.

3.     The application under review for the lawful inclusion of this land within the residential curtilage has been submitted accompanied by additional supporting documents, forming statements from Mr. James, Mrs. Muir, Mr. Jarvis and Mr. Robinson, testifying the use of the land in the past for the parking of motor vehicles. While Mr. Jarvis’s statement confirms that vehicles were parked on the land, no link is made between this and Bury House. The declarations of Mr. James and Mrs. Muir, confirm the land has been in ancillary use to Bury House since March 1998 and the testament of Mr. Robinson establishes that the plot has been connected to the main curtilage of Bury house for the parking of motor vehicles since March 1990. This statement places the land in connection with Bury House, for more than 10 years.

4.     None of the submitted statements confirm that Bury House has been in residential use for the past 10 years. The additional testament from Mr. T. James does not provide any useful supporting evidence, as his involvement with the property did not start until 1999, therefore evidence clarifying the residential use of the property for the previous 8 years is still lacking. In fact evidence on Council files, in respect of dismissed appeal on 93/0283/CH and Enforcement files, indicates office use of Bury House was taking place at least until 1994 and possibly beyond. If it can not be verified that the house was solely in residential use for the past 10 years, then it can not be confirmed that the land under question has been in ancillary residential use and as such part of a residential curtilage for the past 10 years.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Certificate of Lawfulness - existing development or use - refused

For the following reasons

(1) The application site is located within the open Green Belt to the rear of Bury House. Whilst evidence has been put forward that the land has been used in connection with Bury House for a period exceeding 10 years, no evidence has been put forwards to confirm that Bury House has been a residential unit for the whole of that period: indeed Council records show that, until at least 1994, it was in use for office purposes. The Council is thus not satisfied that the land has been ancillary to a residential dwelling unit for a period of at least 10 years, and the application cannot therefore be granted.

2001/1671/CH

Case Officer:      Neil Higson

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

Parish:     Ashley Green     Ward:     Ashley Green & Latimer

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      A S HARMAN LTD

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

adjoining Scheduled Monument

Archaeological site

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/503/55     Outline permission for agricultural dwelling - Approved.

AM/886/55     Reserved Matters to outline permission AM/0503/55 for Agriculturally tied Bungalow. Approved.

AM/430/57     Erection of dwelling house and hostel. Approved.

AM/590/65     Conversion of hostel to house for farm worker.

01/0963/CH     Part single storey, part two storey side extension and new pitched roof over existing dwellings – Nos. 3 and 4 Grove Farm Cottages – Approved.

THE APPLICATION

Permission was recently approved for the construction of a pitched roof over the existing dwelling which would be hipped to all elevations and have a maximum ridge height of 7.5m. Permission is now sought for a two-storey extension measuring 4m by 5.2 metres which would be attached to the northern elevation of No.3 with the previously approved pitched roof being extended to cover the new extension at a ridge height of 7.8m.

In terms of additional floor space the original dwelling comprises approximately 78sq.m of gross floor space. The extension being sought would comprise approximately 42sq m, which represents an increase of 53% over and above the floor space of the original dwelling. There do not appear to have been any previous extensions to the property above original.

CONSULTATIONS

County Archaeological Officer – this scheme is too small-scale to have significant archaeological implications in this location.

English Heritage – No objections.

POLICIES

The Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991 – 2011 Policies GB1 and GB3.

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997: Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, GB2, GB13, H14, H15, H16, TR11 and TR16

Proposed Alterations to the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 - Deposit Copy - July 1998 (including Proposed Modifications- November 2000): Policies GC3

ISSUES

1.     The application site is located within the open Green Belt, wherein domestic extensions may be permissible providing they are subordinate in size and scale to the original dwelling, are not intrusive in the landscape and maintain the openness of the Green Belt location. The site is also located adjacent to a scheduled ancient monument.

2.     The extensions proposed to No. 3 constitute a 52% increase above original; there appear to have been no previous extensions to the cottages, although the formation of a pitched roof over the property was recently approved as part of a scheme to extend the adjoining dwelling. Given these facts plus the fact that the existing property is fairly small as originally built, the extension is not considered to be so substantial as to warrant refusal.

3.     The proposed extensions would be attached to the northern elevation of the cottage and would only be seen from first floor level upwards in limited views from Grove Lane from which the site is fairly well screened by trees and shrubbery. The design and appearance of the extension is considered acceptable and therefore no objection is raised under policy H15.

