Meeting documents

2001/57/TC

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     22/10/01     Decide by Date:     03/12/01

Parish:     Chesham Bois     Ward:     Chesham Bois & Weedon

App Type:     Work to unpreserved trees in Conservation Area

Applicant:      MRS JP TURK

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Chesham Bois Conservation Area

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

adjoining Public Amenity Open Space

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

93/0003/TC     Topping of a yew tree. No TPO made.

93/0029/TC     Pollarding of a lime, three hornbeams and a sycamore. No TPO made.

THE APPLICATION

Cutting back of overhanging branches of trees roughly to fence line – trees consist mainly of hornbeam and elder.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant:     Trees are severely overhanging car parking spaces – propose cutting back so that spaces can be used without trouble.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Line of trees along boundary – include elder, hazel, young elm and small hornbeam – some branches over boundary affecting car parking area – none of trees considered important.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy CA5 

ISSUES

1.     The trees are situated on the boundary of the rear garden adjacent to a parking area with limited visibility from the public road.

2.     The trees are all fairly small and it is considered that none of them makes a significant contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. 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 you do not need permission to cut down or cut back a tree that is dead, dying or dangerous.  However except in an emergency you are advised to give the Council at least five days notice before you cut down such a tree.  This is in your interests as you could be prosecuted if the Council thinks you have carried out unauthorised work. If a tree is removed, you would normally be required to replace it with a tree of an appropriate size and species, which should be planted as close as possible in position to the tree removed.  This should be carried out as soon as is reasonably possible.  The Council can also decide that you do not have to plant a replacement tree.

2001/58/TC

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     19/10/01     Decide by Date:     30/11/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Austenwood

App Type:     Work to unpreserved trees in Conservation Area

Applicant:      MRS PHILLIPS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Ch St P - North Park/Kingsway Conservation Area

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Unclassified road

Northolt Airfield safeguarding zone

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

88/2675/CH     Alterations, single storey front/side extension including garage, single storey front/side/rear extensions, first floor rear extension, two chimneys and alterations to access. Conditional permission.

90/1867/CH     Retention of 2.4m high brick boundary wall. Conditional permission.

96/0494/CH     Retention of garden shed. Conditional permission.

00/0572/CH     Detached house and attached double garage served by access on to Hibberts Way. Withdrawn.

00/0044/TC     Felling of a western red cedar. No TPO made.

THE APPLICATION

Flowering plum – reduce by 20% and reshape crown - remove secondary growth branches from crown of tree to thin and tidy.

Juniper (appears to be cypress) – remove five lower limbs to raise the crown – some branches to be feather cut only.

PARISH COUNCIL

Would accept the Forestry Officer’s recommendation.

REPRESENTATIONS

Agent:     Flowering plum out of shape and untidy – clients wish to see trellis behind juniper so raising of crown required.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Both trees in rear garden near to pond – both about 8m high – largely hidden from public views by high brick wall beside road.  Flowering plum close to side boundary – long branch extending over boundary into shrubs in neighbouring property – epicormic growth at base – proposed work reasonable.  Cypress – unusual shape with many branches growing on one side – some extending down close to ground level – shading part of lawn – proposed work would result in more upright tree.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy CA5 

ISSUES

1.     Both trees are situated in the rear garden of the property with limited visibility from public viewpoints.

2.     Both trees are fairly small 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.     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

2001/59/TC

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     01/11/01     Decide by Date:     13/12/01

Parish:     Penn     Ward:     Penn

App Type:     Work to unpreserved trees in Conservation Area

Applicant:      MS GODLEY

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Penn & Tylers Green Conservation Area

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Adjoining Green Belt

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Class B Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Archaeological site

Grade 2 Listed Building

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/812/57     Alterations to form two cottages. Unconditional permission.

THE APPLICATION

Crown reduction of yew tree by 25%.

PARISH COUNCIL

No comments.

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant;     Very large yew tree in front garden – would like to reduce by 25%.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Yew Tree House divided into two in 1957 – yews either side of original entrance – one tree (and entrance) within ownership of 1 Yew Tree House – larger of two trees – other tree slightly smaller with some die-back – notification tree also close to small cypress – reduction considered to be reasonable management and would result in the pair of trees being more evenly matched.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy CA5 

ISSUES

1.     The yew tree is situated on the front boundary of the property and it is prominent in the streetscene.

2.     The tree forms part of a pair of yew trees beside the original entrance to Yew Tree House.  The other tree is smaller so the proposed work would result in the pair of trees being more evenly matched.  It is considered that the proposed work is reasonable management and that a Tree Preservation Order would therefore not be appropriate.

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

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

2001/60/TC

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     05/11/01     Decide by Date:     17/12/01

Parish:     Cholesbury     Ward:     Cholesbury & The Lee

App Type:     Work to unpreserved trees in Conservation Area

Applicant:      P L SQUIRE

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Cholesbury & Hawridge Conservation Area

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

adjoining Common land

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Site within 250 m. of active or disused rubbish tip

THE APPLICATION

Tree A - Horse chestnut - fell.

Tree B - Horse chestnut – projection over road – remove 20-25% to shape.

Tree C – Horse chestnut - fell.

Tree D - Horse chestnut – crown reduction at 10-11 o’clock.

Tree E - Holly – reduce to mound shape.

