Meeting documents

CDC Delegated Planning Application Reports
Friday, 7th December, 2001

2001.05.01 to 2002.04.30 - Delegated Planning Application Reports, Delegated Applications Determined Week Ending 12.07.01

REPORT OF THE

HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES

Draft List of Applications Determined Week Ending

07/12/2001

2001/53/TC

Case Officer: Keith Musgrave

Date Received: 15/10/01 Decide by Date: 26/11/01

Parish: Chesham Bois Ward: Chesham Bois & Weedon

App Type: Work to unpreserved trees in Conservation Area

Proposal:

REMOVAL OF TWO CONIFERS WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA

Location:

2 STUBBS WOOD CHESHAM BOIS

Applicant: THE PRICE PARTNERSHIP ARCHITECTS OF CHANGE

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Chesham Bois Conservation Area

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Unclassified road

THE APPLICATION

Removal of two conifers.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections.

REPRESENTATIONS

Agent: Reasons for removal – roots interfere with garage and house, now aged and would not benefit from remedial measures.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser: Blue Lawson cypress about 10m tall close to front of property – bottom part partially suppressed by large laurel hedge – larger Lawson cypress about 16m tall in rear garden close to garage – appears to be in fairly poor health with thin foliage at top of tree and some browning of lower foliage – neither tree considered important.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy CA5

ISSUES

1. One cypress is situated at the front of the property while the other is in the rear garden and both are visible from the adjacent roads.

2. Both trees are causing some problems and it is considered that neither makes a significant contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. A Tree Preservation Order would therefore not be appropriate.

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

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

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

2001/54/TC

Case Officer: Keith Musgrave

Date Received: 17/10/01 Decide by Date: 28/11/01

Parish: Latimer Ward: Ashley Green & Latimer

App Type: Work to unpreserved trees in Conservation Area

Proposal:

REMOVAL OF A FIR TREE WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA

Location:

ANNE COTTAGE 36/37 THE VILLAGE LATIMER

Applicant: J H MOTION

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Chenies & Latimer Conservation Area

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

adjoining Historic Park or Garden

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Within curtilage of Listed Building - affects setting

THE APPLICATION

Removal of a fir tree.

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant: Fir tree planted in last 30 years by previous owner – has grown so big that it is dominating back garden and preventing growth near it – it has little merit and minimal impact on anyone else in village.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser: Cedar about 14m high in rear garden of property – divides garden into two parts - about 12m from dwelling at higher level – dense crown casting significant shade – several other trees in vicinity – appear to be recent improvements in garden – told applicants propose to replace with trellis and fruit tree.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy CA5

ISSUES

1. The cedar tree is situated in the rear garden of the property with some visibility from the village green and surrounding roads.

2. Although the tree is fairly prominent it is not a native species or typical of the Conservation Area. It is considered that it does 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.

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; single replacement tree requested

2001/55/TC

Case Officer: Keith Musgrave

Date Received: 17/10/01 Decide by Date: 28/11/01

Parish: Chesham Ward: St Marys

App Type: Work to unpreserved trees in Conservation Area

Proposal:

FELLING OF A CHERRY, A WILLOW AND AN ALMOND, AND CROWN REDUCTION OF TEN SYCAMORE TREES - ALL WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA

Location:

BURY FARM PEDNOR ROAD CHESHAM

Applicant: MR N H MOSS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Chesham Conservation Area

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

adj Biological Notification site

River Chess & River Misbourne - area liable to flood

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

93/0028/TC Felling of a cedar and an apple. (The Bury Farm). No TPO made.

94/0013/TC Crown reduction of two yew trees. (Unit 3, Bury Farm). No TPO made.

95/0028/TC Crown reduction of three oaks and a poplar. (The Bury Cottage). No TPO made.

95/0047/TC Removal of an ash, four purple plums and a cypress. (The Gold Top Centre). No TPO made.

98/0026/TC Felling of a chestnut and a birch and lopping of two branches of a chestnut. (The Bury Farm). No TPO made.

99/0033/TC Repollarding of a poplar tree and crown reduction of an ash tree. (The Bury Cottage). No TPO made.

00/0021/TC Crown reduction of a yew, a Robinia and four cypresses, and crown thinning of two yews. (Straddlestones Barn). No TPO made.

01/0007/TC Topping of a birch tree. (Stable House). No TPO made.

01/0030/TC Felling of an ash tree. (The Bury Farm House). No TPO made.

THE APPLICATION

Felling of a cherry, a willow and an almond.

Reduction of ten sycamores by about 10% (actually three sycamores, five horse chestnuts, a lime and a willow.

TOWN COUNCIL

The Committee raise no objections to this application subject to the views of the Forestry Officer.

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant: Cherry and willow are dead – no replanting proposed as recent rise in water table has, we believe, killed trees.

Almond is growing up through a Viburnum.

Sycamores are overcrowded.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser: Almond – in rear garden close to house – about 6m high - growing through Viburnum.

Other trees in grassed orchard area.

Cherry and willow – both small trees – both appear dead.

Group of taller trees – fairly closely-spaced maturing trees – proposed crown reduction of ten trees – proposed work would have little effect on appearance of group.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy CA5

ISSUES

1. The almond tree is situated within the rear garden of the farmhouse with little public visibility. The other trees are within an orchard area beside the road and are partially visible from public viewpoints.

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

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

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

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

2001/56/TC

Case Officer: Keith Musgrave

Date Received: 17/10/01 Decide by Date: 28/11/01

Parish: Amersham Ward: Amersham Town

App Type: Work to unpreserved trees in Conservation Area

Proposal:

RE-POLLARDING OF A WILLOW TREE WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA

Location:

95 HIGH STREET OLD AMERSHAM

Applicant: I H RICHARDS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Amersham Old Town Conservation Area

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

adjoining Public Amenity Open Space

River Chess & River Misbourne - area liable to flood

Traffic calming scheme for Amersham Old Town

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Thames Water - groundwater protection zone

Grade 2 Listed Building

Within 8 m. of NRA-designated 'main river'

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

95/0043/TC Re-pollarding of a willow. No TPO made.

THE APPLICATION

Re-pollarding of a willow.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approval subject to Forestry Officer approval.

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant: In November 1995 you granted permission for the re-pollarding of the willow tree at the bottom of my garden (adjacent to the river) – the tree now needs re-pollarding again – as the tree will clearly need re-pollarding every 5 to 7 years please advise if it is necessary to seek permission on each occasion.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser: Large willow beside River Misbourne opposite Pondwick Meadow, which is a public open space – previous pollarding at about 4m and 8m – last pollarded under 95/0043/TC – now 8-10m re-growth – some risk of branches splitting off – pollarding is traditional form of management for riverside willows - sensible to re-pollard.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy CA5

ISSUES

1. The willow tree is situated beside the River Misbourne opposite a public open space.

2. The tree is an important specimen but the proposed re-pollarding is considered to be sensible 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

(1) INFORMATIVE - You are advised that the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 does not allow for permission to be granted for the regular maintenance of a tree. It would therefore be necessary for you to notify the Council on each occasion that you propose to carry out work to the tree.

2001/1684/CH

Case Officer: Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received: 08/10/01 Decide by Date: 02/12/01

Parish: Chalfont St Peter Ward: Chalfont St Peter Central

App Type: Full application

Proposal:

TWO STOREY SIDE/ REAR EXTENSION

Location:

3 COPTHALL CLOSE CHALFONT ST. PETER

Applicant: MR AND MRS DEVLIN

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

CH/1260/78 Single storey rear extension, approved.

86/1969/CH

Single storey extension for hall and cloakroom, permitted development.

99/1903/CH

Single storey side / rear extension, approved.

THE APPLICATION

The extension would project 3.6m beyond the rear elevation of the existing dwelling and would be 5.4m in width when viewed from the rear, however as the extension ‘wraps around the corner of the existing dwelling, the extension would be 2.75m in width when viewed from the roadside. The front of extension would project 3.25m alongside the existing dwelling to be within 4.45m of the main front elevation of the dwelling. A distance of 1m is maintained between the flank elevation at first floor level and the boundary of the site. The eaves height would match the existing with a ridge running parallel to the existing dwelling’s at a height of 6.75m in height.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter from neighbour in 44 Copthall Lane, stating that ‘I do not believe that I would have any reason to raise objection’.

Two letters from neighbours (one of which is signed by the occupiers of two dwellings) noting the following points –

1. If the new extension is permitted in two-storey height...it will be visually out of proportion by eliminating the open space between Nos. 1 & 3 and would deprive our houses of early morning light to our front elevations [Nos. 2 & 4]. If No.1 were to make a similar proposal, the whole of the skyline between Nos. 1 & 3 would be filled with two-storey houses, a very depressing outlook for the occupiers of houses opposite.

2. Reduction of light to kitchen / dining room (ground floor) and windows to hall and bathroom (first floor) of No.1.

3. Proposal would adversely affect the visual aspect and amenity on entering the Close by reducing the distance between side walls with windows from 8m to 5m.

Precedent.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, 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 extensions to dwellings are acceptable in principle, provided the proposal respects the character of the area, the amenities of the neighbouring properties are not significantly affected and sufficient off-street car parking is provided.