4.     The nearest neighbouring properties are to the north and would have limited views of the extension primarily due to the orientation of the buildings but also due to the properties being substantially well screened from each other. The extension will not detract from the character and setting of the adjacent scheduled ancient monument, nor will they be visually detrimental to the openness of the Green Belt. On balance it is considered that it would be unreasonable to object to this development having regard to the above and as such no objections are raised in respect of policies GC1, GC2, GC3, GB13, H14, H15 and H16 of the Adopted District Local Plan 1997.

5.     There is sufficient space within the site to provide car parking in accordance with the Council’s required standards. No objection 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) C108 General Time Limit

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

2001/1672/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     04/10/01     Decide by Date:     28/11/01

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham Town

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS D MERRITT

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Amersham - Weller Estate Conservation Area

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Thames Water - groundwater protection zone

Unclassified road

THE APPLICATION

The application proposes a single storey side / rear extension.  This extension would be 2.35m wide alongside the existing dwelling and would be 5.25m deep (2.35m along side the dwelling, the remainder would project to the rear).  When viewed from the rear the extension would be 5.3m in width.  The pitched roof over would be approximately 4.9m high at its highest point.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approve.

REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters from neighbours at No.32 & No.7 The Drive stating no objections.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, H13, H14, H15, H17, CA1, TR11 & TR16.

ISSUES

1.     No objections are raised to the design of the extension, being subordinate to the size and scale of the existing dwelling.  Bearing in mind its location to the rear of the dwelling and being partially obscured from the roadside by the existing garage, it is not considered that the extension would have an adverse impact upon either the setting of, or character of the Conservation Area.

2.     The extension should not have a significantly adverse impact upon the neighbouring property, No.34, the dwelling that would potentially have the most effect on.

3.     The gross floorspace of the existing dwelling is approximately 110m2, the extension proposed would increase this to over the 120m2 threshold in Policy TR16, requiring an additional parking space to be provided off-street.  

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

2001/1702/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     12/10/01     Decide by Date:     06/12/01

Parish:     Seer Green     Ward:     Seer Green & Jordans

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS C A MEEKING

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Site within 250 m. of active or disused rubbish tip

Mineral Consultation Area

THE APPLICATION

A single storey side extension 1.5m wide, 3.9m deep and 3.8m to the ridge of its hipped roof.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1.     The applicants seek permission to construct a relatively small extension to the side of a bungalow in the built up area of Seer Green. The proposal is 0.4m from the boundary, but is set back from the front elevation by 0.3m making it unobtrusive in the street scene. Although the structure will be in close proximity to the neighbouring property No. 10 (built to the boundary), it is single storey and the neighbouring property has no flank windows. Issues of design and amenity are not raised.

2.     The single garage and front/side driveway can cater for three off street car parking spaces.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

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

2001/1718/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     15/10/01     Decide by Date:     09/12/01

Parish:     Amersham - Little Chalfont     Ward:     Little Chalfont

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      T M BRADFIELD

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Class C Road

Affects setting of Grade II Listed Building

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

97/0025/CH   Single storey rear extension.   Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

A 6.5m wide and 6.5m deep carport to the front of an existing detached double garage. The structure caries forwards the front gable at 5.6m, terminating in a forward half-hipped roof.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approval.

CONSULTATIONS

District Historic Buildings Officer:

The proposed carport is to be erected immediately adjacent to the boundary with ‘Loudhams’, a 17th and 18th –century house listed Grade II. In my opinion, however, it does not affect the setting of the listed building in any significant way as it is well screened and is simply a continuation of the existing low garage roof. No objections from the listed building aspect.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC2, HC3, H4, H13, H14, H15, H17, LB2, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The application for a carport is within the curtilage of a property in the Little Chalfont Established Residential Area of Special Character. This weather-boarding and clay tile structure is in keeping with the size and character of the house and can not be seen easily from the street, due to the well established boundary hedging. Furthermore the District Historic Buildings Officer feels that the structure would not be detrimental to the setting of the adjacent Grade II Listed Building. As such Local Plan Policies GC1, H15 and LB2 have not been compromised.

2.     The carport will not affect any neighbouring amenity as set out under Policies GC3, H13 and H14 of the Local Plan.

