REPORT OF THE

 

HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES

 

 

 

Delegated List of Applications

 

Determined Week Ending  02/04/2004

 

2004/156/CH

 

 

 

Case Officer:

Keith Musgrave

Date Received:

27/01/2004

Decide by Date:

22/03/2004

Parish:

Chalfont St Giles

Ward:

Chalfont St Giles

App Type:

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

Proposal:

MANAGEMENT WORK, INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF SOME SYCAMORE SAPLINGS WITHIN AN AREA OF WOODLAND PROTECTED BY A TREE PRESERVATION ORDER

Location:

    (PART OF) SHORTENILL'S WOOD   DEADHEARN LANE    CHALFONT ST. GILES

Applicant:

DR STEVE TIBBLE

 

 

 

SITE CONSTRAINTS

 

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

 

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

 

adjoining Ancient Woodland

 

Unclassified road

 

Area of Special Advertisement Control

 

Tree Preservation Order

 

 

 

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

 

The Bucks County Council (Amersham Rural District) Tree Preservation Order No 10 - 1949 covering three woodlands including W3, Shortenhill’s House Wood, Shortenhill’s Wood, Wood Acres, Grovespring Wood, Newland Gorse, and Shrubs Wood, Chalfont St Peter and Chalfont St Giles.

 

 

 

04/0160/CH     Management work, including the removal of some sycamore saplings, within an area of woodland. Not yet determined.

 

 

 

THE APPLICATION

 

General improvement and maintenance of woodland.

 

 

 

PARISH COUNCIL

 

No objection.

 

 

 

REPRESENTATIONS

 

Owner of adjacent woodland:     My neighbour and I have each purchased a 1.52 acre parcel of land directly opposite house our houses, part of Shortenills Wood.

 

We have purchased the woods in order to rejuvenate and improve them, by the application of basic woodland management techniques.  The woods have not been managed in any context for many years, there are many dead, fallen, and dangerous trees that require some attention, as well as many small saplings of a non-indigenous variety that are threatening to overrun the more traditional species.

 

We have two aims in mind – firstly, to bring the woods back to a condition where they are better managed, to encourage wildlife, and to encourage more traditional species, and secondly to make it an area where our young children can enjoy a woodland environment in safety and security.

 

We have taken guidance from John Morris of the Chiltern Woodlands Project, who has suggested we should do some clearing of the rapidly increasing numbers of small sycamore saplings, removal of dead and fallen trees, and general maintenance to ‘open up’ the area and allow in more light.

 

We will be approaching this as a long term project, and will not be clearing more than the allowed 5 cubic metres per quarter per acre of wood, which is why we are applying for consent in this way.

 

 

 

CONSULTATIONS

 

District Tree and Landscape Officer:     Site part of Shortenills Wood – consists mainly of beech, hornbeam, sycamore with some other species including cherry and hazel – bank adjacent to road with beech hedge on top – neglected for many years – grown up to about 8m – reasonable to reduce back to managed hedge – woodland also neglected for many years – number of dead and fallen trees – natural regeneration consists mainly of sycamore – sensible to reduce numbers significantly to prevent future domination by sycamore and encourage native species – also wish to remove some lower branches of trees to assist pedestrian access and reduce danger to children.

 

 

 

POLICIES

 

The Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991 –2011: Policies (none relevant)

 

 

 

The Replacement Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 2001 – 2016.  Deposit Draft – September 2003: Policies (none relevant)

 

 

 

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policy TW2

 

 

 

ISSUES

 

1.     The area of woodland is adjacent to Deadhearn Lane and can be seen from the road.

 

 

 

2.     The woodland has been neglected for many years and some appropriate woodland management is considered to be sensible.  The proposed work would improve the woodland while having little effect on its appearance from outside, apart from the trimming of the boundary hedge which would be clearly visible from the road.

 

 

 

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 woodland management work hereby approved shall not exceed:

 

a) the reduction and shaping of the beech hedge on the boundary with Deadhearn Lane to a height of not less than 1.8 metres about the level of the top of the bank.

 

b) the removal of small lower branches not exceeding 100mm in diameter up to a height of two metres above ground level from trees within the woodland with a diameter of more than 100mm measured at a height of 1.5 metres above ground level.

 

c) the removal of up to 90% of the sycamore saplings with a diameter of less than 100mm measured at a height of 1.5 metres above ground level.

 

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

 

 

 

(1) INFORMATIVE - You are advised that there are a number of dead trees within the woodland and these trees can be regarded as dead, dying or dangerous within the meaning of Section 198(6)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and therefore the consent of the Council would not be required to carry out work to these trees.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

REASONS FOR APPROVAL ZA                                                                            

 

   

 

 

 

2004/160/CH

 

 

 

Case Officer:

Keith Musgrave

Date Received:

27/01/2004

Decide by Date:

22/03/2004

Parish:

Chalfont St Giles

Ward:

Chalfont St Giles

App Type:

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

Proposal:

MANAGEMENT WORK, INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF SOME SYCAMORE SAPLINGS WITHIN AN AREA OF WOODLAND PROTECTED  BY A TREE PRESERVATION ORDER

Location:

    SHORTENILLS WOOD   DEADHEARN LANE    CHALFONT ST. GILES

Applicant:

MR JOHN POPE

 

 

 

SITE CONSTRAINTS

 

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

 

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

 

adjoining Ancient Woodland

 

Unclassified road

 

Area of Special Advertisement Control

 

Tree Preservation Order

 

 

 

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

 

The Bucks County Council (Amersham Rural District) Tree Preservation Order No 10 - 1949 covering three woodlands including W3, Shortenhill’s House Wood, Shortenhill’s Wood, Wood Acres, Grovespring Wood, Newland Gorse, and Shrubs Wood, Chalfont St Peter and Chalfont St Giles.