2. One of the main issues to consider is the impact the proposed extension would have upon the neighbouring property, in this instance it is considered that the dwelling that would be most affected would be No.1 Copthall Close. This neighbouring dwelling has a single storey rear projection, the rear wall of which would be approximately level with the rear of the proposed extension. This rear projection has a window that faces south (directly to the extension) and a further window that faces down the garden. Although the principal window of a room is usually considered to be the largest window, in this instance the rearward facing window, it is considered that the site circumstances are such that an argument could be sustained stating that the window facing the extension would be the principal source of light to the room, given its south facing elevation. In light of this, what needs to be considered is whether the proposed extension would lead to a significant loss of amenity for the occupiers of this property, in this respect the representations received from the neighbour have been noted. It is considered that the erection of a flank wall of the height proposed to within 1m of the mutual boundary between dwellings, in line with the window in the side of No.1’s rear projection would appear overbearing and obtrusive when viewed from this dwelling, furthermore due to the south facing aspect of the window, would result in some overshadowing to this room. This is not considered to be in accordance with the requirements of Policy GC3, H13(i) and H14.

3. Although it is considered that the proposed extension does not relate well to the existing dwelling, appearing as an incongruous addition separate to the main dwelling rather than as an integral part of it, given its location 4.45m behind the main front elevation of the existing dwelling, it is not considered that an objection could be sustained with regard to it having an adverse impact upon the character of the area. The representations made by the neighbours opposite the application site are noted, however, it is not considered that the area is characterised by spacious layouts, therefore it is not considered that objections could be raised with regard to the spacing between dwellings.

4. The floorspace of the existing dwelling is below 120m2, the proposed extension would take the dwelling over the threshold 120m2 of Policy TR16, thereby requiring three parking spaces. Due to the reduction of the length of the garage to 4.4m (below the minimum 5m length stated in Policy TR16), from 8.3m is such that it could not accommodate a vehicle and given the minimal parking available at the front of the site, it is considered that objections are raised under Policy TR16.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse permission

For the following reasons

(1) The two-storey rear extension, by reason of its height, proximity to the boundary and its siting and relationship with the neighbouring dwelling would appear obtrusive and overbearing when viewed from the neighbouring property. Furthermore the orientation to the south of the neighbouring property is such that the extension would lead to overshadowing and shading of this neighbouring property. This would be detrimental to the amenities of the neighbouring property, contrary to the requirements of Polices GC3, H13(i) and H14 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997.

(2) The proposed extension and internal alterations would result in the integral garage being reduced in depth to below the minimum internal depth of 5m as required by Policy TR16 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997. The combination of the size of the extensions together with this reduction in parking provision is such that insufficient provision is made for the parking of vehicles clear of the highway. This is contrary to the requirements of Policies TR11 and TR16 of the Adopted Local Plan.

2001/1693/CH

Case Officer: Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received: 09/10/01 Decide by Date: 03/12/01

Parish: Amersham Ward: Amersham Town

App Type: Full application

Proposal:

FIRST FLOOR SIDE EXTENSION AND SINGLE/ REAR EXTENSIONS

Location:

113 HUNDRED ACRES LANE AMERSHAM

Applicant: MR C TOOGOOD

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Thames Water - groundwater protection zone

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/325/59 Store / shed, permitted development.

CH/886/76 Extension, approved and implemented.

CH/1653/77 Renew existing garage, approved.

97/1662/CH

First floor rear extension and replacement conservatory, approved and implemented.

01/0207/CH Single storey front extension, approved, extant.

01/919/CH

Single storey rear extension and conversion of rear half of garage to living accommodation. Withdrawn.

THE APPLICATION

The first floor extension would be constructed over part of the existing garage and would be 2.9m to wide and would be 6.8m in depth, the existing roof over the dwelling would be extended across the proposed extension. At ground floor level the extension would project 1.7m to the rear of the existing garage, would be 3.m in width and would incorporate a hipped and pitched roof over the extension and the remaining flat roof to a ridge height of approximately 3.7m. Part of the existing double length garage would be converted to form a kitchen. Also proposed is a front extension. This front extension would project 2.6m forward of the existing garage’s front elevation and 1.7m in front of the main dwelling, it would be 6.45m in width extending across the front of the main dwelling. The resultant garage would have internal dimensions of 2.7m in width and 5.55m in length.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend refusal – too imposing, over-development and intrusive particularly to neighbouring property.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letters of objection from neighbour at No. 115 –

1. The kitchen would be too near our patio and we do not wish to have cooking smells wafting around when we are sitting there.

2. The rear garage extension would block our view of the trees from our dining room and side lounge window and we shall see a brick wall.

3. With reference to the first floor side extension; the present garage is to be extended at the front plus a first floor build on. The first floor extension will shut us in even more as the house is already a foot higher than ours, if it is extended as planned then our view from our side door will also be cut – we shall be in a brick walled passage.

4. Disruption during construction.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1. The application site is located within the built up area of Amersham wherein applications to extend residential dwellings can be acceptable in principle, provided the proposal respects the character of the area and the amenities of the neighbouring properties.

2. The design of the extensions and the resultant impact upon the character of the area is considered acceptable. Hundred Acres Lane is not considered to be an area characterised by spacious layouts, as such the gap of 1.3m from the first floor flank elevation of the extension to the boundary is in compliance with Policies H11 and H16. Although the existing dwelling has already been extended a number of times, it is not considered that the resultant dwelling would amount to an overdevelopment of the site. In this respect the length of the plot is noted and as stated above, adequate distances remain to the respective boundaries from the first floor level to be in compliance with Policy H11 thereby maintaining adequate spacing between dwellings. It is not considered that the resultant dwelling would appear out of character or visually intrusive within the street scene. No objections are raised in design terms to the replacing of the existing flat roof over the garage with a pitched roof. As such, no objections are raised to the design or to the impact the extensions would have upon the character of the area.

3. Consequently it remains to be considered whether the proposed extensions would have a significantly adverse impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring property, No.115, in this respect the comments from both the Town Council and from the neighbours themselves are noted. Taking firstly the impact of the proposed first floor extension and the front extensions. The extension will have an impact upon the rear door of No.115 which serves a kitchen, however, it is noted that the principal source of light to this room is a window on the front elevation. Although the extensions would be closer to the boundary then the existing dwelling is and would at ground floor level project further forward, it is not considered that this part of the scheme would appear unduly overbearing. As such it is not considered that an objection to the impact the first floor and ground floor front extensions would have could be sustained.

4. The neighbours have also raised objections to the extensions at the rear of the dwelling. At present the application site has a flat roofed garage which projects from alongside the dwelling and continues beyond the rear elevation. The proposal is to extend this a further 1.7m to the rear and to construct a hipped and pitched roof over the extension and also over the remainder of the garage roof. Due to the changing ground levels the application site is approximately 0.3m higher than the neighbouring site and there is a fence between. The main issue is whether this extension would appear unduly overbearing when viewed from the neighbouring dwelling. The neighbour’s rear elevation does not extend as far to the rear as does the applicants’ dwelling. As pointed out by the neighbour in their representations, their dwelling has a window in its rear elevation and a window in the side elevation of a single storey rear extension at ground floor level. Having regard to the extent to which the garage already projects beyond the rear elevation of the neighbour’s dwelling, the proposed addition of a further 1.7m for the rear together with the proposed pitched roof over is considered to have an adverse impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring dwelling.

5. No adverse car parking issues arise, no objections under Policies TR11 and TR16.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse permission

For the following reasons

(1) The proposed rear extension to the existing garage together with the proposed pitched roof over it, would, due to its length and projection beyon the existing rear wall of the property, exacerbated by the difference in ground levels, appear unduly overbearing when viewed from the neigbouring property, to the detriment of its residential amenity. This would be contrary to the requirements of Policies GC3, H13(i) and H14 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997.

2001/1700/CH

Case Officer: Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received: 11/10/01 Decide by Date: 05/12/01

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

App Type: Full application

Proposal:

DETACHED DOUBLE GARAGE, TWO SINGLE STOREY FRONT EXTENSIONS AND ROOF EXTENSION INCORPORATING THREE DORMER WINDOWS IN FRONT AND REAR ELEVATIONS TO PROVIDE ACCOMMODATION IN ROOFSPACE

Location:

EVENTIDE BURTONS LANE LITTLE CHALFONT

Applicant: MR AND MRS D SMITH

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

adjoining Ancient Woodland

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/555/49 Garage.

AM/1455/62 Extensions, approved and implemented.

AM/933/64 Additions approved and implemented.

AM/220/70 Garage, approved and implemented.

AM/470/74 Alterations (chimney), approved but not constructed.

THE APPLICATION

1. The proposed extensions to the dwelling involve infilling two areas at the front of the property, the cumulative footprint of these infill extensions is 19m2. The roof extension would involve the erection of a pitched roof over existing flat roofed areas of the dwelling, the eaves height of the dwelling would remain as existing with the main ridge proposed to be 6.6m although the ridge running at right angles to the road is to a height of approximately 7.2m. Three dormer windows are proposed in both the front and rear elevations, these would vary in width from 1.8m to 2.65m, each with a pitched roof over.