3.     The existing garage will still be used for car parking along with the ample forecourt. As such it is considered that Local Plan Policies TR11 and TR16 has been satisfied.

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

2001/1719/CH

Case Officer:      Iwan Jones

Date Received:     16/10/01     Decide by Date:     10/12/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Gold Hill

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      DR G L NICHOLS AND MRS J R NICHOLS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/1309/68: Garage. Permitted and implemented.

CH/776/79: Loft conversion. Conditional permission.

01/0687/CH: Single storey front extension, two storey side/rear and single storey rear extension incorporating double garage and rear balcony. Refused. Prominent and overbearing to No.5, detracting from its visual amenities.

THE APPLICATION

The application is a revision to planning application 01/0687/CH which was refused. The revisions include reducing the eaves height of the two storey side extension for a depth of 3.3m towards the front. This would allow a cat slide roof to be formed. The height of the two storey rear extension is also reduced. Other than these revisions the proposal remains the same as that of 01/0687/CH with the two storey side/rear extension measuring 5.8m wide and 9.7m deep. It would project beyond the existing rear elevation by 3.3m. The single storey front extension would be part integrated into the proposed two storey side extension, projecting 1.2m beyond the existing front elevation and also consisting of a porch measuring 2m deep. The front extension would measure 3.7m high. The single storey rear extension would integrate into the proposed two storey side/rear extension and would measure 3.3m deep, 3.3m wide and to a flat roof height of 2.3m with a balcony over. The existing flat roof garages to the side would be demolished. All external materials proposed would match those of the existing.  

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection but the boundary and the 1m rule at first floor level should be shown so there is no misunderstanding.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1.     The application site is located within the built up area of Chalfont St Peter.

2.     The neighbouring property No.5 is set back approximately 5m from the application site and has windows at ground and first floor level on its front elevation adjacent to the proposed two storey extension. Reducing the eaves level of this extension towards the front would reduce the overall scale and bulk of the two storey side extension. The dropping of the eaves level where it projects in front of the neighbouring property No.5 by a depth of 3.3m from the front is considered sufficient to reduce the overall impact of the resulting dwelling on this neighbouring property and can no longer be viewed as being overbearing to it. No objection is therefore raised in relation to Policies GC3 and H14.

3.     The two storey side extension would be sited 1m from the north eastern boundary. No objection raised in relation to Policy H16.

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

2001/1720/CH

Case Officer:      Iwan Jones

Date Received:     16/10/01     Decide by Date:     10/12/01

Parish:     Seer Green     Ward:     Seer Green & Jordans

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      S PATEL

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Class C Road

Mineral Consultation Area

Floor Space

Codes:     SP

Proposed (m2):     27

Displaced (m2):     0

THE APPLICATION

The application relates to the erection of a single storey rear extension measuring 5.5m wide, 8.2m deep and to flat roof height of 3.2m. Part of the extension would replace an existing covered way.

REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters received raising no objection to the proposal.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1.     The application site is located within an Established Residential Area of Special Character.

2.     The extension would be located to the rear of the property and as such would have no impact upon the street scene. No objection raised in relation to Policy H13(ii).

3.     The proposed extension would replace an existing covered way which is of a similar height. The rear elevation of the application site is also set forward of the neighbouring properties to the south. No impact would therefore be had upon their amenities. No objection raised in relation to Policies GC3 and H14.

4.     The flat roof would not be prominent. Neighbouring properties also have flat roof rear extensions. No objections in relation to Policies GC1 and H15.

5.     The proposal has no implications in terms of parking. No objections raised in relation to Policies TR11 and TR16.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

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

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

2001/1728/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     16/10/01     Decide by Date:     10/12/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Chalfont Common

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS D LAYCOCK

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Mineral Consultation Area

THE APPLICATION

A single storey side extension the full depth of the property (8.4m), the front being 4.2m wide and only 3.3m to the rear. The latter part continues the first floor roof slope down to ground floor level, while the front section accommodates a side hipped roof.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter from neighbouring residents raising the following points:

1.     The original development (1985) affected the foundations of ‘Hill End Cottage’ and in view of this the drawings should show the level of ‘Hills End Cottage’ as well so that the specialist ground engineer can give careful consideration to the retainments necessary for the proper consideration of the ground on the southern and south eastern side of ‘Hill End Cottage’.

2.     We welcome the proposed removal of the trees on the boundary which cause damp, but would hopefully some of the smaller shrubs can be preserved.

