Meeting documents
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
2001/1803/CH |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Case Officer: Geoffrey Hugall |
|||
|
Date Received: 29/10/01 Decide by Date: 23/12/01 |
|||
|
Parish: Chalfont St Giles Ward: Chalfont St Giles |
|||
|
App Type: Full application |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Applicant: MR AND MRS MICHAELSON |
|||
|
|
|||
|
SITE CONSTRAINTS |
|||
|
Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement |
|||
|
Class C Road |
|||
|
Area of Special Advertisement Control |
|||
|
Adjoining S.S.S.I. |
|||
|
Mineral Consultation Area |
|||
|
Grade 2 Listed Building |
|||
|
|
|||
|
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY |
|||
|
AM/845/56 Alterations and additions. Permitted Development. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Current application - |
|||
|
01/1809/CH LBC for the demolition of single storey lean to on western elevation, demolition of car port on north-west elevation, erection of chimney on west elevation, single storey bay window on east elevation, re-building of log store on west elevation and internal and external alterations. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
THE APPLICATION |
|||
|
The current application is for the erection of a chimney on west elevation and the re-building of log store on west elevation. The chimney would be 0.5m by 1.55m to a maximum height of 6.35m. The log store would have a maximum height of 2.3m, would be 2.1m in width and 1.1m deep. Numerous alterations to fenestration and internal alterations are also proposed. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
PARISH COUNCIL |
|||
|
No objections. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
CONSULTATIONS |
|||
|
District Historic Building Officer - |
|||
|
1. This application concerns a wing of former service buildings that project to the front of the main house at Bottrells Close and enclose the left side of the front garden. The grade II listing reflects the historic interest of the house, which has a 17th-century timber frame at its core but was remodelled early in the twentieth century in the Arts and Crafts style, as a residence first for Ralph Heal and then the Sanderson family. Traditional elements are very important to the design of this remodelling, and the service buildings were incorporated as part of the irregular composition, retaining the varied roof-lines and informal fenestration, but with the interiors gradually converted into living accommodation for staff. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
2. The present proposals are looking to rework this accommodation and improve the fenestration for it. There are no objections on listed building grounds to the re-alignment of internal partitions, as these are insubstantial insertions of the mid 20th century, nor to the reworking of the west elevation where there have been a number of unsightly alterations of the same date. The lean-to to be demolished is of no historic interest and the replacement log and bin store will be less intrusive than the existing. The re-styled windows will be a great improvement on the assortment of inserted asymmetrical casements that exist at the moment. The demolition of the car port is also to be welcomed as it will improve the appearance of the listed building from this aspect. The only controversial issue on this west side is the introduction of two new roof lights (SW5 and SW6), but as these are to be of conservation type, and the facade is already compromised by larger existing lights, I would not wish to raise any objection. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
3. The east side, however, has been less altered and is of greater importance to the overall view of the house. I suggested that the architect remove the roof lights from this elevation in order to retain the intact sweep of plain clay-tile roof. Amended drawings have been submitted suggesting the use of glass tiles instead, as already found on the building. This will be much more acceptable as there is no need to break the roof-line. I also asked him to consider retaining more of the irregular character of the fenestration, particularly with respect to the taller central block which is at present clearly recognisable as the former stable. The original proposal for a symmetrical reworking around a new central bay window was in my opinion over domestic, obscuring the original function of the building and its subordinate relationship to the main house. Amended drawings that retain the pattern of the stable openings have been duly received and are much more acceptable in listed building terms. The only other issue is the introduction of a more uniform pattern of glazing bars and the dropping of some of the sills. I do not think this objectionable in this particular instance as none of the existing windows is of any great age or original to the function of the buildings. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
4. There are therefore no historic building objections as long as revised drawings are received as above, and as long as there is the usual condition that any making good should be done to match existing. It should, however, be noted that the proposal allows for the incorporation of the existing garage space into the new living space. There should be an informative that any future decisions as to related Listed Building Consent will not be obliged to take the loss of this garage space into account. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
English Nature – No comments. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
POLICIES |
|||
|
The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC3, GB2, GB13, H13, H15, H17, TR11, TR16 & LB1. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
ISSUES |
|||
|
1. Noting the comments of the Historic Buildings Officer and following the receipt of amended plans taking into account her opinions, no objections are raised with regard to the impact upon the setting and character of the Listed Building. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
2. No objections are raised to the log / bin store’s impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring property. Although the chimney stack would be clearly visible and in close proximity from the rear of the neighbouring dwelling, it is not considered that this would result in such a significant loss of amenity so as to warrant refusing the application. Given the positioning and relationship of the existing windows facing the neighbouring dwelling, it is not considered that objections are raised to the new fenestration on the flank elevation facing the neighbours. |
|
|
|||
|
3. It is not considered that any objections are raised to the impact of the extensions and alterations upon the openness of the Green Belt or the character of the street scene. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
4. No adverse car parking implications occur. No objections are raised under Polices 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) C433 Materials - General Details |
|||
|
|
|||
|
(3) This permission shall relate to the submitted application form and plans as subsequently amended by the plans (Nos. BC/01 1 Rev A & BC/01 2 Rev A) received by the Local Planning Authority on the 28th November 2001. |
|||
|
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as to what is permitted and because you have so agreed in writing. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