 

 

 

04/0156/CH     Management work, including the removal of some sycamore saplings, within an area of woodland. Not yet determined.

 

 

 

THE APPLICATION

 

General improvement and maintenance of woodland.

 

 

 

PARISH COUNCIL

 

No objection.

 

 

 

REPRESENTATIONS

 

Applicant:     My neighbour and I have each purchased a 1.52 acre parcel of land directly opposite house our houses, part of Shortenills Wood.

 

We have purchased the woods in order to rejuvenate and improve them, by the application of basic woodland management techniques.  The woods have not been managed in any context for many years, there are many dead, fallen, and dangerous trees that require some attention, as well as many small saplings of a non-indigenous variety that are threatening to overrun the more traditional species.

 

We have two aims in mind – firstly, to bring the woods back to a condition where they are better managed, to encourage wildlife, and to encourage more traditional species, and secondly to make it an area where our young children can enjoy a woodland environment in safety and security.

 

We have taken guidance from John Morris of the Chiltern Woodlands Project, who has suggested we should do some clearing of the rapidly increasing numbers of small sycamore saplings, removal of dead and fallen trees, and general maintenance to ‘open up’ the area and allow in more light.

 

We will be approaching this as a long term project, and will not be clearing more than the allowed 5 cubic metres per quarter per acre of wood, which is why we are applying for consent in this way.

 

 

 

CONSULTATIONS

 

District Tree and Landscape Officer:     Site part of Shortenills Wood – consists mainly of beech, hornbeam, sycamore with some other species including cherry and hazel – bank adjacent to road with beech hedge on top – neglected for many years – grown up to about 8m – reasonable to reduce back to managed hedge – woodland also neglected for many years – number of dead and fallen trees – natural regeneration consists mainly of sycamore – sensible to reduce numbers significantly to prevent future domination by sycamore and encourage native species – also wish to remove some lower branches of trees to assist pedestrian access and reduce danger to children.

 

 

 

POLICIES

 

The Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991 –2011: Policies (none relevant)

 

 

 

The Replacement Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 2001 – 2016.  Deposit Draft – September 2003: Policies (none relevant)

 

 

 

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policy TW2

 

 

 

ISSUES

 

1.     The area of woodland is adjacent to Deadhearn Lane and can be seen from the road.

 

 

 

2.     The woodland has been neglected for many years and some appropriate woodland management is considered to be sensible.  The proposed work would improve the woodland while having little effect on its appearance from outside, apart from the trimming of the boundary hedge which would be clearly visible from the road.

 

 

 

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 woodland management work hereby approved shall not exceed:

 

a) the reduction and shaping of the beech hedge on the boundary with Deadhearn Lane to a height of not less than 1.8 metres about the level of the top of the bank.

 

b) the removal of small lower branches not exceeding 100mm in diameter up to a height of two metres above ground level from trees within the woodland with a diameter of more than 100mm measured at a height of 1.5 metres above ground level.

 

c) the removal of up to 90% of the sycamore saplings with a diameter of less than 100mm measured at a height of 1.5 metres above ground level.

 

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

 

 

 

(1) INFORMATIVE - You are advised that there are a number of dead trees within the woodland and these trees can be regarded as dead, dying or dangerous within the meaning of Section 198(6)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and therefore the consent of the Council would not be required to carry out work to these trees.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

REASONS FOR APPROVAL ZA                                                                            

 

 

 

 

 

2004/168/CH

 

 

 

Case Officer:

Keith Musgrave

Date Received:

30/01/2004

Decide by Date:

25/03/2004

Parish:

Chesham

Ward:

St Marys & Waterside

App Type:

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

Proposal:

CROWN REDUCTION OF A YEW TREE PROTECTED BY A TREE PRESERVATION ORDER

Location:

       EAST OF 107 BOIS MOOR ROAD    CHESHAM

Applicant:

MR J THOMAS

 

 

 

SITE CONSTRAINTS

 

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

 

Unclassified road

 

Site within 250 m. of active or disused rubbish tip

 

Tree Preservation Order

 

 

 

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

 

The Chiltern District Council (Land at Unicorn Public House, 107 Bois Moor Road, Chesham HP5 1SS) Tree Preservation Order 2002 (No 1 of 2002) covering a yew as an individual tree at what is now Teddy’s Nursery.

 

 

 

02/0966/CH     Change of use from public house (Class A3) to nursery use (Class D1) on ground floor and residential (Class C3) on first floor. Demolition of outbuilding and erection of two storey side extension, single storey front extension and conservatory on side elevation all ancillary to nursery use (Class D1). Conditional permission.

 

 

 

02/2192/CH     Conversion of first floor residential unit to two flats. Conditional permission.

 

 

 

03/0178/CH     Alterations and change of use from public house (Class A3) to nursery use (Class D1) on ground floor and residential (Class C3) on first floor. Demolition of outbuilding and erection of two storey side extension, single storey front extension and conservatory on side elevation all ancillary to nursery use (Class D1) together with 1.8m high front boundary wall/fence. Conditional permission.

 

 

 

THE APPLICATION

 

Yew – reduce and reshape by 10ft.