The cypress trees on the boundary make the cavity wall very damp.

The drainage from ‘Hill Side Cottage’ runs through the site and therefore may be affected by the application.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1.     The application site is located in the built up area of Chalfont St. Peter, to the side of a detached property at the end a cul-de-sac. As such it is difficult to view the extension from the street scene, particularly as the structure will be adjacent to a steep bank. Therefore this addition is considered in keeping with the scale and proportions of the property and not adverse to the character of the street scene. Local Plan Policy GC1 and H15 have been complied with.

2.     Due to the positioning of the extension adjacent to a steep bank, the new build will largely be absorbed into the topography of the land, and even though some of the vegetation is to be removed, neighbouring property (Hill Side Cottage) will not be subjected to a loss of amenity. As such Local Plan Policy GC3, H13 and H14 have been complied with. The structural concerns raised by the occupants of ‘Hill Side Cottage’ can not be considered in this application.

3.     Local Plan Policy TR11 and TR16 have been satisfied by the integral double garage and double width forecourt serving the house.

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

2001/1731/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     16/10/01     Decide by Date:     10/12/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Chalfont St Peter Central

App Type:     Application under Advertisement Regulations

Applicant:      DERBYWISE 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.

01/1453/CH     New shopfront, approved.

THE APPLICATION

The externally illuminated fascia sign would be illuminated by a trough light that extends 0.3m from the fascia, the light would be approximately 2.45m in width, the plans indicate that it would be colour coded to the fascia sign.  The fascia sign itself would be approximately 3.1m in width and 0.45m in height, the plans indicate this to be angled so that the top of the sign would project approximately 0.05m further than the base of the fascia.  The plans indicate that the fascia would be painted.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection but the colour of the sign should be agreed to ensure it is in keeping with the street scene.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC3, A1 & A2.

ISSUES

1.     Having regard to the requirements of Policies A1 and A2, together with the character of the area, no objections are raised to the proposal’s design and impact.  Noting the comments of the Parish Council regarding the colour of the sign, conditions could be included on any consent granted to control this together with the luminance of the trough light.

2.     The proposal would not have an adverse impact upon the amenities of the nearby residents or passers by.

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) C261 Standard Advert Conditions

(2) C118 5 Year Limited Period - Adverts

(3) C265 Adverts - intensity of illumination not to exceed 600 Cd/sq. m.

(4) Before any construction work commences, details regarding the colour of the painted fascia 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.

2001/1736/CH

Case Officer:      Iwan Jones

Date Received:     18/10/01     Decide by Date:     12/12/01

Parish:     Amersham - Little Chalfont     Ward:     Little Chalfont

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS CHRIS STAPLETON

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

THE APPLICATION

The application relates to the demolition of the existing garage and the rebuilding of a replacement immediately behind the footprint of the existing. The replacement garage would measure 3.2m wide, 7.2m deep and to a flat roof height of 3.4m. A single storey side extension is also proposed which would measure 7.3m wide, 11.7m deep and to a hipped roof height as existing. Two dormer windows are also proposed in the front elevation.

TOWN COUNCIL

Approve.

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter received not objecting to the application but concerned that demolition and re-building of garage will spoil character and devalue No.11.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

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

2.     The width of the existing dwelling would be significantly increased by the proposed extension. However, the existing dwelling under utilises the width and expanse of the curtilage that it lies within. The ridge line of the existing dwelling would be continued and the extension would mirror that of the existing dwelling. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not be detrimental to the character and appearance of the street scene. No objection raised in relation to Policy H13(ii).

3.     There is good screening present on both northern and southern boundaries. Having regard to the orientation of No.12 to the application site and the siting of the proposed extension in relation to No.10, the residential amenities of these properties would not be reduced to a level that would be lower to that which they currently enjoy. No objection raised in relation to Policies GC3 and H14.

4.     The scale, height and design of the extension is considered acceptable. No objection raised in relation to Policies GC1 and H15.

5.     The width and height of the dormers would integrate well into the roof in which they would be constructed within. They would also be similar to those constructed in other neighbouring properties. No objection raised in relation to Policy H18.   

6.     Sufficient parking provision would be provided within the curtilage. No objection raised in relation to 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) C431 Materials of Development to Match Those of Existing Building

(3) C196 Ancillary residential buildings at No.11 Chandos Close - garage