(1) INFORMATIVE - The applicant should be advised that before implementing this permission, in particular the conversion of the existing garage into the living space, no permissions exist for the proposed garage block shown on the plan BC/01 3 and the loss of the existing space would not prejudice any future decision the Council may make regarding any subsequent application for this proposed garage block. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
(2) INFORMATIVE - Although no amended plan was received superseding drawing BC/01 4, this plan does not form part of the permission. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
2001/1809/CH |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Case Officer: Geoffrey Hugall |
|||
|
Date Received: 29/10/01 Decide by Date: 23/12/01 |
|||
|
Parish: Chalfont St Giles Ward: Chalfont St Giles |
|||
|
App Type: Application for Listed Building Consent |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Applicant: MR AND MRS MICHAELSON |
|||
|
|
|||
|
SITE CONSTRAINTS |
|||
|
Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement |
|||
|
Class C Road |
|||
|
Area of Special Advertisement Control |
|||
|
Adjoining S.S.S.I. |
|||
|
Mineral Consultation Area |
|||
|
Grade 2 Listed Building |
|||
|
|
|||
|
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY |
|||
|
AM/845/56 Alterations and additions. Permitted Development. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Current application - |
|||
|
01/1803/CH (Full application accompanying this LBC) |
|||
|
|
|||
|
THE APPLICATION |
|||
|
The application proposes numerous internal and external alterations, including the demolition of a single storey lean to on the west elevation, the demolition of a car port on the north-west elevation, the erection of a chimney on the western elevation, the re-building of a log store on the western elevation, numerous alterations to the fenestration and the installation of rooflights are also proposed. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
PARISH COUNCIL |
|||
|
No objections. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
CONSULTATIONS |
|||
|
District Historic Building Officer - |
|||
|
1. This application concerns a wing of former service buildings that project to the front of the main house at Bottrells Close and enclose the left side of the front garden. The grade II listing reflects the historic interest of the house, which has a 17th-century timber frame at its core but was remodelled early in the twentieth century in the Arts and Crafts style, as a residence first for Ralph Heal and then the Sanderson family. Traditional elements are very important to the design of this remodelling, and the service buildings were incorporated as part of the irregular composition, retaining the varied roof-lines and informal fenestration, but with the interiors gradually converted into living accommodation for staff. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
2. The present proposals are looking to rework this accommodation and improve the fenestration for it. There are no objections on listed building grounds to the re-alignment of internal partitions, as these are insubstantial insertions of the mid 20th century, nor to the reworking of the west elevation where there have been a number of unsightly alterations of the same date. The lean-to to be demolished is of no historic interest and the replacement log and bin store will be less intrusive than the existing. The re-styled windows will be a great improvement on the assortment of inserted asymmetrical casements that exist at the moment. The demolition of the car port is also to be welcomed as it will improve the appearance of the listed building from this aspect. The only controversial issue on this west side is the introduction of two new roof lights (SW5 and SW6), but as these are to be of conservation type, and the facade is already compromised by larger existing lights, I would not wish to raise any objection. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
3. The east side, however, has been less altered and is of greater importance to the overall view of the house. I suggested that the architect remove the roof lights from this elevation in order to retain the intact sweep of plain clay-tile roof. Amended drawings have been submitted suggesting the use of glass tiles instead, as already found on the building. This will be much more acceptable as there is no need to break the roof-line. I also asked him to consider retaining more of the irregular character of the fenestration, particularly with respect to the taller central block which is at present clearly recognisable as the former stable. The original proposal for a symmetrical reworking around a new central bay window was in my opinion over domestic, obscuring the original function of the building and its subordinate relationship to the main house. Amended drawings that retain the pattern of the stable openings have been duly received and are much more acceptable in listed building terms. The only other issue is the introduction of a more uniform pattern of glazing bars and the dropping of some of the sills. I do not think this objectionable in this particular instance as none of the existing windows is of any great age or original to the function of the buildings. |
|
|
||
|
4. There are therefore no historic building objections as long as revised drawings are received as above, and as long as there is the usual condition that any making good should be done to match existing. It should, however, be noted that the proposal allows for the incorporation of the existing garage space into the new living space. There should be an informative that any future decisions as to related Listed Building Consent will not be obliged to take the loss of this garage space into account. |
||
|
|
||
|
POLICIES |
||
|
The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policy LB1 |
||
|
|
||
|
ISSUES |
||
|
1. Noting the comments of the Historic Buildings Officer and following the receipt of amended plans taking into account her opinions, no objections are raised with regard to the impact upon the setting and character of the Listed Building. |
||
|
|
||
|
2. The following recommendation is made having regard to the above and also to the content of the Human Rights Act 1998. |
||
|
|
||
|
RECOMMENDATION: Conditional consent |
||
|
Subject to the following conditions |
||
|
|
||
|
(1) C141 Listed Building Consent - Time Limit |
||
|
|
||
|
(2) C142 Listed Building Consent - List of Works |
||
|
|
||
|
(3) C433 Materials - General Details |
||
|
|
||
|
(4) C437 Listed Building Materials - Affecting Interior and Exterior |
||
|
|
||
|
(5) This consent shall relate to the submitted application form and plans as subsequently amended by the plans (Nos. BC/01 1 Rev A & BC/01 2 Rev A) received by the Local Planning Authority on the 28th November 2001. |
||
|
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as to what is permitted and because you have so agreed in writing. |
||
|
|
||
|
(1) INFORMATIVE - The applicant should be advised that before implementing this consent, in particular the conversion of the existing garage into living space, no consent exists for the proposed garage block shown on the plan BC/01 3, the loss of the existing garage space would not prejudice any subsequent application for this proposed garage block. |
||
|
|
||
|
(2) INFORMATIVE -Although no amended plan was received superseding drawing BC/01 4, this plan does not form part of this permission. |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
|
||
|
|