2. The proposal also involves the demolition of two existing outbuildings and the erection of a detached double garage. This building would have a floor area of 6.43m by 6.43m with a pyramidal roof design with a ridge at 4.8m in height.

3. The materials that are shown on the plans show rendering and concrete roof tiles to match the existing dwelling.

The original footprint of the dwelling is approximately 88.7m2 while the footprint of the proposed is approximately 156m2. If the unused roofspace of the existing dwelling is included, this would add approximately a further 45.5m2, the total roofspace of the proposed dwelling would be approximately 84.4m2. As such the total original floorspace is approximately 134m2 whereas the proposed would be approximately 240m2. An increase of some 79%.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letter from neighbour at ‘Little Acre’ stating-

1. No objections to the proposed extension to the house.

2. Object to the double garage to be built well in front of the building line of Eventide and of Little Acre, and to the height of 4.8m, which is 2.8m above the hedge line that is equal to over 9ft of concrete roof tiles visible from our lounge windows.

3. You will note from your files that a proposed double garage at Little Acre in front of the building line with a lower pitched roof was refused some years ago.

4. The correct site for a double garage, as was pointed out to me when my planning permission was refused, is to the left of the property where there is substantial land and in line with the building.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC3, GB2, GB13, GB15, H13, H14, H15, H16, H18, TR11, TR16, LSQ1.

ISSUES

1. The proposed dwelling is located in the Green Belt wherein Policy GB13 relates to extensions to dwellings. This Policy in essence states that the Council will permit extensions to dwelling which are subordinate to the size and scale of the original dwelling and are also not intrusive in the landscape. Although in percentage terms the extensions would result in an overall increase in floorspace of approximately 79%, what also has to be considered is the nature of the extensions and their impact upon the character of the area. In this respect it is noted that the footprint of the dwelling is only increasing by 19m2 and it is not considered that either of these extensions would appear intrusive given that they are infilling and squaring off the existing dwelling, rather than extending the built form significantly. However, the main extension involves the new roof over the dwelling. Although there is at present no floorspace in the existing roofspace, it is considered necessary to offset the new floorspace contained in the roof with that which could have been used without the need for planning permission and is contained within the existing roofspace. It is accepted that the dwelling would be more bulky than the existing, however, it is not considered that it would appear intrusive and detrimental to the openness of the Green Belt. It is not considered that the extensions to the dwelling would have a detrimental impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring dwelling.

2. The second aspect of the overall scheme is the proposed double garage at the front of the dwelling. In this respect the representations made by the neighbour are noted, although it is not considered that the part of the garage roof visible over the hedge between dwellings would result in such a significant loss of amenity so as to justify the refusal of the garage on amenity grounds. Of note is the previous refusal of a similarly designed garage at the neighbouring dwelling (91/1576/CH), however, it is considered that there are some important material differences between the two schemes. In this respect it is important to note that the proposed garage is to replace an existing, albeit smaller, garage in the same location. Given the existing garage that is to be replaced it is not considered that it would be justified in refusing its replacement, therefore what needs to be considered is the design of the garage and its impact upon the character of the area. With regard to the design of the garage, it is considered that the proposed garage is of a much higher quality design that the existing flat roofed ‘Marley Garage’. Although the proposed garage is in front of the dwelling, as was the rejected garage at ‘Little Acre’, it is noted that this proposal is set further away from Burtons Lane than the refused application, approximately 8.3m to 5m and would therefore not be as prominent. In light of these material differences and having due regard to the reasons for refusal of the application at ‘Little Acre’, it is considered that, on balance, no objections are raised to the proposed garage.

3. Sufficient car parking provision is available within the curtilage 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) C196 Ancillary residential buildings at 'Eventide' - garage

(5) Before construction of the garage is commenced, the two ancillary residential buildings (as shown on plan SBL/444-2.02 as having a floor area of 14.4m2 and 15.6m2) shall be dismantled and the debris removed from the site.

Reason: To prevent the proliferation of structures within the Green Belt and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which would be detrimental to the openness and character of the area.

2001/1703/CH

Case Officer: Geoffrey Hugall

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

Parish: Chalfont St Giles Ward: Chalfont St Giles

App Type: Full application

Proposal:

PART TWO STOREY, PART SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION

Location:

STEVENS MEAD HIGH STREET CHALFONT ST. GILES

Applicant: MR G BROWN

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Chalfont St Giles Conservation Area

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

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Mineral Consultation Area

Grade 2 Listed Building

Ground floor residential use Amersham Old town and Chalfont St Giles

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/1191/60 Alterations and fuel boiler, unconditional permission.

01/1704/CH Part two-storey, part single storey rear extension, (Listed Building Consent accompanying this planning application).

THE APPLICATION

The proposed extension would project 1.5m to the rear at first floor level and by 4.9m beyond the existing rear elevation at ground floor level, extending across the full width of the property. At first floor level the eaves height would be approximately 4.4m with a pitched roof over to a height of 5.8m. The extra projection at ground floor level would have a flat roof over to a height of 2.5m. The plans show that all external finishes are to match the existing.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letter from neighbour at Wellington Cottage noting -

1. It is clear that this development would have a detrimental effect upon this listed building and add further to the steady urbanization of the Conservation Area.

2. This building is one of the key properties contributing to the character of the village which is being steadily eroded by people who do not have the beautiful setting at their heart.

Letter from occupier of ‘Stacey’s Cottage’ –

1. Alterations would make ‘Stacey’s Cottage’ even darker than at present.

2. The alternate gables at the back of our Cottages would be ruined.

3. The access to the rear of Stevens Mead already crosses my garden, I do not know how this would be altered.

Letter from occupier of ‘Sandfords’ –

1. Alterations on ground floor are acceptable but the smaller first floor extension as shown does not respect the gable above, and the three timber gables to the rear to the rear of these three cottages make an important contribution to the character of these properties.

2. (the letter also offers possible alternatives to the proposed scheme and also notes the opportunity to tidy up the rear elevation of the property as regards the exposed pipework and gas flue).

CONSULTATIONS

District Historic Building Officer -

1. Stevens Mead is part of a listed 17th-century building that has been divided into three cottages and refaced in brick in the 18th century. The original timber-framed structure is visible inside and in the far right gable, under the covered way. The whole building was extended to the rear in the late 17th or early 18th centuries, and has three timber-framed gables over walls of small red bricks with some blue/grey headers. The brickwork to the rear gable of Stevens Mead is best preserved and clearly demonstrates the early date.

2. Unfortunately the proposed extension will involve the demolition of this brick walling at first-floor level, while the new first-floor roof will conceal the tiebeam, collar and lower struts of the gable truss. In my opinion this constitutes an unacceptable alteration to the character and structure of the listed building.

3. At ground-floor level the original rear wall is to be retained along with the 19th-century door and casement window. There is already a small flat-roofed addition, and an extension and rebuilding of this, at ground-floor level only, would not otherwise be a problem in listed building terms.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, CA1, H11, H13, H14, H15, H16, H17, TR11, TR16, LB1.

ISSUES

1. With regard to the impact of the extensions upon the neighbouring properties, it is not considered that any objections could be raised to the impact the first floor extension would have, given that the first floor projection would be kept to 1.5m. Although the ground floor extension would have an impact upon the neighbours’ amenities, in this respect the comments from the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling are noted, it is again not considered that any objections could be raised to this part of the scheme’s impact upon the neighbouring dwelling. While this part of the proposal would be clearly visible from the neighbours, it is not considered that the impact would be so significant to justify a refusal of the application on these grounds.

2. From the comments of the District Historic Building’s Officer it is apparent that the proposed works would constitute an unacceptable alteration to the character and structure of this Listed Building. Consequently it is considered that objections are therefore raised under Policy LB1.

3. There are no objections under Polices TR11 and TR16, the gross floorspace of the existing dwelling together with the proposed extensions would remain below 120m2.

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) Stevens Mead is part of a Listed 17th Century building that has been divided into three cottages and refaces in brick in the 18th Century. The original timber-framed structure is visible inside and in the far right gable, under the covered way. The whole building was extended to the rear in the late 17th or early 18th Centuries and has three timber-framed gables over walls of small red bricks with some blue / grey headers. The brickwork to the rear gable of Stevens Mead is best preserved and clearly demonstrates the early date. The proposed extension will involve the demolition of this brick walling at first floor level, while the new first floor roof will conceal the tiebeam, collar and lower struts of the gable truss. This constitiutes an unacceptable alteration ot the character and structure of this Listed Building, detracting from the special historic and architectural interest of the building, contrary to the requirements of Policy LB1 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan.

2001/1704/CH

Case Officer: Geoffrey Hugall

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

Parish: Chalfont St Giles Ward: Chalfont St Giles

App Type: Application for Listed Building Consent

Proposal:

PART TWO STORY, PART SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION AND INTERNAL ALTERATIONS

Location:

STEVENS MEAD HIGH STREET CHALFONT ST. GILES

Applicant: MR G BROWN

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Chalfont St Giles Conservation Area

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

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Mineral Consultation Area

Grade 2 Listed Building

Ground floor residential use Amersham Old town and Chalfont St Giles

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/1191/60 Alterations and fuel boiler, unconditional permission.