 

 

 

TOWN COUNCIL

 

No objections.

 

 

 

REPRESENTATIONS

 

Applicant:     Reason for making the application is to create a balance for tree and building – remedial work – tree currently touching buildings either side of it.

 

 

 

A letter from the adjacent property supporting the proposal  as the majority of the branches are over my property, touching the wall of the house which is twenty feet away from the trunk of the tree. The needles and other debris from the tree also cause nuisance by blocking the guttering on my carport and garage roofs. To my knowledge this yew tree has grown unmanaged for thirty years and is now in need of a very good haircut.

 

 

 

CONSULTATIONS

 

District Tree and Landscape Officer:     Yew tree about 12m high growing in confined space - close to nursery and adjacent house with branches touching nursery and carport – some long branches up to about 6m in length – some reduction reasonable but need to keep some shape to tree.

 

 

 

POLICIES

 

The Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991 –2011: Policies (none relevant)

 

 

 

The Replacement Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 2001 – 2016.  Deposit Draft – September 2003: Policies (none relevant)

 

 

 

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policy TW2

 

 

 

ISSUES

 

1.     The yew tree is in the front corner of the recently converted nursery and is prominent in the street scene.

 

 

 

2.     The yew is growing in a confined space with branches touching adjacent buildings so some crown reduction 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 tip reduction and re-shaping by up to three metres to leave an evenly-balanced tree with a crown diameter of at least six metres.

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

(2) INFORMATIVE - I212 Tree Work - Crown Reduction                                                 

 

 

 

(3) INFORMATIVE - You are reminded that this consent relates only to the planning aspects of your application and that the separate permission of the relevant landowners would be required for any work beyond your boundary.

 

 

 

REASONS FOR APPROVAL ZA                                                                            

 

 

 

2004/169/CH

 

 

 

Case Officer:

Keith Musgrave

Date Received:

30/01/2004

Decide by Date:

25/03/2004

Parish:

Chalfont St Peter

Ward:

Central

App Type:

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

Proposal:

CROWN LIFTING AND REDUCTION OF OVERHANGING BRANCHES OF FIVE SYCAMORES PROTECTED BY A TREE PRESERVATION ORDER

Location:

    ARCH HOUSE   2-4 HIGH STREET    CHALFONT ST. PETER

Applicant:

SISTER RUSSELL

 

 

 

SITE CONSTRAINTS

 

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

 

Class C Road

 

Northolt Airfield safeguarding zone

 

Tree Preservation Order

 

Mineral Consultation Area

 

 

 

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

 

The Chiltern District Council (Holy Cross Convent, Chalfont St Peter) Tree Preservation Order No 3 - 1974 covering the grounds of the Convent as an area of trees.

 

 

 

THE APPLICATION

 

Five sycamores – crown lift to approx 5 metres and reduce overhang by 25% keeping an even balance on all trees.

 

 

 

PARISH COUNCIL

 

Will accept Forestry Officer’s recommendations.

 

 

 

REPRESENTATIONS

 

Applicant (Agent on form):     Reasons for making the application: branches falling, leaves, birds mess – when wet and leaves drop it’s very slippery.

 

 

 

CONSULTATIONS

 

District Tree and Landscape Officer:     Belt of trees along boundary of Convent grounds with car park of offices – mainly cypresses and sycamores closely spaced and up to 20m in height – five sycamores in application on boundary adjacent to parking spaces allocated to applicant’s company – trees fairly tall and growing up for light – some branches extending over parking spaces, particularly from lower parts of trees – upper crowns not large – one tree with some lean – signs of previous trimming of overhang – some trimming of lower branches reasonable but little branching in upper crowns to cut – may be some scope for removal of poorer trees within belt to allow more space for development of better trees.

 

 

 

POLICIES

 

The Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991 –2011: Policies (none relevant)

 

 

 

The Replacement Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 2001 – 2016.  Deposit Draft – September 2003: Policies (none relevant)

 

 

 

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policy TW2

 

 

 

ISSUES

 

1.     The trees are situated along the boundary of the grounds of the Convent with the parking area of a group of office buildings and there are fairly limited views of the trees from public viewpoints.

 

 

 

2.     Branches from the trees do overhang the parking spaces causing some problems and the removal of some lower branching is considered to be reasonable management but the branching at the top of the trees is fairly limited in extent so little trimming is necessary.

 

 

 

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 removal of lower branches up to a height of about five metres and minor reshaping of the crowns of the trees where branches extend more than four metres over the car parking area.

 

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                                                 

 

 

 

(3) INFORMATIVE - You are advised that the trees within the belt on the boundary of the Convent grounds are fairly closely spaced encouraging them to grow upwards for light.  Consequently one way of reducing the current problems and encouraging stronger trees with a better shape would be to remove some of the poorer specimens from the belt.  However any such removal would require a further application to the Council.

 

 

 

REASONS FOR APPROVAL ZA                                                                            

 

                          

 

 

 

2004/200/CH

 

 

 

Case Officer:

Laura Olson

Date Received:

04/02/2004

Decide by Date:

30/03/2004

Parish:

Chartridge

Ward:

Ballinger South Heath & Chartridge

App Type:

Full application

Proposal:

DETACHED REPLACEMENT GARAGE, PART SINGLE STOREY AND PART TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION INCLUDING BALCONY

Location:

    3 THE BRYN   419 CHARTRIDGE LANE    CHESHAM

Applicant:

MR J HARRIS

 

 

 

SITE CONSTRAINTS

 

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

 

Adjoining Green Belt

 

Class C Road

 

 

 

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

 

None relevant

 

 

 

THE APPLICATION

 

Proposes a detached replacement garage and a part single storey, part two storey rear extension including a balcony. The whole of the extension is 7.0m wide. The eastern element of the extension projects 4.5m into the garden and a first floor balcony extends a further 1.0m. The extension’s pitched roof is 7.0m high with a hipped end. The adjacent element’s ground floor is 4.5m deep and its first floor is 3.0m deep. It features a 6.0m high crown style roof which adjoins the slope of the pitched roof on one side. The detached garage is 7.0m deep, 2.6m wide with a 3.7m high pitched roof with hipped ends.