Tree F - Apple – fell.

PARISH COUNCIL

We urge Chiltern District Council to assure itself that all the work is the minimum necessary, because it would have a detrimental effect on the setting of the area.

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant:     Tree A - Horse chestnut – tree is dying and would fall on road.

Tree B - Horse chestnut – projecting over road.

Tree C – Horse chestnut – about 3 weeks ago a branch fell onto and covered half the road – apparently another branch fell onto the road about 9 years ago – tree now very unbalanced and concerned for house.

Tree D - Horse chestnut – worried about branches splitting off.

Tree E - Holly – this seems to have grown as a weed between the chestnuts – with a big branch gone from chestnut it looks awful.

Tree F - Apple – a lot of dead branches and gradually dying – big hole cut by electricity people.

Propose to replace apple with silver birch or willow – no plan to replace the two chestnuts.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Line of large mature horse chestnuts along front boundary of Old Rectory with the common – fairly widely-spaced with heavy side branches vulnerable to breaking off.

Tree C - lost major branch across road recently – main stem now badly damaged and structurally weak – sensible to replace.

Tree A – significant die-back in parts of crown – some branches lost in past, including large branch at height of about 2m – decay present where branch lost – reasonable to fell.

Trees B and D – both with fairly heavy side branching – some reduction and shaping, particularly of the parts on the road side, reasonable to reduce the risk of branch breakage especially if trees now more exposed.

Tree E – holly appears to have been shaped at one time – later three branches grew up to double the height of the tree – now propose to revert to former height – considered reasonable.

Tree F – old apple in rear garden of property – not important tree.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy CA5 

ISSUES

1.     The horse chestnuts and the holly are situated on the front boundary of the property beside the common and are prominent in public views. The apple is in the rear garden with limited public visibility.

2.     The horse chestnuts are important amenity trees but they are all mature with large side branches vulnerable to breakage.  One is badly damaged after the loss of a major branch and another is in poor condition so their removal is considered to be reasonable.  The two others are at risk and some crown reduction would be sensible.

3.     The holly is less important and the proposal to reduce it to a smaller shaped tree is considered acceptable.  Similarly the apple tree in the rear garden is not considered to be important.

4.     In these circumstances it is considered that a Tree Preservation Order would not be appropriate.

5.     The horse chestnuts are prominent trees and some replacement planting on the front boundary would be useful.

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

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

2001/61/TC

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     05/11/01     Decide by Date:     17/12/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Austenwood

App Type:     Work to unpreserved trees in Conservation Area

Applicant:      MRS M J KERNS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Chalfont St Peter-Firs Estate Conservation Area

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Unclassified road

Northolt Airfield safeguarding zone

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

01/0046/TC     Felling of a Scots pine. No TPO made.

THE APPLICATION

Felling of a silver birch.

PARISH COUNCIL

Would accept Forestry Officer’s recommendation.

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant:     Propose removal for in and out driveway – tree is growing out of hedge – tree causes interference with telephone cable and neighbour’s property – propose to replace tree with a more suitable species and in a better position to enhance the property.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Birch tree growing in boundary hedge between two properties – causing some problems as a result of this position - close to both houses, only about 2m from neighbour – edging of recently constructed drive very close to base of tree – telephone wires passing through crown – estate generally characterised by houses close to road with few trees.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy CA5 

ISSUES

1.     The birch tree is situated in the front garden of the property and is visible from the road.

2.     The tree is in a boundary hedge close to two houses and it is causing some problems as a result of this position.  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 in a more appropriate position 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

2001/62/TC

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     07/11/01     Decide by Date:     19/12/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Giles     Ward:     Chalfont St Giles

App Type:     Work to unpreserved trees in Conservation Area

Applicant:      MS S HIRST

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Chalfont St Giles Conservation Area

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

Class C Road

Mineral Consultation Area

THE APPLICATION

Laurel – fell to ground level.

Hazel – reduce upper crown by a third.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections.

REPRESENTATIONS

No objections.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Both trees in rear garden of property with limited public visibility – hazel about 6m high – some reduction would have little effect on amenity value of tree - laurel about 5m high and growing up touching wall and roof of adjacent Milton’s Restaurant – removal sensible.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy CA5 

ISSUES

1.     The two trees are situated in the rear garden of the property with limited visibility from public viewpoints.

2.     The trees are both small 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

2001/63/TC

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     08/11/01     Decide by Date:     20/12/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Austenwood

App Type:     Work to unpreserved trees in Conservation Area

Applicant:      MRS D LOVELOCK

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Ch St P - North Park/Kingsway Conservation Area

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Unclassified road

Northolt Airfield safeguarding zone

Mineral Consultation Area

THE APPLICATION

Beech – thin out dense crown by 20% – remove rubbing and crossing branches - deadwood.

Cedar – remove branch off garage roof – deadwood.

PARISH COUNCIL

Would accept Forestry Officer’s recommendation.

REPRESENTATIONS

Agent:     Beech has dense crown – cedar has branch on garage roof.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Beech - large important feature tree in prominent position on front boundary of property – some previous branch removal over road – overhead wires passing through tree – some crown thinning considered reasonable.

Cedar – large tree in front garden of property beside garage – low branch at height of about 3m touching roof of garage – removal of branch sensible – would have little effect on appearance of tree.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy CA5 

ISSUES

1.     The two trees are situated in prominent positions in the front garden of the property and are important in the street scene.