01/1703/CH Part two-storey, part single storey rear extension, current full application accompanying this Listed Building Consent.

THE APPLICATION

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letter from neighbour at Wellington Cottage noting -

It is clear that this development would have a detrimental effect upon this listed building and add further to the steady urbanization of the Conservation Area.

This building is one of the key properties contributing to the character of the village which is being steadily eroded by people who do not have the beautiful setting at their heart.

Letter from occupier of ‘Sandfords’ –

2. (the letter also offers possible alternatives to the proposed scheme and also notes the opportunity to tidy up the rear elevation of the property as regards the exposed pipework and gas flue).

CONSULTATIONS

District Historic Building Officer -

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policy LB1.

ISSUES

1. From the comments of the District Historic Building’s Officer it is apparent that the proposed works would constitute an unacceptable alteration to the character and structure of this Listed Building. Consequently it is not considered that Listed Building Consent should be granted for the proposed works, objections are therefore raised under Policy LB1.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse consent

For the following reasons

(1) Stevens Mead is part of a Listed 17th century building that has been divided into three cottages and refaced in brick in the 18th century. The original timber-framed structure is visible inside and in the far right gable, under the covered way. The whole building was extended to the rear in the late 17th or early 18th centuries, and has three timber-framed gables over walls of small red bricks with some blue / grey headers. The brickwork to the rear gable of Stevens Mead is best preserved and clearly demonstrates the early date. The proposed extension will involve the demolition of this brick walling at first floor level, while the new first floor roof will conceal the tiebeam, collar and lower struts of the gable truss. This constitutes an unacceptable alteration to the character and structure of the Listed Building, detracting from its special historic and architectural interest, contrary to the requirements of Policy LB1 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan.

2001/1706/CH

Case Officer: Andrew Fuller

Date Received: 11/10/01 Decide by Date: 05/12/01

Parish: Seer Green Ward: Seer Green & Jordans

App Type: Full application

Proposal:

SINGLE STOREY FRONT, SIDE AND REAR EXTENSIONS

Location:

39 HOWARD ROAD SEER GREEN

Applicant: MR AND MRS J BANKS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Mineral Consultation Area

THE APPLICATION

A single storey extension to the side and rear of the property. The structure is 2.55m wide and extends the full length of the bungalow (10.5m) before extending across the rear elevation by 9.1m at a depth of 5.7m. A small utility element 1.6m by 1.9m will bring the extension flush with the right-hand flank. A 3.6m high fake-hipped roof caps the whole structure. To the front elevation is proposed a single storey extension, flush with the right-hand elevation, 3.1m wide and 2.1m deep. The roof will be hipped to a ridge at 4.5m, which will project over the front entrance, supported by a pillar to form an open porch.

REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters from neighbouring properties raising the following objections:

1. Will double the size of the current dwelling.

2. The planned demolition of utility room has asbestos roof and is close to No. 37’s kitchen window.

3. New utility will increase roof height and reduce light to No 37’s kitchen window.

4. Will limit land for car parking which the demolished garage will contribute to, therefore more on street car parking.

5. Will limit light to kitchen and dinning room of No. 41.

6. Will be claustrophobic.

7. Remove view of trees.

8. Adversely affect the value of my property.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1. The application is to extensively develop a modest detached bungalow in the built up area of Seer Green. The width of the property will be increased and a hip-roof will be included over the whole of the structure transforming the front elevation of the property. The garden is not landscaped, providing little screening for the front extension, but as the properties are roughly in line and this extension will not project unreasonably beyond the building line, this element of the project will not be to the detriment of the street scene or the amenity of No. 37.

2. The length of the new flank totals 16m and will infill the void that currently exists between the bungalow at No. 39 and the detached garage of No. 41 (sited adjacent to the boundary). Furthermore it is set back only 0.45m from the boundary. No.41 has objected to the proposal (having a principal kitchen window and a conservatory across the rear elevation). This objection is considered reasonable and justified By Local Plan Policy GC3, H13 and H14 and as such the extension is considered detrimental to this neighbours amenity. The flanking walls between the properties will be 4m apart and as the rear/side detached garage is set behind the conservatory, this is considered to have a greater impact on the inhabitants of No. 41.

3. No. 37 has a principal kitchen window in the facing flank that the owner feels will suffer a loss of light. The window currently faces the flank wall of the bungalow in close proximity and the scheme only proposes to cap the roof with a fake-hip. The stepping of the flank back from the boundary will not greatly affect the light availability to the window in question. Therefore refusal of the project can not be substantiated on grounds of its adverse affect over No. 37. Side window.

4. The plans indicate that parking provision for three cars will be located in the front garden, this will be necessary if the development is to comply with Local Plan Policy TR11 and TR16.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse permission

For the following reasons

(1) The proposed single storey rear/side extension, by reason of its length and proximity to the eastern boundary, would result in an over-prominent development which would be overbearing to and detrimental to the amenity enjoyed by No. 41 Howard Road. As such it would be contrary to Policies GC3, H13 and H14 of the Adpted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997.

2001/1715/CH

Case Officer: Iwan Jones

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

Parish: Amersham Ward: Amersham the Hill

App Type: Full application

Proposal:

ROOF EXTENSION INCORPORATING DORMER WINDOW IN FRONT, REAR AND SOUTH WEST SIDE ELEVATIONS

Location:

MOONFLEET 50 WOODSIDE ROAD AMERSHAM

Applicant: MR AND MRS DAVIES

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Conservation Area setting affected

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

Class A Road

Thames Water - groundwater protection zone

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

2001/0983/CH: Dormer windows in front and rear elevations. Refused – height, width and flat roof design.

THE APPLICATION

The application is a revision to planning application 2001/0983CH which was refused. This application involves the erection of dormer windows in the north west, south west and south eastern elevations respectively. Each dormer would measure 1.5m wide and 1.7m high.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend Approval.

REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters of objection received noting:

Overlooking from dormers.

View would be spoiled and restricted.

The dormers would spoil the look and feel of the Conservation Area.

Larger home will require more frequent vehicular access.

Two other letters received noting:

Concerned that Highfield Close could be used as a ‘stop off’ and ‘pick up’ area during construction process with lorries ruining green and causing danger to children.

Incorrect compass points on plans.

Further correspondence between objectors and agents has been copied to Council;

This suggests redesign of roof especially on south-west side to give cleaner roof-line and better headroom internally. [ Note: However to do so might lead to slightly larger roof than is proposed on plans, which would need fresh application].

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC3, H13, H14, H18 and CA2.

ISSUES

1. The application site is located within the built up area of Amersham and adjacent to a Conservation Area where there are no objections in principle to the proposed development subject to compliance with the relevant local plan policies.

2. The scale of the dormers have been significantly reduced and incorporate a pitched roof. They would integrate well into the roofs in which they would be constructed within. The additional dormer would face the adjacent garage to the south. No objections raised in relation to Policy H18.

3. Objectors points noted in relation to amending the roof design. However from planning point of view, and appearance of property, there does not seem to be any justification for seeking any changes.

4. Amended plans have been submitted identifying the correct compass points.

5. With regard to overlooking, the dormer to south-west faces rear wall of tyre depot, the dormer facing south-east faces footpath beyond which is a line of evergreen screening to 5m. the north-west dormer faces rear part of long garden and does not affect privacy of houses.

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) This permission shall relate to the submitted application form and plans as subsequently amended by Plan No. HCWPM/018/6 received by the Local Planning Authority on 9 November 2001.

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

2001/1722/CH

Case Officer: Neil Higson

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

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

App Type: Full application

Proposal:

SINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSION INCORPORATING REPLACEMENT GARAGE AND TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION INCORPORATING TWO BALCONIES

Location:

PORCH HOUSE LOUDHAMS WOOD LANE LITTLE CHALFONT

Applicant: MR AND MRS D DAVIS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Adjoining Green Belt

Unclassified road

THE APPLICATION

Permission is sought for the demolition of a detached single garage and the erection of a single storey side extension on the north-eastern side of the dwelling incorporating replacement garage. The extension would measure 12m deep by 4.2m wide with a pitched roof to a height of 4.8m. It is also proposed to demolish the existing two-storey rear extension and building a new two-storey rear extension across the width of the existing house. The extension would measure 11.8m in overall width and 5m in maximum depth with two bay windows at ground floor level and form three pitched roofs to the rear elevation to a maximum height of 7.6m. Amended plans have been received clarifying balustrade to rear elevation flush with wall and incorporating windows in side elevation previously omitted.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

REPRESENTATIONS

2 letters from neighbouring resident stating objections on the grounds of;

- loss of privacy to surrounding gardens due to position of proposed rear extension and balconies;

- there should not be any windows in side elevations but if unavoidable they should be restricted to be obscure glazed and non-opening. Similarly there should be no new windows allowed in these elevations;

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997: Policies GC1, GC2 GC3, H13, H14, H15, TR11, and TR16.