 

 

 

TOWN COUNCIL

 

None received at time of drafting report.

 

 

 

REPRESENTATIONS

 

1 letter of objection has been received and is summarised below:

 

- Plans do not show adjacent properties in sufficient detail or with sufficient accuracy.

 

- First floor extension does not allow for proper rainwater disposal.

 

- Extension will cast a shadow over part of garden that currently has direct sunlight.

 

- Balcony will result in overlooking.

 

- Extension does not respect the features of the existing joined houses.

 

 

 

CONSULTATIONS

 

None relevant.

 

 

 

POLICIES

 

The Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991 –2011: Policies (none relevant)

 

 

 

The Replacement Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 2001 – 2016.  Deposit Draft – September 2003. Policies (none relevant)  

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

ISSUES

 

1.     The application site lies within the built up area of Chesham, wherein there is no objection to domestic extensions and detached garages in principle, subject to compliance with the relevant Local Plan Policies.

 

 

 

2.     The application site is a semi-detached dwelling which is currently stepped in 0.5m from the rear elevation of the attached property. The proposed rear extension features a mixture of single storey and two storey elements with varying roof designs and heights that do not reflect the simple architectural form and style of the existing dwelling. Furthermore, while it is acknowledged that this extension would not introduce a prominent feature to the street scene, it is considered that its overall bulk would appear out of scale with the existing dwelling, which it is currently characterised by a shallow plan, with dormer windows breaking the eaves line emphasising its small scale. As such, it is considered that the extension’s disproportionate size, along with its failure to achieve satisfactorily visual integration with the existing dwelling, would  be harmful to the appearance and character of the area and objection is raised with regard Policies GC1 and H15.

 

 

 

3.     The overall scale of the rear extension also raises serious concerns in terms of its impact on neighbour amenity. It appears as though the portion of the extension closest to attached No. 421 is lower and set back from the rest of the extension in order to reduce its prominence when viewed from this property. However, when this element of the extension is viewed in conjunction with the 7.0m high, 4.5m deep adjacent portion, it is considered that the rear extension as a whole would present a dominating and overbearing appearance when viewed from the outdoor amenity area of No. 421. Further, it is noted that the garden to the east of the application site, No. 417, will be within 3m of the extension’s side elevation. This proximity, combined with the impact of the extension’s substantial rear projection and roof height, would introduce a visually intrusive structure when viewed from the outdoor amenity area of this property. The proposal also includes a rear balcony, which by virtue of its elevated height and projecting form, will allow for direct overlooking towards the gardens of both Nos. 421 and 417. In summary, it is considered that the proposed extension would present a dominating and visually intrusive appearance when viewed from the gardens of neighbouring Nos. 421 and 417, which would be detrimental to the amenity currently enjoyed at these properties, and that the balcony would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy for both of these properties. This is contrary to Policies GC3, H13 and H14.

 

 

 

4.     The proposed garage would be adjacent to an existing garage at No. 417 and would be in a similar position to a garage at the application site that is to be demolished. It is set well back from the road frontage and is considered to be of an acceptable scale and design. While the proposed pitched roof garage will extend at least 2m beyond the rear of the adjacent, flat-roofed garage, it is unlikely that that the portion of the garage not screened by this neighbouring garage would appear overbearing when viewed from No. 417.

 

 

 

5.     The application site currently contains a single garage and has space for at least three cars to park in the drive. The parking provided on the drive is sufficient to comply with Policy TR11 and TR16, and it is therefore not necessary to include a condition requiring that a garage be retained on the site.

 

 

 

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 features a mixture of single storey and two storey elements with varying roof designs and heights that do not reflect or satisfactorily integrate with the simple architectural form and style of the existing dwelling. The overall bulk and size of the extensions would appear out of scale with the existing dwelling, which is currently characterised by a shallow plan, with dormer windows breaking the eaves line emphasising its small scale. Furthermore the extension would also appear dominating and visually intrusive when viewed from the gardens of neighbouring Nos. 421 and 417 Chartridge Lane and the balcony would result an unacceptable loss of privacy for both of these properties. The proposal would therefore harm the character and appearance of the area and would be detrimental to the amenity currently enjoyed by the occupiers of Nos. 421 and 417 Chartridge Lane. This is contrary to Policies GC1, GC3, H13, H14 and H15 of The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001).

 

 

 

 

 

2004/201/CH

 

 

 

Case Officer:

Keith Musgrave

Date Received:

04/02/2004

Decide by Date:

30/03/2004

Parish:

Chalfont St Peter

Ward:

Central

App Type:

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

Proposal:

FELLING OF FOUR LARCH TREES PROTECTED BY A TREE PRESERVATION ORDER

Location:

       9 SCHOOL LANE    CHALFONT ST. PETER

Applicant:

MR AND MRS K PERRY

 

 

 

SITE CONSTRAINTS

 

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

 

Unclassified road

 

Northolt Airfield safeguarding zone

 

Tree Preservation Order

 

Mineral Consultation Area

 

 

 

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

 

The Amersham Rural District Council (School Lane/Lambscroft Way, Chalfont St Peter) Tree Preservation Order No 1 - 1970 covering seven individual larch trees.