2.     It is considered that the proposed tree surgery would not have a significant effect on the appearance or amenity value of the trees. A Tree Preservation Order would therefore not be appropriate.

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

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

2001/64/TC

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     09/11/01     Decide by Date:     21/12/01

Parish:     Chesham Bois     Ward:     Chesham Bois & Weedon

App Type:     Work to unpreserved trees in Conservation Area

Applicant:      J E SOBEE

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Chesham Bois Conservation Area

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Unclassified road

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

92/0011/TC     Topping of sixteen beech trees, an ash and a cherry. No TPO made.

THE APPLICATION

Tree 1 – Apple – trim to suit, then graft.

Tree 2 – Ash – top to height of previous cut-back.

Tree 3 – Cypress – trim rear side branches.

Tree 4, 5 & 6 – Leylandii – lop as necessary.

Tree 7 & 8 – Ash – top out.

Tree 9 – False Acacia (Robinia) – dig out or cut down.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant:     Tree 1 – Apple – recent wind damage made it ugly and potentially unstable.

Tree 2 – Ash – is getting too high and obscures neighbour’s light.

Tree 3 – Cypress – is now damaging neighbour’s fence.

Tree 4, 5 & 6 – Leylandii – group is too large and bulky.

Tree 7 & 8 – Ash – are becoming too high.

Tree 9 – False Acacia (Robinia) – is now almost dead.

No replanting proposed – there are enough trees in the garden.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Property set back from road behind other houses.

Tree 1 – Apple – old tree in poor condition – recently lost branch.

Tree 2 – Ash – large tree – previously pollarded at heights of about 6m and 9m – within line of beeches topped at about 6m.

Tree 3 – Cypress – multi-stemmed columnar tree – leaning and branches bending out damaging neighbour’s fence – some weight reduction should improve shape.

Tree 4, 5 & 6 – Leylandii – group of three trees 6-8m high on boundary of property.

Tree 7 & 8 – Ash – young multi-stemmed trees in hedgerow adjacent to extension currently under construction at The Old School House – close to building.

Tree 9 – False Acacia (Robinia) – within group of trees and shrubs – severe die-back.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy CA5 

ISSUES

1.     The trees are situated within a property set back from the road with limited public views.  The most prominent trees are the large ash, which is partially visible above the houses in Milton Lawns and the two smaller ashes.

2.     There is limited visibility of all of the trees and it is considered that none of them 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 for the Robinia as it is growing within a dense group of trees.

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

2001/65/TC

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     12/11/01     Decide by Date:     24/12/01

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham Town

App Type:     Work to unpreserved trees in Conservation Area

Applicant:      MR G TAYLOR

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Amersham Old Town Conservation Area

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Traffic calming scheme for Amersham Old Town

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Thames Water - groundwater protection zone

Within curtilage of Listed Building - affects setting

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

91/0001/TC     Crown reduction of sweet chestnut tree. No TPO made.

THE APPLICATION

Cut back sweet chestnut to previous lop marks.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approve subject to Forestry Officer approval.

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant:     Reason for work is tree overhanging neighbouring property.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Large sweet chestnut in rear garden of property – not visible from High Street – close to neighbouring outbuilding converted to garage block – tree previously reduced under 91/0001/TC – about 3m re-growth – some further reduction to same points reasonable.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy CA5 

ISSUES

1.     The sweet chestnut tree is situated in the rear garden of the property with limited visibility from public viewpoints.

2.     Although the tree is large, because of the limited public visibility, 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.     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

2001/1776/CH

Case Officer:      Neil Higson

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

Parish:     Ashley Green     Ward:     Ashley Green & Latimer

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      CLIVE TRAVERS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Class A Road

United Kingdom Oil pipeline

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Affects setting of Grade II Listed Building

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

93/0363/CH     Alterations and extensions to provide domestic quadruple. Permitted, implemented but not completed.

00/1599/CH     Two-storey side extension – Refused.

00/2009/CH     Part two-storey, part single storey side extension – Refused.

THE APPLICATION

Permission is sought for the erection of a two-storey side extension to provide a quadruple garage at ground floor with games room above and is a re-submission following two previous refusals. The extension as currently proposed would measure approximately 18.6m wide at two-storey level by 7m deep and would have a ridged roof running across the width of the extension, being 8.6m in height to the apex. A four faceted clock tower would be sited mid way along the front ridge projecting 2.1 metres in height above the apex.

CONSULTATIONS

Historic Buildings Officer – As with previous applications for this site, it cannot be said that the proposed development immediately effects the setting of the listed building.  The only listed barn, now converted to domestic use, is situated to the rear of the adjacent farmyard group, and is screened from the development by a U-plan set of former barns that are specifically not included on the list.  It is the latter, and therefore the view of the group as a whole, that are adversely effected by the development.  This will distort the visual relationship between the farm group and the house, by increasing the size and grandeur of the house out of all proportion with the original and bringing the newly created bulk so much closer to the barns.  

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, GB2, GB3, GB13, H13, H14, H15, TR2, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The application site is located within the Green Belt whereby outside the areas defined as GB4 and GB5 permission may be granted for extensions to existing dwellings which are subordinate to the size and scale of the original dwelling, are not intrusive in the landscape and comply with the other relevant Local Plan Policies in respect of impact on interests of acknowledged importance.