ISSUES

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

2. The proposal is considered acceptable in terms of relating to the existing dwelling notwithstanding the objections that have been received with regard to impact on privacy. The windows in the side elevation can be controlled by condition and the balustrade to the rear elevation is decorative and does not allow the use of the roof of the bay windows as balconies. It is felt that it would be unsustainable to refuse permission for the rear extension on the grounds of loss of privacy.

3. It is not considered that there would be any adverse effect on the amenities enjoyed by the neighbouring residents. The proposal therefore meets the requirements of Policies GC1, GC3, H11, H13, H14, H15, and H16.

4. There is no proposal to change the existing means of access and adequate on site parking space for three cars exists, the proposal therefore meets the requirements of 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) C432 Materials - As on Plan or Subsequently Specified

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

(4) C174A No additional windows in first floor of either flank elevation of extension.

(5) Before development begins a scheme for screen fencing or planting along the north eastern boundary shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented before the development is first occupied and thereafter retained.

Reason: To ensure that privacy is adequately maintained.

(6) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no part of the roof of the bay windows in the rear elevations of the extensions hereby permitted shall be used as a balcony.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining properties.

(7) C134 Single plan amended by plan (no 01/25/01A) received on 06/12/01

2001/1729/CH

Case Officer: Keith Musgrave

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

Parish: Amersham Ward: Amersham Town

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

Proposal:

TRIMMING OF OVERHANGING BRANCHES OF TREES PROTECTED BY A TREE PRESERVATION ORDER

Location:

WOODVIEW 4 CLARE PARK AMERSHAM

Applicant: MR AND MRS LAURENCE ENGLISH

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Locally Important Landscape

Class A Road

Unclassified road

No road access

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Tree Preservation Order

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The Bucks County Council (Amersham Rural District) Tree Preservation Order No 8 - 1949 covering nine woodlands including W1, Stanley Wood.

87/1257/CH Felling of eight hornbeam and one beech tree. (Stanley Wood) Conditional permission.

96/1049/CH Trim back to boundary lower overhanging branches of hornbeams and beeches on edge of woodland. (5 Clare Park) Conditional permission.

01/1748/CH Reduction of overhanging branches of four beech trees. (6 Clare Park) Not yet determined.

THE APPLICATION

Trees that border the bottom of the garden to be trimmed back so that any overhanging branches do not encroach on garden.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approval.

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant: The trees are overhanging into our garden and as our garden is only 60ft deep it makes it quite dark as it blocks out some of the sunlight and they also shelter the lawn area and it takes longer to dry out.

One letter from a neighbour having no objection to the proposal.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser: Stanley Wood situated along rear boundary of garden – consists mainly of beech with some hornbeam and other species present – at rear of 4 Clare Park large beeches within woodland and smaller hornbeams forming woodland edge – branches extending over garden up to about 6m from one large beech and five hornbeams – some reduction and reshaping of overhanging branches reasonable providing natural shape of trees is maintained – recent reduction of cypresses in garden.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy TW2

ISSUES

1. Stanley Wood is situated in a prominent position on the edge of Amersham with a public footpath running along the boundary.

2. Some reduction of the branches overhanging the rear garden of 4 Clare Park is considered to be reasonable provided the natural shape of the trees is maintained.

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 the reduction and re-shaping by up to 4 metres of the lower branches of the trees overhanging the rear garden. This work shall maintain the natural shape of the trees and shall not involve cutting branches with a diameter greater than eight centimetres.

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

(3) INFORMATIVE - You are reminded that this consent relates only to the planning aspects of your application and that the separate permission of the owners of the trees would be required if any work is proposed beyond your boundary.

2001/1742/CH

Case Officer: Iwan Jones

Date Received: 19/10/01 Decide by Date: 13/12/01

Parish: Chesham Ward: Townsend

App Type: Full application

Proposal:

SINGLE STOREY FRONT EXTENSION AND TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION INCLUDING DORMER WINDOW IN REAR ELEVATION (AMENDMENT TO PLANNING PERMISSION 01/1042/CH)

Location:

6 PRIOR GROVE CHESHAM

Applicant: MR AND MRS D TAYLOR

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

98/5719/CH: Single storey extension. Permitted development.

01/0817/CH: Single storey front extension and two storey side extension including two dormer windows in front elevation and one dormer in rear elevation. Withdrawn.

01/1042/CH: Single storey front extension and two storey side extension including dormer window in rear elevation. Permitted.

THE APPLICATION

The application is an amendment to planning application 01/1042/CH. The revisions include inserting an additional window in the rear dormer and exchanging the position of the window and door at ground floor level on the rear elevation. Other than these revisions, the proposal is the same as that of 01/1042/CH with the front extension measuring 0.8m by 1m and 3.6m high. The two storey side extension would measure part 4.7m/ part 3.9m wide, 7.2m deep and 7.8m high. The dormer window in the rear elevation would measure 5.15m wide.

TOWN COUNCIL

No objections.

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter of objection received noting it is too large, intrusive, and would overlook.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

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

2. The only amendment that raises an issue is the additional window proposed in the rear dormer. However, this window would be of obscure glazing which would not present any overlooking and loss of privacy from occurring. The amendment proposed would therefore not reduce the amenity level currently enjoyed by the occupiers of neighbouring properties. No objection raised in relation to Policies GC3 and H14.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

(2) The materials to be used in the construction of the single storey front extension and the two storey side extension shall match the size, colour and texture of those of the existing dwelling.

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

(3) The exterior of the dormer window hereby permitted shall only be constructed in the materials specified on the plans hereby approved.

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

(4) The dormer windows in the north elevation of the development hereby approved shall not be glazed other than with obscured glass at any time.

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

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

2001/1743/CH

Case Officer: Keith Musgrave

Date Received: 19/10/01 Decide by Date: 13/12/01

Parish: Chalfont St Peter Ward: Chalfont St Peter Central

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

Proposal:

CROWN REDUCTION AND CROWN THINNING OF A BEECH TREE PROTECTED BY A TREE PRESERVATION ORDER

Location:

SOUTHFIELDS WOODSIDE HILL CHALFONT HEIGHTS CHALFONT ST. PETER

Applicant: MR D SLAUGHTER

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Adjoining Green Belt

Unclassified road

Northolt Airfield safeguarding zone

Tree Preservation Order

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The Chiltern District Council (Land at and adjacent to Southfields, Woodside Hill, Chalfont St Peter) Tree Preservation Order 1988 (No 34 of 1988) covering 5 individual trees, an area of trees and a group of 9 Douglas firs.

95/0242/CH Crown lifting and crown reduction of a beech tree. Conditional permission.

97/1394/CH Crown reduction of three lime trees. Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

Reduce height of beech tree by 25% to old cuts – side limbs to be shortened by 20% to reshape and balance – crown thin by 20% removing deadwood and crossing limbs.

PARISH COUNCIL

Would accept Forestry Officer’s recommendation.

REPRESENTATIONS

Agent: The tree has become very thick where it was previously cut to.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser: Large beech tree in rear garden of property – once pollarded at height of about 2m – forms five stems from that point - previously reduced under 95/0242/CH – about 2-3m fairly dense re-growth – reduction to previous reduction points and some thinning considered reasonable.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy TW2

ISSUES

1. The beech tree is a large specimen situated in the rear garden of the property with limited visibility from public viewpoints.

2. There has been some dense re-growth since the tree was reduced under 95/0242/CH and reduction to the same cuts with some crown thinning is considered to be reasonable management.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

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

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

a) the removal of re-growth since the previous crown reduction approved under planning permission 95/0242/CH and

b) crown thinning by 20%.

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

2001/1744/CH

Case Officer: Keith Musgrave

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

Parish: Amersham Ward: Amersham the Hill

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

Proposal:

FELLING OF A HORSE CHESTNUT TREE AND CROWN THINNING OF A LIME TREE - BOTH PROTECTED BY A TREE PRESERVATION ORDER

Location:

THE BURREN TUDOR PARK AMERSHAM

Applicant: SAVILLS TREE SERVICE

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Thames Water - groundwater protection zone

Tree Preservation Order

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The Chiltern District Council (Land at Rickmansworth Road/Sycamore Road, Amersham) Tree Preservation Order No 7 - 1982 covering 42 individual trees and 2 groups of trees.

85/2178/CH Two store block of 12 flats, 12 garages and parking area. Conditional permission.

92/1038/CH Fell one pine and one fir, lop one pine and one cedar and reduce crown of six chestnuts and four sycamores. Conditional permission.

00/2130/CH Crown lifting of one horse chestnut tree overhanging car park and garage. Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

T9 (T3 in application) - Lime – crown thin by 25%.

T19 (T14 in application) – Horse chestnut – fell to ground level.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approval subject to

(i) Essential works only to identified trees

(ii) Concerned about extent of proposed work schedule

(iii) TPO to be imposed on all other trees

(iv) Minimum change be permitted to street scene

[Discussed comments with Deputy Town Clerk and Chairman of TC Planning Committee – were unaware of extent of existing TPO – comments should not be regarded as objection]

REPRESENTATIONS

Agent: Lime has dense crown and horse chestnut has severe decay with hole through trunk at 2m.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser: Application lists 27 trees with work proposed to about half of them – ten on list protected by TPO but only deadwooding or no work proposed to eight.