 

 

 

94/1388/CH     Felling of six larch trees. Refused permission. Appeal allowed for two trees and dismissed for four trees.

 

 

 

THE APPLICATION

 

Felling of four larch trees.

 

 

 

PARISH COUNCIL

 

Will accept Forestry Officer’s recommendations.

 

 

 

REPRESENTATIONS

 

Applicant:     We moved into the property on 10th February 2003, and have completed all our improvements to the house. We would now like to turn our attentions to the garden, which has been severely neglected and in our view requires considerable improvement and landscaping in order to compliment the area in which we now live.

 

The back garden has four extremely large larch trees, which we are concerned about. One is obviously dead or dying having virtually no leaf growth on any of its’ branches. The other three are showing signs of going the same way. As these trees are so tall and close to both ours and the neighbours properties, we are concerned any branch breakage due to high winds or indeed trees actually falling, about possible damage to ours, or surrounding properties. We therefore ask that we may remove these trees so that we can landscape the garden and improve our property.

 

We have consulted immediate neighbours, who have expressed similar concerns and who have no objections to this proposal. Should it be necessary, we would be quite happy to plant the same amount of native trees around the perimeter of the garden to replace these.

 

 

 

Two letters from immediate neighbours supporting removal of trees for safety reasons.

 

 

 

One letter acknowledging that one tree is dead but seeking retention of remaining three for wildlife benefit but with some reduction for safety reasons.

 

 

 

One letter objecting to proposal for following reasons:

 

a) Came to live in area because of wooded nature.

 

b) Enclose photograph showing importance of trees.

 

c) Acted as Tree Warden for about ten years and aware this country less wooded than any other county in Europe.

 

d) Larch tree can live for 350 years.

 

e) Deplorable that someone who has lived here for one year can undo a hundred years growth in a morning.

 

f) One of original group removed by previous owner.

 

g) Present owner knew trees protected when bought house.

 

 

 

CONSULTATIONS

 

District Tree and Landscape Officer:     Four large larch trees in rear garden – fairly prominent hillside position with trees visible from number of surrounding public viewpoints – application for felling all six larch trees refused in 1994 but Secretary of State allowed felling of two trees in poorest condition – Secretary of State acknowledged that these trees are coming to the end of their safe useful life expectancy and there are very few adjacent trees to replace their amenity contribution – Secretary of State in effect allowed phased removal of trees - trees continuing to decline in health – T6 has about 60% dead branches – T3 has about 30% - T4 and T5 have about 10% - little doubt that T6 and T3 should be removed – may be possible to retain T4 and T5 for few more years but trees definitely in decline – trees likely to be giving each other mutual support and protection so may be more sensible to remove all four at same time with suitable replacement planting.

 

 

 

POLICIES

 

The Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991 –2011: Policies (none relevant)

 

 

 

The Replacement Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 2001 – 2016.  Deposit Draft – September 2003: Policies (none relevant)

 

 

 

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policy TW2

 

 

 

ISSUES

 

1.     The four larch trees are situated in the rear garden of the property in a fairly prominent hillside position with the trees visible from a number of surrounding public viewpoints.

 

 

 

2.     The trees are declining in health and all are developing dead branches.  There is little doubt that trees T6 and T3 are in poor condition and should be removed.  It may be possible to retain trees T4 and T5 for a few more years but the trees are definitely in decline.  As the trees are likely to be giving each other mutual support and protection it may be more sensible to remove all four at the same time with suitable replacement planting.

 

 

 

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) C412 Landscaping - replacement of 4 TPO trees (TPO felling app.)

 

 

 

(1) INFORMATIVE - I213 Quality of Tree Work                                                        

 

 

 

REASONS FOR APPROVAL ZA                                                                            

 

 

 

 

 

2004/211/CH

 

 

 

Case Officer:

Caroline Emery

Date Received:

05/02/2004

Decide by Date:

31/03/2004

Parish:

Seer Green

Ward:

Seer Green

App Type:

Full application

Proposal:

REDEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE SEVEN HOUSES AND GARAGES/PARKING SPACES SERVED BY ACCESS FROM GURNELLS ROAD AND DETACHED HOUSE WITH DETACHED GARAGE SERVED BY ACCESS FROM BOTTOM LANE

Location:

    HIGHSTANDING   BOTTOM LANE AND 45 GURNELLS ROAD    SEER GREEN

Applicant:

KINGSWAY LTD

 

 

 

SITE CONSTRAINTS

 

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

 

Adjoining Green Belt

 

Unclassified road

 

Southern Electricity - supply capability query

 

Mineral Consultation Area

 

Public Footpath/Bridleway

 

 

 

Dwellings

 

Total New Dwellings - proposed:

8

Total Dwellings - displaced/demolished:

2

 

 

 

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

 

03/2051/CH     Redevelopment to provide 6 detached houses with garages and parking spaces served by access from Gurnells Road and detached house with integral garage served by access from Bottom Lane. Refused as the layout, height, size and style of the dwellings would detract from the character of the area; no small units provided under the requirements of Policy H5; the dwelling proposed at plot 7 would have an overbearing impact on the bungalow known as Sunset Cottage to the west of the application site; the garden depths of plots 4, 5 and 6 failed to meet the requirements of Policy H12.