2.     The existing dwelling is a large building set in substantial grounds and set well back from the road frontage behind a screen of large mature trees. The building does not appear to have been extended since 1948, however permission was granted for a quadruple garage with accommodation in the roof space in 1993. The foundations for this extension have been constructed and therefore the permission has been implemented and lasts in perpetuity. That extension was basically single storey in nature only extending back 6.6m from the front elevation (as opposed to the current proposal being 7m deep at two-storey level and was intended to provide 180 sq m of new floor space. The previous refused proposal was reduced in size to provide 318 sqm of new floor space from the originally refused scheme of 384 sqm. The current proposal has been reduced again to 210 sqm. Notwithstanding, this much reduced floor space it is contended that the revised extension is still greatly in excess in terms of bulk what has been previously permitted. The alterations have again not altered the extension in terms of its appearance from the front maintaining the excessive width of the two-storey extension and therefore its impact on the visual openness of the Green Belt.  

3.     Government guidance states that extensions should not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original dwelling. An extension is therefore required to be subordinate to the size and scale of the original dwelling. This means that the proportion of increase in the size of the dwelling resulting from the extension should be modest and not significantly and materially alter the character of the dwelling in terms of the size, proportions, design and appearance. Any unduly “large” extension would dominate the existing dwelling, effectively changing its character out of all proportion to the original building. Such large extensions can also alter the rural character of areas even if screened by contributing to a reduction in the visual openness of the Green Belt by reducing the spacing between the dwelling and the adjacent grouping of converted barns. Large extensions, which are visually prominent, are particularly contrary to Green Belt policy by virtue of detracting from the rural appearance as well as increasing the amount of built development.  

4.     Notwithstanding the net effect of the proposal in floor space terms, it is contended that due to the siting, design and external appearance of the extension the revised proposal would still not be seen on any reasonable assessment as being subordinate to the size and scale of the original dwelling. Further it is considered that the extension would be intrusive in the landscape when viewed from the surrounding countryside especially in terms of views into the site from the north-west. It is contended therefore that it would adversely affect the openness of the Green Belt and is not an appropriate type of development. It is considered that there are no very special circumstances which might permit an exception to Policy GB13.

5.     The siting of the proposed extension will result in the loss of part of the hedgerow to the north-eastern boundary adjacent to the access to the adjacent barn conversions, but is not of such a significant loss as to justify an objection on the loss of the landscaping. However, the existing hedgerow does provide a useful element of screening between the principal building and the recently converted barns to the north-east. It was considered that the previously approved extension would be partially screened by the boundary hedge and that it was a sufficient distance from the barn conversions not to have any adverse affect. It is contended however that the current amended proposal is substantially bigger in terms of its height than that previously permitted, and would be visually obtrusive when viewed from these properties to a level, which is likely to be detrimental to their residential amenities. The affect of such a building must be considered in the long term and amenities protected on this basis.

6.     All other matters notwithstanding, there is sufficient parking within the application site to meet with the Council’s standards.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse permission

For the following reasons

(1) The site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt and the proposed extension would not be small-scale or subordinate to the existing dwelling. It would result in a dwelling extended to a disproportionate degree having regard to the existing appearance of the building and the level of restraint appropriate within the Green Belt. The proposal therefore represents inappropriate development, harmful to the openness of the Green Belt and contrary to Policy GB13 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997.

(2) The proposed development would, because of its size, bulk and siting, appear unduly obtrusive when viewed from the adjacent properties to the north-east thereby having a detrimental effect on the residential amenities of those properties. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies GC1, GC3 and H14 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997.

2001/1782/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     26/10/01     Decide by Date:     20/12/01

Parish:     Seer Green     Ward:     Seer Green & Jordans

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR SANDHU

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Adjoining Green Belt

Unclassified road

Site within 250 m. of active or disused rubbish tip

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/602/57     Outline approval for two-houses and garages.

AM/996/57     Two bungalows, (approval of reserved matters AM/602/57)

01/1783/CH     Application for a certificate of lawfulness for proposed operation relating to a single storey side / rear extension.  Current application.

01/1784/CH     Front porch and single storey side / rear extension.  Current application.

THE APPLICATION

The single storey rear extension would be 3.05m deep and would extend across the full width of the dwelling, 10m.  It would have a dummy mono pitched roof over to a maximum height of 3m.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letters from neighbours at No.66 –

1.     Concerned that the proposed extension will block light from our bedroom window and most importantly our small kitchen window.

2.     This application is our preferred plan as the extension will not affect the light into our upper and lower side windows.

3.     Also the sloping garage roof is more aesthetically pleasing than a flat roof when viewed from the front.

Letter from neighbour at Fieldfare objecting –

1.     My side door and kitchen window would look direct onto their extension and would block out a lot of light.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1.     No objections are raised to the design of the proposed extensions which respect the scale and proportions of the existing dwelling and would not appear unduly obtrusive in the context of the street scene.

2.     Noting the comments of the neighbouring properties, it is not considered that any impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring dwellings would be so significant so as to warrant a refusal of the application.  In this respect it is noted that the new flank window could be installed as permitted development and that the principal window to the kitchen at ‘Fieldfare’ would face to the rear, given this and the fact that the extension is set well of the boundary with No.66, it is not considered that objections would be sustainable in this instance.