Lime (T3 in application) – good tree with dense crown – situated about 6m from building with about 2m clearance – proposed crown thinning considered reasonable.

Horse chestnut (T14 in application) – branches appear to have been lost on opposite sides of the trunk at a height of about 2m many years ago – subsequent decay back into main stem has resulted in hole right through tree – structural weakness and risk of failure – sensible to fell and replace.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy TW2

ISSUES

1. Both of the trees are situated in prominent positions visible from surrounding public roads.

2. The lime has a dense crown and is situated close to the block of flats. The proposed crown thinning is considered to b reasonable management.

3. The horse chestnut has a hole right through the trunk, which is causing structural weakness. It is therefore considered reasonable to allow the tree to be removed and replaced.

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) C109 Time Limit for Consent under Tree Preservation Order

(2) The tree surgery hereby approved to the shall not exceed crown thinning by 25%.

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.

(3) C411 Landscaping - Replacement of Trees Under TPO (TPO felling app'ns)

(1) INFORMATIVE - You are advised that the trees numbered T3, T6, T8-T14, T16, T17 and T25-T27 are covered by the Tree Preservation Order but only the work to T3 and T14 requires an application. The other trees included on the application form are not covered by the Tree Preservation Order and are not subject to any other form of protection so the permission of the Local Planning Authority would not be required for work to these trees.

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

(3) INFORMATIVE - I211 Tree Work - Branch Removal

2001/1748/CH

Case Officer: Keith Musgrave

Date Received: 22/10/01 Decide by Date: 16/12/01

Parish: Amersham Ward: Amersham Town

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

Proposal:

REDUCTION OF OVERHANGING BRANCHES OF FOUR HORNBEAM TREES PROTECTED BY A TREE PRESERVATION ORDER

Location:

6 CLARE PARK AMERSHAM

Applicant: MR D SHAW

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Locally Important Landscape

Class A Road

Unclassified road

No road access

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Tree Preservation Order

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The Bucks County Council (Amersham Rural District) Tree Preservation Order No 8 - 1949 covering nine woodlands including W1, Stanley Wood.

87/1257/CH Felling of eight hornbeam and one beech tree. (Stanley Wood) Conditional permission.

96/1049/CH Trim back to boundary lower overhanging branches of hornbeams and beeches on edge of woodland. (5 Clare Park) Conditional permission.

01/1729/CH Trimming of overhanging branches of trees. (4 Clare Park) Not yet determined.

THE APPLICATION

To cut back branches of four hornbeams (described as beeches) overhanging rear of garden.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approval.

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant: Trees overhanging rear of garden to a depth of 10ft making part of the garden inaccessible.

One letter from a neighbour having no objection to the proposal.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser: Stanley Wood situated along rear boundary of garden – consists mainly of beech with some hornbeam and other species present – at rear of 6 Clare Park large beeches within woodland and smaller hornbeams forming woodland edge – branches extending over garden up to about 5m from four hornbeams – all about 10-12m high - some reduction and reshaping of overhanging branches reasonable providing natural shape of trees is maintained.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy TW2

ISSUES

1. Stanley Wood is situated in a prominent position on the edge of Amersham with a public footpath running along the boundary.

2. Some reduction of the branches overhanging the rear garden of 6 Clare Park is considered to be reasonable provided the natural shape of the trees is maintained.

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 the reduction and re-shaping of the branches of the trees overhanging the rear garden.

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 - I213 Quality of Tree Work

(2) INFORMATIVE - I212 Tree Work - Crown Reduction

2001/1757/CH

Case Officer: Andrew Fuller

Date Received: 22/10/01 Decide by Date: 16/12/01

Parish: Chalfont St Giles Ward: Chalfont St Giles

App Type: Full application

Proposal:

TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION, SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION AND DETACHED TRIPLE CAR PORT AND STORE AT FRONT OF PROPERTY

Location:

LAUDERDALE DEADHEARN LANE CHALFONT ST. GILES

Applicant: MR AND MRS J POPE

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Adjoining Green Belt

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

CH/1717/81 Demolition of existing garage and erection of double garage with bedrooms over. Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

A single storey rear extension, two-storey side extension and detached triple carport and store at front of property. The single storey rear extension is 6m wide, 3.15m deep and 3.8m to the ridge of its rear facing gabled roof. The structure is positioned to the rear left-hand side of the property, flush with the north western flank.

The two-storey side extension will be 6.7m wide and 7.8m deep, with a gabled roof at 8.2m high. The extension is to be sited on the north western elevation.

A triple carport would be sited in the front garden, towards the north eastern corner of the property, 3.6m from the front boundary and 1m from the north western boundary. The structure is 11.2m wide, 6.5m deep, hipped to a pyramid roof at 4.9m above the slab with three open bays to the front.

PARISH COUNCIL

The Parish Council objects to this proposal which represents an unacceptable development on the street scene, which is totally out of character with all other dwellings in this lane, would be particularly obtrusive on its high ground situation, and where the scale of the proposed building at 35 feet wide is excessive.

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, H20, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1. The application site is in the Established Residential Area of Special Character in Chalfont St. Giles. Deadheam Lane is a well-established rural lane with the houses well screened from the highway behind thick mature hedging aloft high banks. As such the detached carport will be the only development that will be visible from any public viewpoint. Neighbouring property ‘Greenwoods’ has been granted planning permission for a forward-sited garage under application 99/1547/CH. The proposal will be set back from the front boundary by 3.6m, the same as its neighbours application, and 1m from the side boundary. Furthermore the proposed outbuilding is 0.2m shorter than its neighbouring precedent, being 4.9m rather than 5.1m in height. The ‘Greenwoods’ application was considered acceptable due to the boundary screening and although ‘Lauderdale’ benefits from the same dense boundary hedging, the proposed scheme has more than twice the footprint. Local Plan Policy H20 states that such detached ancillary residential structures should be modest in size and subordinate in scale to the existing dwellinghouse and therefore the proposed development is considered unsuitable under Local Plan Policy GC1 and H20. The carport would not only be obtrusive as considered by the Parish Councils, but would also set a precedent for similarly large detached developments along the lane.

2. The two-storey side extension will project to the same point as the existing detached double garage, replacing its flat roofed north western flank with a two-story structure, linking it to the house. As such a distance of 2.6m will still be preserved to the boundary with ‘Copsewood’ which is more than required under Local Plan Policy H11 and H16. This neighbour has a detached ancillary residential building awaiting determination by the Council, which is a little under 2m on the other side of the boundary and 6.7m in height. As such the two-storey element of the project is not considered to be overdeveloping the plot or compromise the spaciousness of the area. Furthermore the proposed first floor flanking window is to an en suite and therefore with obscured glass, the privacy between neighbours would be well preserved. Local Plan design and amenity policy have been complied with.

3. The single storey rear extension faces a large rear garden with high mature hedging around it, and as such this element of the proposal is considered not to raise any adverse issues.

4. The triple carport and remaining hardstanding with amply cater for the off street parking requirements of Local Plan Policy TR11 and TR16.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse permission

For the following reasons

(1) The application site is situated in a rural lane characterised by generally spacious layouts where properties are well set back from the road and screened by hedging on deep banks. The detached forward sited carport, by reason of its length, height and bulk, and its proximity to the front boundary, would result in an over-prominent development having a detrimental impact on the character of the street scene. As such it would be contrary to Policies GC1 and H20 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997.

2001/1763/CH

Case Officer: Andrew Fuller

Date Received: 23/10/01 Decide by Date: 17/12/01

Parish: Ashley Green Ward: Ashley Green & Latimer

App Type: Full application

Proposal:

INSTALLATION OF THREE WINDOWS IN NORTH ELEVATION AND TWO WINDOWS AND ROOFLIGHTS IN SOUTH ELEVATION OF DETACHED ANCILLARY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING

Location:

1 HOG LANE FARM HOG LANE ASHLEY GREEN

Applicant: D BOYLE

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Site within 250 m. of active or disused rubbish tip

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

99/1771/CH Use of ancillary residential outbuilding as residential annex for elderly relative. Permitted development implemented.

00/0100/CH Retention of barn for ancillary residential use. Conditional permission.

00/1141/CH Single storey extension to ancillary residential building. Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

Application 00/0100/CH included Condition (1) that stated:

No alterations shall be made to the external appearance of the barn without the prior written approval of the Local Plan authority.

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

The Insertion of windows in the south and north elevations. On the south elevation are proposed two windows in the gabled element at first floor level one 1.2m wide the other 0.4m wide, both 1.3m high. Also a set of 5 velux windows in a line forming one panel 5m long and 0.7m high in the roof over the open porch element granted permission under application 00/1141/CH. On the north elevation are proposed two windows at first floor and one at ground floor all 1.2m wide and 0.8m high.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1. The application is to a barn, which has been relocated and being converted to a dwelling in the open Green Belt near Ashley Green. The proposal for additional windows to a property that is partly surrounded by fields and partly surrounded by trees, without immediate neighbours, raises no amenity issues. As such no objections are raised under Local Plan Policy GC3, H13 or H14.