 

 

 

THE APPLICATION

 

Proposes the redevelopment of site to provide seven houses and garages/ parking spaces served by access from Gurnells Road and detached house with detached garage served by access drive from Bottom Lane. An additional dwelling is proposed since the scheme previously refused under planning application 03/2051/CH. The proposal would retain the existing ‘roundabout’ outside the site entrance by extending a new single driveway into the site from which plots 1 to 7 would be accessed. The proposed plot 8 would be accessed from an existing single track driveway from Bottom Lane.

 

 

 

The development would comprise of a terrace block containing three small units (plots 5, 6 and 7), a pair of semi detached dwellings, (plots 3 and 4) and three detached dwellings (plots 1, 2 and 8). Plots 3 to 8 would continue roughly in line with the general building line to the western side of Gurnells Road whilst plots 1 and 2 will continue along the curve of the cul-de-sac.  

 

 

 

The terrace block would have a width of 12.9m and a depth of 8.7m. It would have an eaves height of 5m with a ridge height of 8.5m.

 

The dwellings at plots 1 and 2 would be of a similar design and style, each with a width of 7.2m and a maximum depth of 14m. They would have an eaves height of 5m with a ridge height of 8.5m. Plot 1 would have a detached single garage which would measure 3.1m in width, 6.1m in depth, 2.2m to eaves and 3.9m to ridge height.

 

The pair of semi-detached dwellings at plots 3 and 4 would have a width of 13.7m and a maximum depth of 12.7m. There would be a forward projecting gable to a ridge height of 7.8m. The rest of the building would have an eaves height of 5m, and ridge height of 8.5m.

 

The detached dwelling at plot 8 would have a width of 11m and a maximum depth of 11.5m. It would have two forward projecting gables to a height of 8.2m, whilst the ridge of the main dwelling would reach 8.7m. A double garage is proposed in the front garden area which would have a width of 6m, depth of 6m, an eaves height of 2.2m and ridge height of 4.8m.

 

 

 

A triple garage would be sited adjacent to plot 2. It would have a width of 9m, a depth of 6.1m, an eaves height of 2.2m and a ridge height of 4.9m.

 

 

 

PARISH COUNCIL

 

It would appear that the main reasons for refusing the previous application have been overcome. We are pleased to see that this application proposes a wider range of dwelling types and in particular offers the kind of small units that are much needed in Seer Green. Recommend approval subject to conditions relating to the construction phase.

 

 

 

REPRESENTATIONS

 

Letter of support submitted by the applicant noting the following

 

1.     All of the proposed dwellings now have rear gardens of at least 15 metres in length.

 

2.     Three small dwellings are now proposed at Plots 5, 6 & 7. These are all less than 75 square metres gross floor area. Such provision was considered acceptable under the terms of Policy H5 and this is consistent with the recent approval of eight dwellings at our site at Loudhams Road, Little Chalfont where three small units were also provided.

 

3.     The proposed dwelling on plot 8 (previously plot 7) is now some 37 metres from the bungalow known as Sunset Cottage. By any standards this is a sufficient distance for there to not be any adverse effect on the occupants of Sunset Cottage, particularly given the screening that will be between the two houses.

 

4.     None of the proposed dwellings have accommodation within the roofspace and have a height and bulk of the roof which is typical of the traditional two storey environment in which the site is located.

 

5.     There us now more variety in both the general layout of dwellings and their individual design.

 

6.     The relationship between plot 1 and 43 Gurnells is much as it was previously. The 45 degrees line subtended from the nearest corner of No. 43 is not breached.

 

 

 

33 letters of objection received including representation from the Chiltern Society raising the following objections:

 

1.     Increase in traffic and parking will be hazardous as the road cannot accommodate any additional traffic.

 

2.     Width of access road is inadequate.

 

3.     Risk of traffic accidents.

 

4.     Insufficient parking spaces are provided.

 

5.     Concern over loss of trees and vegetation.

 

6.     There is no room for construction traffic along Gurnells Way, the access from Long Bottom Lane should be instead.

 

7.     The same objections stand from the previous application.

 

8.     Design of the houses are more appropriate, but the layout is cramped.

 

9.     The site may be suitable for 4 or 5 houses but not 8.

 

10.     Inappropriate development.

 

11.     Overdevelopment of the site.

 

12.     Out of keeping with the area.

 

13.     Insufficient space for emergency and utilities vehicles to pass through Gurnells Road.

 

14.     A full environmental impact study should be carried out before any development is carried out to assess the impact on wildlife and the environment.

 

15.     The development will have an adverse effect on the adjoining Established Residential Area of Special Character.

 

16.     The development will contravene Local Plan Policies H4, TW3, H12, GC2, GC3 and PPG3.

 

17.     The proposed dwellings will cause loss of light and appear overbearing to Hedgerow House (Photographs have also submitted giving an impression of the development as viewed from Hedgerow House).

 

18.     Chalet style bungalows would be more appropriate in this location.
 

 

CONSULTATIONS

 

Bucks County Archaeological Service: The scheme would be unlikely to have significant archaeological implications.

 

 

 

CDC Building Control – Fire Fighting Access: No comment.