3.     No adverse car parking issues arise.  No objections are raised under 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 flank elevations of extension.

2001/1783/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     26/10/01     Decide by Date:     20/12/01

Parish:     Seer Green     Ward:     Seer Green & Jordans

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

Applicant:      MR SANDHU

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Adjoining Green Belt

Unclassified road

Site within 250 m. of active or disused rubbish tip

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/602/57     Two houses and garages, outline application approved.

AM/996/57     Two bungalows, reserved matters relating to AM/602/57 approved.

Current applications  -

01/1782/CH     Front porch and single storey rear extension.

01/1784/CH     Front porch and single storey side / rear extension.

THE APPLICATION

The application seeks to erect a single storey side / rear extension which would involve the removal of the existing garage.  The existing garage is indicated on the plans to have a volume of 35m3.  The proposed extension would be 11.05m deep, 2.95m wide on the front elevation widening to 3.15m at the rear, extending 3.05m to the rear of the existing dwelling.  It would be 2.45m in height to its flat roof.  The plans indicate the volume of the proposed garage and side extension to be 82m3.  

REPRESENTATIONS

Letter from neighbours at No.66-

1.     We do not like this plan as the extension of the garage into a kitchen / dining room will affect the light into our kitchen window and will make our side path dark.

ISSUES

1.     The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, Schedule 2, Part 1 and Class A sets out the criteria within which the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse can be carried out without the need for planning permission.  Although the proposed garage and side / rear extension is approximately 82m3, over the 70m3 allowable under the above Order, the applicant has sought to offset the existing garage in order to bring the total within the allowable volume limit.

2.     However, according to the planning history records at the Council’s disposal, it is apparent that reference AM/996/57 granted approval for the bungalow and did not include an attached garage.  As no evidence has been submitted to prove that the garage in question was erected at the time, therefore being included as part of the original building ‘as so built’, it must be assumed that the existing garage was an addition to the bungalow and its volume must therefore be taken into account for the purposes of calculating the cubic content.  Consequently, as noted above the proposed extensions subject of this application would exceed the permitted volume allowance, 70m3 of the above Order.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Certificate of lawfulness for proposed development or use refused

For the following reasons

(1) Insufficient evidence has been provided to substantiate the planning history of the garage shown on the plans as existing.  From the planning records at the Council's disposal, it is apparent that under reference AM/996/57, approval was granted for the bungalow but did not include an attached garage. No  evidence has been submitted as part of this application to prove that the garage in question was erected at the time of the bungalow, and its volume must therefore be taken into account as having already utilised part of the permitted development allowance for this property.   Consequently the proposed extension subject of this application cannot be treated as permitted development as it would exceed the permitted volume allowance of 70 cubic metres criteria within Class A, Part 1, Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)  Order 1995.

2001/1784/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     26/10/01     Decide by Date:     20/12/01

Parish:     Seer Green     Ward:     Seer Green & Jordans

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR SANDHU

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Adjoining Green Belt

Unclassified road

Site within 250 m. of active or disused rubbish tip

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

AM/602/57     Outline approval for two-houses and garages.

AM/996/57     Two bungalows, (approval of reserved matters AM/602/57)

01/1782/CH     Front porch and single storey rear extension, current application.

01/1783/CH     Application for a certificate of lawfulness for proposed operation relating to a single storey side / rear extension.  Current application.

THE APPLICATION

The proposal would be for a rear extension 3.05m deep extending across the full width of the dwelling and further to be up to 0.1m of the boundary, a total distance of 13m.  The extension would continue alongside the existing dwelling and its front elevation would be level with the front of the existing dwelling.  The existing pitched roof over the existing dwelling would be extended across over part of the proposal while for the remainder the proposal would have a dummy pitched roof to a height of 3m.  The front porch would have a floor area of 1.25m by 2.45m to a maximum height of 3.1m

REPRESENTATIONS

Letter from neighbours at No.66 – We strongly object to this application as both of our side windows will get less light and make the rooms and pathway very dark.  The extended roof line over the garage is visually too close to our building and will create a block effect when viewing both properties form the front.

CONSULTATIONS

Environment Agency – Unable to comment.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1.     It is not considered that any objections are raised to the design of the proposed extensions, which would not appear unduly obtrusive within the context of the street scene.

2.     Noting the comments of the neighbour, it is considered that the proposed extension along side the boundary would result in a significant loss of amenity to the neighbouring dwelling, especially noting that the only window to a bedroom is located on the flank elevation of this dwelling (No.66), immediately adjacent and facing the proposed extension.  This is not considered to be acceptable and consequently objections are raised under Policies GC3, H13 and H14.

3.     No adverse car parking issues arise.  No objections are raised under 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: Refuse permission

For the following reasons

(1) The proposed extension, by reason of its proximity to the boundary and its relationship with the only window to a bedroom in the flank elevation of No.66, would appear unduly obtrusive and would lead to a significant loss of amenity to this dwelling.  This is contrary to Policies GC3, H13(i) and H14 of The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan (Including The Adopted Alterations May 2001) 1997.