2. Although the barn has no particular historic interest and the windows will heighten its domestic use over its traditional agricultural use, they are not to the detriment of its rural vernacular and do not substantiate refusal under Local Plan Policy GC1 and H15.

3. Issues of car parking are not relevant and Policy TR11 and TR16 are 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

(1) INFORMATIVE You are reminded that the building subject of this permission is for ancillary residential accommodation only, and may not be used as a separate dwelling without the grant of planning permission. Such permission is unlikely to be granted due to the Green Belt location of the premises.

2001/1767/CH

Case Officer: Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received: 24/10/01 Decide by Date: 18/12/01

Parish: Chalfont St Giles Ward: Chalfont St Giles

App Type: Full application

Proposal:

ERECTION OF REPLACEMENT ANCILLARY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING COMPRISING DOUBLE GARAGE, STORE/WORKSHOP WITH GAMES ROOM OVER

Location:

COPSEWOOD DEADHEARN LANE CHALFONT ST. GILES

Applicant: DR AND MRS S TIBBLE

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Adjoining Green Belt

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/2144/73 Double garage and store.

CH/368/76 Extension to lounge. Approved.

87/2117/CH

Part single storey, part two-storey side and rear extension including a garage. Approved.

Current application at ‘Lauderdale’ adjacent to the application site –

01/1757/CH

Two-storey side extension, single storey rear extension and detached triple car port and store at front of property.

THE APPLICATION

The proposed structure would be approximately 6.65m wide, 10.75m deep, would have an eaves height of 3.1m with a ridge at approximately 6.8m, the roofline would be ‘half hipped’ at either end. Also proposed are two-dormer windows in the northern elevation, each would be 2m wide, 1m high with a pitched roof over adding a further 1.3m in height.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections to this proposal provided that a condition is imposed to ensure that the ancillary building remains ancillary to the main residential dwelling and cannot be converted to a separate residence.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, H20, TR11 & TR16.

ISSUES

1. Policy H20 states that in the built up areas the Council will grant planning permission for ancillary residential buildings provided, (among other criteria), that the building would be modest in size and subordinate in scale to the existing dwellinghouse. Although relatively large when taken in isolation, when seen in context with the existing dwelling and its surroundings it is not considered to be excessively large and it would not appear significantly intrusive in the street scene, noting the amount of screening on the front boundary. As the proposed building is sited at a lower level than the existing dwelling which is itself a substantial size, the structure would appear to be subordinate in scale to the existing dwellinghouse.

2. When considering the impact the building would have upon the amenities of the neighbouring dwelling, ‘Lauderdale’, it is necessary to consider the impact as existing and also to consider its potential impact upon the proposed extension to this dwelling. At present this neighbouring dwelling has a number of windows in its flank elevation facing the application site, at first floor level a secondary window to a bedroom faces and at ground floor level exists a garage with windows to a hallway and a toilet in the dwelling’s elevation behind the garage. Given the distance between the boundary and the flank elevation of the neighbouring dwelling together with the absence of any principal windows in the elevation facing the application site and despite the proposed building being set at a higher level, no objections are raised to the impact of the proposal upon the amenities at present. The current application at the neighbouring dwelling includes a two-storey side extension, this extension is proposing a secondary window to an en-suite facing the application site at first floor level with a doorway to a store at ground floor level. As such it is not considered that the proposed ancillary building would have an adverse impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring dwelling should the extension be granted and erected. The only windows in the proposed building are to face the existing dwelling, as such no overlooking would occur.

3. No adverse car parking issues arise, no objections are raised under Polices TR11 and TR16.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

(2) C433 Materials - General Details

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

(4) C197 Ancillary residential buildings at Copsewood - building other than garage

(5) The building hereby permitted shall only be occupied ancillary to the existing dwelling on the site and at shall at no time be occupied as an independant dwelling unit.

Reason: The establishment of an independent dwelling unit within the curtilage of the main dwelling would lead to an intensification in the use of the site which would be out of keeping with an detrimental to the character of its surroundings.

2001/1770/CH

Case Officer: Kathryn York

Date Received: 24/10/01 Decide by Date: 18/12/01

Parish: Penn Ward: Penn

App Type: Full application

Proposal:

PROPOSED ENTRANCE GATES AND RAILINGS TO PLOT 1 AND TO DRIVEWAY SERVING PLOTS 2 -6

Location:

PLOTS 1 - 6 DAVIDGE HOUSE WHITCHERT CLOSE KNOTTY GREEN

Applicant: OCTAGON DEVELOPMENTS LTD

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

00/0966/CH Redevelopment of site to provide 8 detached houses and garages, 2 served by existing access from Forty Green Road and 6 served by extension of Whichert Close. Conditional permission.

00/1739/CH Plots 1 – 6: 6 detached houses and garages served by extension of Whichert Close. Conditional permission.

00/2097/CH Plots 7 and 8: Two detached houses and triple garages served by existing access from Forty Green Road. Conditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

Proposes entrance gates and railings to plot one and to driveway serving plots two to six.

Entrance gate to plot one: black painted wrought iron gates 3.6m wide x 2.2m high, mounted on brick pillars 0.78m wide x 2.3m high.

Entrance gate to plots two – six: black painted wrought iron gates 4.8m wide x 2.2m high, attached to 1.96m high steel columns, mounted on brick columns 2.84m high.

Railings: wrought iron railings, a maximum of 2.28m high, forming a semi-circular entrance to the site. The railings extend from the garage on plot one (near the front entrance to the site), linking the proposed entrance gates to plot one and to plots two to six, and then extending north across plot two, to the front boundary of the site.

PARISH COUNCIL

No comment.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

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

2. The proposed entrance gates and railings are modest in size and scale, and will not unduly affect the character of the area. The dwellings have not yet been constructed, however the gates and railings are sited a sufficient distance away from these dwellings so as not to adversely affect the residential amenities of the future occupiers of these dwellings. No objections are raised in relation to either Policy GC1 or GC3.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

(2) The railings and gates hereby permitted shall be painted black or in a colour which shall have been previously 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.

(3) Before any construction work commences, samples of the bricks and stone to be used for the external construction of the pillars and columns hereby permitted shall be submitted to and 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.

2001/1772/CH

Case Officer: Andrew Fuller

Date Received: 24/10/01 Decide by Date: 18/12/01

Parish: Chalfont St Peter Ward: Chalfont Common

App Type: Full application

Proposal:

TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION

Location:

5 CEDARS CLOSE CHALFONT ST. PETER

Applicant: T D COLES

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

91/1537/CH Demolition of garage and erection of single storey rear extension and two-storey side extension incorporating replacement garage. Refused permission.

THE APPLICATION

A two-storey side extension 3.5m wide and 8.2m deep (flush with the front and rear elevation). The structure has a side half-hipped roof, pitched to 6.8m. ridge height with front roof slope extending down to a low eaves height of 2.2m.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection but concerned that adequate parking and 1m rule at first floor level are not shown on plan.

REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters of objection from neighbouring residents raising the following points.

1. Loss of light to the main bedroom window of No. 4.

2. Loss of view.

3. Devalue property.

4. Out of character.

5. Will fill in a gap and the property will resemble a terrace.

6. Two trees have been cut down in the close, diminishing its character.

7. Bathroom being positioned in frontage of extension. This will be clearly visible as such and therefore out of keeping with remaining dwellings.

Should the extension be granted following conditions have been requested.

a). The proposed small window does not exceed the quoted figures.

b). Brickwork is finished in the existing materials (white stucco)

c). No visible ‘sewell’ pipes on the outside of the property.

One letter of support.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1. The application is sited in a cul-du-sac of modest detached and semi-detached properties. The dwellinghouse currently has a single storey side extension to which this applicant intends to replace along the same flank. The Parish Council are concerned that the 1m rule has not been shown on the plans, yet on site an adequate distance of 1.15m from the boundary will remain. As such the proposal complies with Local Plan Policy H11 and H16.

2. The plans clearly illustrate the relationship between No. 4 and 5 and the effect the extension will have over the side facing dormer window of No. 4. A 5.5m gap between the two neighbouring elements is considered sufficient to preserve adequate neighbouring amenity. Only a small flank window is proposed which will be subject to obscure glazing, otherwise windows to the rear elevation generate no greater overlooking to neighbouring rear private amenity space than the existing rear windows. As such the extension complies with Local Plan Amenity Policies GC3, H13 and H14. The objections of neighbouring residents concerned loss of light are noted but the distance is such that refusal is not warranted..

3. The ridge is 0.4m lower than the main ridge of the property with a significant side half-hip and front roof slope, to keep the volume to a minimum. This has given this extension a subordinate appearance to the main part of the house. No. 9 has a similar side extension, in terms of design and proportions, granted permission under application 86/0791/CH, and therefore the comments from neighbouring residents that the extension would be out of character in the street scene do not justify refusal. Furthermore a terrace effect will not arise from this scheme as suggested by local residents, due to the acceptable degree of spacing between the applicant and its neighbour. Local Plan Policy GC1 and H15 have therefore been considered and complied with in the design of this project.