 

 

 

District Tree and Landscape Officer:

 

Loss of number of small trees and cypresses, particularly line of cypresses about 8-10m high along boundary between properties within site

 

     None considered important

 

 

 

Trees near boundaries of site appear to be retained

 

 

 

Plot 8 fairly close to TPO trees on adjacent site

 

     No significant root damage likely

 

     Possible trimming of branches of three trees

 

     Two trees, ash and beech, require only very minor trimming if any

 

     Third tree is poor leaning ash

 

More significant cutting required but sensible woodland management would be to remove tree to allow more space for development of adjacent trees

 

 

 

Walnut tree in island at end of Gurnells Road

 

     Useful amenity tree

 

     Local residents concerned about potential damage from large vehicles

 

     Informative recommending protective fencing may be appropriate

 

 

 

No objection provided adequate tree protection measures

 

 

 

County Highways Engineer: No objections raised subject to conditions and informatives.

 

 

 

POLICIES

 

The Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991 –2011: Policies (none relevant)

 

 

 

The Replacement Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 2001 – 2016.  Deposit Draft – September 2003. Policies (none relevant)  

 

 

 

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, H3, H5, H11, H12, TR2, TR3, TR11 and TR16.

 

 

 

ISSUES

 

1.     The application site is situated in the built up area of Seer Green. Local Plan Policy H3 considers that proposals for new dwellings will be acceptable subject to there being no conflict with any other policy in the Local Plan. Proposals should be compatible with the character of those areas by respecting the general density, scale, siting, height and character of the buildings in the locality of the application site and the presence of trees, shrubs, lawns and verges.

 

 

 

2.     The development would be sited at the end of an existing cul-de-sac. The area surrounding the application site is characterised by great variety in dwelling styles and sizes. Concern was raised in the previously refused application that seven detached dwellings of a relatively uniform size and style in a regimented layout would disrupt the variety evident in the surrounding area. The new layout and differing styles of dwellings with a mixture of a terrace block, pair of semi detached, and detached dwellings would mean the development would to some extent be able to create a distinct character of its own. The variety involved in the layout and style of dwellings would mean it would not provide such a stark contrast with the immediate area. The ridge heights of all the dwellings have also been reduced so they would appear more in keeping with the surrounding area. It is considered therefore that the previous objections raised in relation to Policies GC1 and H3 have been overcome.  

 

 

 

3.     Local Plan Policy H5 states that wherever compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding area, on sites which come forward under the provisions of Policies H2 or H3, the Council will require a significant proportion of the dwellings on each site to be a maximum of 75 sq. metres gross floor area. No such provision was made in the previously refused application. In this current application three of the eight dwellings provided would be classed as small under the requirements of Policy H5. It is considered that this is sufficient under the requirements of Policy H5.

 

 

 

4.     The terrace block would be located adjacent to No. 44 Gurnells Road. This boundary is currently formed by conifers, which provide a dense screen. The proposed block would be sited extremely close to these conifers and may adversely affect them. Notwithstanding the possible loss of this screening, the block would be located approximately 2m away from the boundary and would not extend as far as the rear building line at No. 44. There are habitable room windows in the adjacent flank elevations. It is not considered therefore that the relationship between the proposed terrace block and No. 44 would be unacceptable. No objections raised in relation to Local Plan Policy GC3.

 

 

 

5.     Objections were raised previously in relation to the relationship between the dwelling proposed previously at plot 7 (now plot 8) and the bungalow known as ‘Sunset Cottage’ situated downslope of the development. The dwelling proposed at the end of the rear garden of Sunset Cottage has been sited further away, so it would be located approximately 40m away from the cottage, and approximately 17m from the end of the rear garden at Sunset Cottage. The height of the dwelling has also been reduced. Although the front elevation of the dwelling at plot 8 contains a number of principal windows that would face the rear of Sunset Cottage the distance of separation and the double garage proposed in the front garden of plot 8 mitigates the effects of overlooking. It is not therefore considered that the proposed relationship would be considered unacceptable. No further objections raised in relation to Local Plan Policy GC3.

 

 

 

6.     The dwelling at plot 1 would be adjacent to the existing dwelling at No. 43 but set further back.  It would be located a minimum of 3m away from the boundary with this dwelling. There are no principal windows away this flank elevation of No. 43. There is a small single storey greenhouse close to this boundary and there are a number of interspersed tall conifers. However much of the boundary remains quite open. Given the siting and location of the proposed dwelling however, it is not considered that the relationship with the No. 43 would be unacceptable. A driveway is proposed adjacent to this boundary with a garage located at the end. Subject to suitable additional screening it is not considered that this element of the proposal would be objectionable.

 

 

 

7.     Concerns have been raised from the local residents relating to the impact of the proposed dwelling on the occupiers of properties along Long Bottom Lane, situated to the west of the application site.  The relationship of the proposed development with the property known as Sunset Cottage has already been discussed. Also close to the application site is Hedgerow House to the south west, and Tailiesin and Ashfield to the west. Although it is noted that the rear windows of the dwelling at plot 8 would be able to look into the rear garden of Hedgerow House, given that the proposed dwelling would be at right angles to this Hedgerow House and the proposed dwelling would be approximately 28m from the rear building line of Hedgerow House, it is not considered that the degree of overlooking would be unacceptable. In addition, given this degree of separation, although the dwelling at plot 8 would be visible to the occupants of Hedgerow House, it is not considered that this relationship would be unacceptable. The impact of the dwelling at plot 8 would also be softened by appropriate landscaping.  In relation to the impact on the properties Tailiesin and Ashfield to the west, it is considered that there would be sufficient separation from the proposed dwellings to enable an acceptable relationship. No further objections raised in relation to Local Plan Policies GC3.