2001/1785/CH

Case Officer:      Iwan Jones

Date Received:     26/10/01     Decide by Date:     20/12/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Giles     Ward:     Chalfont St Giles

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      BUCKINGHAMSHIRE BUILDING SOCIETY

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Chalfont St Giles Conservation Area

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

Ground floor residential use Amersham Old town and Chalfont St Giles

River Chess & River Misbourne - area liable to flood

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Mineral Consultation Area

Floor Space

Codes:     NR

Proposed (m2):     26

Displaced (m2):     23

THE APPLICATION

The application relates to the demolition of the existing rear projection and outbuildings and the erection of a replacement building measuring a total depth of 11m, 3.2m wide and to a ridge height of 3.4m.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1.     The application site is located within the Conservation Area of Chalfont St Giles.

2.     The existing rear projection and outbuildings have a flat roof and are of no significant visual value. The footprint of the replacement building would be smaller than the ones that it would replace. The height and proposed materials of the proposed building are considered acceptable. As such, the proposal would enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. No objections raised in relation to Policies GC1, CA1 and CA2.

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

2001/1787/CH

Case Officer:      Iwan Jones

Date Received:     26/10/01     Decide by Date:     20/12/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Giles     Ward:     Chalfont St Giles

App Type:     Application for Conservation Area Consent

Applicant:      BUCKINGHAMSHIRE BUILDING SOCIETY

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Chalfont St Giles Conservation Area

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

Ground floor residential use Amersham Old town and Chalfont St Giles

River Chess & River Misbourne - area liable to flood

Class C Road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

Mineral Consultation Area

THE APPLICATION

The application relates to the demolition of a single storey rear projection and outbuilding, which is unlisted, in a Conservation Area.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

CONSULTATIONS

Historic Buildings Officer: The outbuildings concerned in this application are of no special historic interest in the context of the Conservation Area, and have no significant visual value. They are part of the relatively modern development at Pond House, and are small outbuildings of no specific design, disfigured by flat-roofed extensions. Demolition and replacement as proposed would constitute an improvement to the Conservation Area.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies CA1 and CA2.

ISSUES

1.     The application site is located within the Conservation Area of Chalfont St Giles.

2.     The Historic Buildings Officer’s comments are noted where it is considered that the outbuildings are of no special historic interest and visual value. Demolition and replacement would enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. No objection raised in relation to PoliciesCA1 and CA2.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional consent

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

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

2001/1794/CH

Case Officer:      Keith Musgrave

Date Received:     29/10/01     Decide by Date:     23/12/01

Parish:     Seer Green     Ward:     Seer Green & Jordans

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

Applicant:      STEVEN WHYMAN

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Tree Preservation Order

Mineral Consultation Area

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The Chiltern District Council (Land at Clearcroft, Bottom Lane, Seer Green) Tree Preservation Order 1987 (No64 of 1987) covering two groups of trees and an area of trees.

THE APPLICATION

Crown reduction of six beech trees by 15-20%.

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant:     Reasons for work are reduction of weight in canopy – twisted which may become safety issue if left to grow to maturity unchecked – improve light to rear of property.

A letter from a neighbour fully supporting the work as the trees badly need reducing.

CONSULTATIONS

District Forestry and Landscape Adviser:     Wooded area between properties in Bottom Lane and Long Grove – remnant of extensive area of ancient woodland – consists mainly of beech of coppice origin but many now thinned to single stem.

Trees occupy about half of wooded part of rear garden of Clearcroft – largely neglected part of garden with rhododendron and holly present – five of trees tall and of coppice origin – fairly closely spaced with some mutual suppression – some deadwood present – one smaller tree – suppressed with extensive squirrel damage – some crown reduction reasonable – would give slight increase in light to garden while having limited effect on public amenity value of trees as would be seen against backdrop of other trees.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policy TW2 

ISSUES

1.     The trees are situated in the rear garden of the property but they are partially visible from the road above the house and form part of a larger wooded area.

2.     It is considered that the proposed crown reduction is reasonable management and that it would have a limited effect on public amenity value of the trees, as they would be seen against a backdrop of other trees.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

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

(2) The tree surgery hereby approved shall not exceed crown reduction and re-shaping by 20%.

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

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

(2) INFORMATIVE - I212 Tree Work - Crown Reduction                                                 

2001/1795/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     29/10/01     Decide by Date:     23/12/01

Parish:     Chesham Bois     Ward:     Chesham Bois & Weedon

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS JONES

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Unclassified road

THE APPLICATION

A side conservatory 4.7m wide and 3.4m deep, flush with the front elevation and single storey side extension. It is capped by a hipped roof at 4.3m.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objections.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1.     The application site is within the Chesham Bois Established Residential Area of Special Character, where it is not possible to view it from the street or from neighbouring properties, due to mature boundary hedging. As such Local Plan Policy is not breached.

2.     The property has a single integral garage and large forecourt satisfying Local Plan Policy TR11 and TR16.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C108 General Time Limit

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

(3) C134 Single plan amended by plan (no PC4209) received on 5 November 2001.

2001/1796/CH

Case Officer:      Neil Higson

Date Received:     29/10/01     Decide by Date:     23/12/01

Parish:     Ashley Green     Ward:     Ashley Green & Latimer

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      ABSE HOUSING CO - OP LTD

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

Unclassified road

Area of Special Advertisement Control

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

CH/0600/75     Erection of cloakroom – approved.

CH/0891/79     Temporary classroom – approved.