4. The property does not quite reach 120sq.m. floorspace and therefore only two car parking spaces are required. The front garden can cater for the necessary provision in order to satisfy Local Plan Policy TR11 and TR16.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

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

(3) C174A No additional windows in first floor of north east elevation of extension.

(4) C176 Obscure glass in single window in north east elevation

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

2001/1774/CH

Case Officer: Jackie Emmett

Date Received: 25/10/01 Decide by Date: 19/12/01

Parish: Little Missenden Ward: Little Missenden

App Type: Full application

Proposal:

REPLACEMENT GREENHOUSE

Location:

HOLLYDYKE HOUSE LITTLE MISSENDEN

Applicant: MR & MRS R J WETHERALL

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Little Missenden Conservation Area

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

River Chess & River Misbourne - area liable to flood

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Article 4 Direction

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/691/53 House and garage. Conditional permission, partially implemented (garage not built).

AM/1999/66 Kitchen and toilet extension. Conditional permission, not implemented.

CH/761/81 Erection of two storey and single story rear extensions. Approved. Implemented.

85/557/CH Extensions and alterations to existing double garage with playroom over to form elderly persons accommodation. Conditional permission, implemented.

89/3024/CH Detached two storey building comprising domestic garage workshop, store and external staircase with new vehicular access. Refuse: Detrimental to character of Conservation Area, inappropriate size and appearance in the Green Belt.

90/0656/CH Detached single story building comprising triple garage together with new vehicular access. Conditional permission, not implemented.

98/1663/CH Detached domestic triple garage. Conditional permission, implemented.

99/1787/CH Single storey rear extension incorporating conservatory. Refused. Not subordinate to dwelling and intrusive in open Green Belt.

00/249/CH Single storey rear extension incorporating conservatory. Conditional permission. Implemented.

THE APPLICATION

The application proposes a replacement greenhouse. The greenhouse is 6.4 metres in length and 3.3 metres deep. It has a pitched roof measuring 2.9 metres high. The Green house is situated approximately 15 metres northeast of the rear of the main dwelling.

PARISH COUNCIL

Approve.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, LSQ1, H20, TR11, TR16, CA1, and CA2.

ISSUES

1. The application site is located within the Green Belt and the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Policy GB15 states that in such areas the Council will permit the construction or extension of ancillary non-habitable buildings within domestic curtilages where these buildings are separate from a main dwelling provided that such buildings are both small and subordinate in scale to the original dwelling. The impact on the landscape rather than on specific Green Belt policy needs to be considered. In particular, the criteria contained in Policies H13 and H17 must be complied with, as appropriate.

2. The proposed greenhouse is located within the residential curtilage approximately 15m from the main dwelling, and would replace a much larger greenhouse and fruit cage structure on the same location. The original buildings had a combined footprint of approximately 92m and these would be replaced by a much smaller greenhouse of 20.91m clearly subordinate in scale to the main house. No objection is therefore raised in relation to policy GB15.

3. No objection is raised in terms of the impact of the proposed greenhouse on the Chiltern Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the site of which would be screened by existing mature vegetation. Similarly, no objection is raised in relation to Policy CA1, as the proposed development will not have a detrimental impact on the Little Missenden Conservation Area.

4. There will be no detrimental impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring residents, nor is it considered to have a detrimental impact on the street scene.

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) Before any construction work commences, named types or samples of the bricks to be used for the external construction of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and 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 area.

2001/1775/CH

Case Officer: Jackie Emmett

Date Received: 25/10/01 Decide by Date: 19/12/01

Parish: Chesham Ward: Lowndes

App Type: Full application

Proposal:

SINGLE STOREY FRONT EXTENSION

Location:

37 BERKELEY AVENUE CHESHAM

Applicant: MRS M BOYLE

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

CH/722/84 Permitted development. Kitchen extension

90/1627/CH. Alterations, single storey rear extension and roof extension with rear dormer to form loft conversion. Implemented

THE APPLICATION

Proposes single storey front extension to a detached dwelling. The extension measures 1.6 m forward of the current building line and covers the complete frontage of the building having an overall width of 7.6m. The existing pitched roof will be extended forward to incorporate the lounge extension at a height of 5.4m. The bedroom extension incorporates a dummy pitched roof 3.9m high to the front of the existing flat roof.

TOWN COUNCIL

No objection.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letter of objection received from occupier of 39 Berkeley Avenue.

Would object if the extension covers the whole width of 37 Berkeley Avenue and is less than 1m from boundary line with No. 39.

Letter of objection received from occupier of 22 Berkeley Avenue.

Development would breach a restrictive convenant contained in the Deeds for all the properties in Berkeley Avenue preventing development within 45ft of the road – possibly setting a precedent for the rest.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1. The application site is located with the built up area of Chesham and no objection is raised in principle to the proposed development subject to compliance with the relevant local plan policies.

2. The proposal is to the front of the property and would be visible from the street scene. However there would be no significant detriment to the amenities of neighbours and the overall character and appearance of the street scene or locality in the vicinity of the extension would not be adversely affected.

3. The design of the proposal respects the scale and proportions of the existing dwelling. Subject to the use of matching materials the extended dwelling will be in keeping with the existing building. No objection is raised in relation to policies H13, H14 and H15.

4. There is adequate provision for 3 vehicles to park on site. The overall floorspace does not exceed 120m. No objection under policy 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

(1) INFORMATIVE - You are advised that notwithstanding this planning permission, it has been brought to the Council's attention that there may be a restrictive covenant relating to the front extension of properties in Berkeley Avenue and that you should investigate this prior to commencement of development.

2001/1777/CH

Case Officer: Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received: 25/10/01 Decide by Date: 19/12/01

Parish: Amersham Ward: Amersham the Hill

App Type: Full application

Proposal:

NEW SHOPFRONT

Location:

CLINTON CARDS 35-37 SYCAMORE ROAD AMERSHAM

Applicant: CLINTON CARDS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Shopping Area - Rear Servicing - AOTHill S12 - Proposed Alts

Class B Road

Thames Water - groundwater protection zone

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

Current application -

01/1800/CH Internally illuminated fascia and projecting sign.

The most recent planning history on the site -

91/0212/CH Externally illuminated fascia sign, withdrawn.

91//0211/CH

Change of use of ground floor from shop (A1) to restaurant and tea room (A3), new shopfront with canopy and single storey rear extension, withdrawn.

CH/1263/84

Internal illumination of existing projecting box sign, refused.

CH/2075/83

Fascia sign and non illuminated box sign, approved.

CH/1217/78

Double sided projecting box sign, refused.

THE APPLICATION

The proposed aluminium shopfront would involve the existing porch area being removed and replaced by a smaller recessed doorway and porch. The proposed porch would be between 0.9m and 1.15m deep (allowing for the angle of the road) and would be 1.8m wide. The main windows adjacent to the porch area would be approximately 2.2 in depth, being approximately 0.2m above ground level.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approval.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1. The proposed shop-front’s design is not considered to detract from the existing varied range of shop-fronts within this part of Amersham. No objections are raised under GC1 and S11.

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

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

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

2001/1779/CH

Case Officer: Iwan Jones

Date Received: 25/10/01 Decide by Date: 19/12/01

Parish: Great Missenden - Prestwood Ward: Prestwood

App Type: Full application

Proposal:

PART TWO STOREY, PART SINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSION AND DORMER WINDOW IN REAR ELEVATION

Location:

8 BLACKSMITHS LANE PRESTWOOD

Applicant: MR AND MRS D HILL

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Unclassified road

THE APPLICATION

The application relates to the erection of a two storey side extension spanning the depth of the dwelling and to the same ridge height as existing. It would measure 1.3m wide. Part of the extension would be 1m wider at single storey for a depth of 3.8m from the rear elevation. A flat roof dormer is proposed to the rear measuring 5.4m wide and 1.3m high. All materials would match those of the existing.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, LSQ1, H13, H14, H15, H16, H18, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1. The application site is located within the built up area of Prestwood and within the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty where there are no objections in principle to the proposed development subject to compliance with the relevant local plan policies.

2. A distance of 1m would be allowed up to the side boundary from the flank elevation at first floor level. The height of the roof would integrate into the existing at the same height. No impact would be had upon the street scene. No objections raised in relation to Policies H13(ii) and H16.

3. The level of amenities currently enjoyed by the occupiers of the neighbouring property No.10 would not be reduced by the proposal. No objections raised in relation to Policies GC2, GC3 and H14.

4. The scale and design of the extension is considered acceptable and all materials would match those of the existing. No objections raised in relation to Policies GC1 and H15.

5. An excessively wide and flat roof dormer is not considered ideal. However, the neighbouring properties No.10 and 12 have flat roof dormers on both the front and rear elevations. Flat roof garages and porches are also prominent in the vicinity. As such, no objection is raised in relation to Policy H18.

6. Three parking spaces can be provided to the front of the property within the curtilage. No objections 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) The window at first floor level in the southern elevation of the development hereby approved shall not be glazed other than with obscured glass, at any time.

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

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

End of Report

Meeting documents

CDC Delegated Planning Application ReportsFriday, 7th December, 2001

CDC Delegated Planning Application Reports
Friday, 7th December, 2001