CH/1135/83     Change of use to residential with limited schooling – approved.

CH/0125/84     Alterations and conversion of part of existing hall to ancillary residential – approved.

86/3175/CH     Retention of East Lodge as an independent dwelling (variation to condition 3 of planning permission CH/1135/83) – approved.

91/0576/CH     Retention of single storey classroom block – approved.

01/1806/CH     Alteration and conversion of garage to form dwelling, construction of steel and timber entrance bridge, conversion of stables to two dwellings – not yet determined.

THE APPLICATION

Proposal seeks permission for the demolition of the existing boiler room, oil storage tanks and storage outbuilding adjacent to the western elevation of the main house and the erection of a single store extension measuring 11.5m deep by 7.8m in overall width with a maximum height of 4.1m.

The original building has a floor space of somewhere in the region of 646sqm including accommodation in the roofspace. The proposed extension would add approximately 75sqm of new floorspace over a single storey. This gives an approximate percentage increase of 12%.

REPRESENTATIONS

Agent has submitted covering letter and photographic viewpoints of existing buildings:

-     Currently the western elevation of the main house suffers from the positioning of two steel oil tanks for the heating system, the existing boiler house immediately adjoining the house and a storage building which is in a poor state of repair. As can be seen from the photographs the area is generally unsightly;

-     It is wished to provide a laundry and workshop for the main house as well as enlarging the garden equipment storage facilities. Th proposed design includes a glazed link to the new utility building and incorporates the existing boiler room;

-     The materials would be predominantly timber, stained silver grey as if naturally weathered. The profile off the pitched roof on the gable end of the main house has been taken as a cue for the profile of the new roof for the utility building. It is proposed that the tiles match the existing house for the pitched roof of the utility block and sedum roof covering the extended slope to the rear;

-     In the course of these improvements the existing oil tanks will be moved to an existing cellar which is located beneath the area proposed for the new building. The cellar will be bunded and the installation will be such that it meets the requirements of OFTEC in terms of ventilation and access.

POLICIES

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

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997: Policies GC1, GC3, GB2, GB13, LSQ3, TR2, TR11 and TR16.

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.

2.     The original building has a floor space of somewhere in the region of 646sqm including accommodation in the roofspace. The proposed extension would add approximately 75sqm of new floorspace over a single storey. This gives an approximate percentage increase of 12%, which is considered to be subordinate and proportionate within the terms of the Policy.

3.     What also has to be considered is the nature of the extensions and their impact upon the character of the area. The footprint of the dwelling will be increased by 75sqm and it is not considered that the extension would appear unduly intrusive given that it would be replacing smaller buildings in a similar position between the existing dwelling and classroom building. Further the buildings are located within the centre of a large site which is well landscaped to all boundaries and would not therefore be visible from views into the site from outside. Therefore 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 any neighbouring dwelling.

4.     Extensive parking area exist within the site, satisfies Policies TR2, 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) The extension hereby granted permission shall only be used for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house.

Reason: To prevent the introduction of an inappropriate use harmful to the rural character of the area.

2001/1798/CH

Case Officer:      Iwan Jones

Date Received:     29/10/01     Decide by Date:     23/12/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Chalfont St Peter Central

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      ALAN COURTENAY HUMPHREYS

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Adjoining Green Belt

Unclassified road

Northolt Airfield safeguarding zone

Mineral Consultation Area

THE APPLICATION

The application is made in retrospect for the retention of a green house measuring 2.67m wide, 3.91m deep and to a pitched roof height of 2.72m.

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

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

2.     The green house that is to be retained is slightly smaller in footprint than the one which it replaced. It is located to the rear of the property and is not visible from the neighbouring property. No objection raised in relation to Policies GC1, GC3 and H13.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Unconditional permission

2001/1800/CH

Case Officer:      Geoffrey Hugall

Date Received:     29/10/01     Decide by Date:     23/12/01

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Amersham the Hill

App Type:     Application under Advertisement Regulations

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 –

01/1777/CH     New shopfront.

The most recent planning history on the site –

01/1777/CH     New shopfront, current application yet to be determined.

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

THE APPLICATION

The fascia sign is to be centrally placed within the shopfront being 2.7m by 0.9m.  It is to be installed with a 50mm built up logo internally illuminated via a hot cathode with an orange rebated face, black returns and a 10mm opal acrylic surround.  The side panels are to be powder coated aluminium sprayed off white with orange vinyl dots.  The projecting sign is to be internally illuminated and would be 0.7m in width, 0.6m in height and 0.15m in depth, it would be 0.1m in front of the main fascia.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC3, A1, A2 & A3.

ISSUES

1.     It is considered that the sign complies with the criteria as laid out in Policies A1, A2 and A3 and in light of the requirement of Policy A2(iii), a condition ensuring the degree of luminance does not detract from the amenity of the locality or adversely affect public safety is considered necessary.

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

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

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional consent

Subject to the following conditions

(1) C118 5 Year Limited Period - Adverts

(2) C261 Standard Advert Conditions

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

2001/1804/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     29/10/01     Decide by Date:     23/12/01

Parish:     Chesham Bois     Ward:     Chesham Bois & Weedon

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND M BARNES

SITE CONSTRAINTS

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

Unclassified road

THE APPLICATION

The existing property is a two-storey house with gabled ridge running across the front and a single storey flat roofed element forwards of that, (projecting over the right hand side of the main part of the house by 3.2m). The proposal is to extend the two-storey element at the right-hand end of the property by1.5m (for the full depth of the property, 6.2m) and a further 1.5m over the front 2.9m of this (gabled at 6m). This brings the two-storey and single storey elements of the dwelling level at the front. To complete the build a single storey extension just 1m wide and 3.7m deep will cap the end of the build, with a gable 3.7m high, running flush with the front elevation. A mono-pitch roof which will run the full length of the resulting single storey front extension (20.8m long). An open cottage style porch will complete the front elevation with pillars set 0.7m forward and 2.5m apart.  

PARISH COUNCIL

No objection.

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1.     The application is in the Chesham Bois Established Residential Area of Special Character, where the property has a distance of over 10m to the south western boundary. These extensions to the south west elevation bring the new build no more than 1m closer to this boundary and therefore preserve the open character of this street. The other additions, including the porch and mono-pitched roof, are purely aesthetic and as such the scheme is in character with the area and complies with Local Plan Policy GC1 and H15.

2.     Neighbouring property ‘Hedgerow’ will suffer no loss of amenity and as such Local Plan Amenity Policy is not in beech.

3.     The large in-out driveway and attached double garage amply caters for Local Plan Policy 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

2001/1805/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     29/10/01     Decide by Date:     23/12/01

Parish:     Amersham     Ward:     Chesham Bois & Weedon

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS SMITH

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Adjoining Green Belt

Class C Road

THE APPLICATION

The replacement of the second of two attached single side garages. The flank will fall on the boundary of the property (2.8m wide) with a hipped roof rather than the current flat roof, at 4.5m in height (match the roof of the other single garage). To the rear the garage will extend a total of 9.5m and across the rear of the other garage by 6m, before stepping in by 2.2m to a 1.3m square porch against the house.

TOWN COUNCIL

Recommend approve

POLICIES

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

ISSUES

1.     The applicant seeks approval for a replacement second side garage on the same footprint as the existing. The only alteration is the addition of a hipped roof that complements the character of the property, having little impact on the street scene. Local Plan Policy has therefore been complied with.

2.     The rear extension continues the existing flank wall by a further 3.3m and as neighbouring property (No. 55) is set forwards of the applicant and behind a 2m hedge, this addition will have little impact on this neighbour’s amenity. Local Plan Policy GC3, H13 and H14 have been complied with.

3.     The extensive forecourt and resulting two single garages affords the necessary parking requirements of Local Plan Policy 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) C174 No additional windows in south east elevation of extension

(4) C134 Single plan amended by plan (no 5001/00/01 RevA) received on 2 November 2001.

2001/1813/CH

Case Officer:      Andrew Fuller

Date Received:     30/10/01     Decide by Date:     24/12/01

Parish:     Chalfont St Peter     Ward:     Chalfont St Peter Central

App Type:     Full application

Applicant:      MR AND MRS M BEARD

SITE CONSTRAINTS

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

Unclassified road

Mineral Consultation Area

THE APPLICATION

A detached double garage along the south western boundary along the roadside, set forwards of the property by 16m, facing into the garden at right angles. The structure is 5.8m wide and 4.9m deep with a shallow forward facing gable pitched at 2.7m.

PARISH COUNCIL

Objection as the proposed garage is too far forwards and the materials and design are out of keeping with the property.

POLICIES

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, H13, H20, TR11 and TR16.

ISSUES

1.     The application site is to the end of a row of dwellings at the foot of Joiners Lane in the centre of the built up area of Chalfont St. Peter. As a detached ancillary residential building it is subject to Local Plan Policy H20 which states that such structure should be modest in size and subordinate in scale to the existing dwellinghouse. The garage is considered to be large and to dominant the setting of the house. The dense vegetation to the western boundary screens it well from the round-a-bout and village centre of St. Peter, but from Joiners Lane, the garage would be situated part way up the slope, ascending to the house, and would totally dominate the street scene. In addition it fills more than half the width of the plot and would be sited forwards of the building line and level with the gates into neighbouring property No. 4. As such the objections of the Parish Council are recognised and the garage is considered detrimental to the street scene and the setting of the applicant and No. 4 Joiners Lane, contravening Local Plan Policy GC1 and H20.

2.     According to measurement taken from the submitted drawings, the garage would be just 4.8m from the opposite boundary which constitutes the gates to No. 4. As such a forecourt space of 5.5m in front of the garage doors could not be provided in accordance with Local Plan Policy TR16 and access to neighbouring property No. 4 could be affected. Three cars could still be parked in accordance with Local Plan Policy TR11 on the forecourt adjacent to the house.

3.     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 garage would appear visually intrusive in the street scene and it would be out of character with the locality, due to its position far in front of adjoining dwellings. As such the scheme is contrary to Local Plan Policy GC1 and H20 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997.

(2) Chiltern District Local Plan Policy TR16 states that where a garage is propvided in a development the Council will normally require a forecourt space in front of the garage of not less than 5.5m deep. Furthermore the forecourt area shall not form part of an access road or turning area. This garage only has a forecourt depth of 4.8m and it blocks access to the entrance of No. 4 Joiners Close. As such the garage is contrary to the standards set out under Policy TR16 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997.