 

 

 

8.     The proposed dwellings at plots 1 and 2 and plots 3 to 7 are lined up so that the front and rear building lines are very similar. There are no principal windows on the side elevations of the proposed dwellings so there are no concerns relating to overlooking as these windows can be conditioned to be of obscure glass. It is considered that the relationship of the proposed dwellings, in terms of the amenities of the occupants is acceptable.

 

 

 

9.     All of the proposed dwellings would now have the minimum rear garden depth as required by Local Plan Policy H12. No further objections raised.

 

 

 

10.     The comments of the District Tree and Landscape Officer are noted above. No objections are raised subject to adequate tree protection measures.

 

 

 

11.     The comments of the County Highways Engineer are noted above. No objections subject to conditions.

 

 

 

12.     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)      Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order, with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows other than those expressly authorised by this permission, or as subsequently agreed in writing by the local planning authority, shall be inserted or constructed at any time at first floor level or above in the flank elevations of each of the dwellings hereby permitted.

 

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

 

 

 

(4)

The bathroom and en-suite windows at first floor level in all of the dwellings hereby approved shall not be glazed other than with obscured glass at any time.

 

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

 

 

 

(5) No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping at a scale of not less than 1:500 which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, with details of those to be retained, and those to be felled being clearly specified. The submitted landscaping scheme shall ensure that additional planting is provided along the boundary of plot 8 adjacent to the public footpath.

 

Reason: In order to maintain, as far as possible, the character of the locality and the amenities of adjoining properties and to protect the privacy of the occupants at Hedgerow House.

 

 

 

(6) C407 Landscaping Scheme to be Implemented

 

 

 

(7)      A suitable means of enclosure shall be erected along the boundaries of the site and between individual gardens in accordance with details which shall previously have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The approved means of enclosure around the external boundaries of the site shall be constructed or erected prior to the substantial completion of the dwellings on the site, and the approved means of enclosure within the site shall be constructed before the buildings to which this permission relates are occupied.

 

Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality and the privacy of the adjoining properties.

 

 

 

(8)      Detailed plans showing the existing and proposed ground levels of the site relative to adjoining land, together with slab levels and ridge heights of the proposed dwellings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by The Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The slab levels shall relate to a fixed and known datum point and the dwellings shall not thereafter be constructed other than at the approved levels.

 

Reason: To ensure that the development is properly related to the levels of adjoining development in the interests of amenity.

 

 

 

(9)      Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3(1) of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no development falling within Classes A to C of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the said Order shall be erected, constructed, or placed within the residential curtilages of the 8 dwelling units unless planning permission is first granted by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority can properly consider whether any future proposals will constitute overdevelopment of the site or will in any other way be detrimental to the character of the locality.

 

 

 

(10)      The garages hereby permitted shall be reserved for the parking of vehicles and shall not be converted to provide additional living accommodation or used for any other purpose.

 

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

 

 

 

(11)      The development shall not begin until details of the private access way have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no dwelling shall be occupied until the access way has been laid out and constructed in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the development.

 

 

 

(12)      No other part of the development shall begin until the new means of access has been sited and laid out in accordance with the approved drawing and constructed in accordance with Buckinghamshire County Council’s guide note “Commercial Vehicular Access Within Highway Limits” 2001.

 

Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the development.

 

 

 

(13)      The scheme for parking, garaging and manoeuvring indicated on the submitted plans shall be laid out prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted and that area shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose.

 

Reason: To enable vehicles to draw off, park and turn clear of the highway to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway.

 

 

 

(14)      The development shall not begin until provision has been made to accommodate all site operatives’, visitors’ and construction vehicles loading, off-loading, parking and turning within the site during the construction period in accordance with details to be submitted and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority

 

Reason: To minimise danger and inconvenience to highway users.

 

 

 

(15)      Adequate precautions shall be taken during the construction period to prevent the deposit of mud and similar debris on the adjacent public highways in accordance with details to be submitted and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development.

 

Reason: To minimise danger and inconvenience to highway users.

 

 

 

(16) C415 Landscaping - Tree Protection

 

 

 

INFORMATIVE

 

(1) The applicant's cooperation is sought to minimise the disturbance caused to the neighbouring residents during the construction period of this development. In particular construction work should be avoided at unsociable hours and care should be taken to avoid construction traffic blocking Gurnells Road.

 

 

 

INFORMATIVE:

 

(2) The applicant's cooperation is sought in adopting appropriate measures to prevent any possible damage to the Walnut tree in the island at the end of Gurnells Road from any construction vehicles.

 

 

 

INFORMATIVE:

 

(3)  Your attention is specifically drawn to conditions 14 and 15 above. These conditions require the submission of details, information, drawings etc. to the LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE. Failure to observe these requirements will result in a contravention of the terms of the permission and the Council may seek necessary Enforcement action.

 

 

 

INFORMATIVE:

 

(4) The applicant is advised that a licence must be obtained from the Highway Authority before any works are carried out on any footway, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the highway. A period of 28 days must be allowed for the issuing of the licence, please contact the Area Manager at the following address for information:-

 

Environmental Services Department,

 

Chiltern and South Bucks Area Office,

 

29 Windsor End, Beaconsfield, Bucks, HP9 2JJ, Tel (01494) 586600

 

 

 

INFORMATIVE:

 

(5) It is contrary to section 163 of the Highways Act 1980 for surface water from private development to drain onto the highway or discharge into the highway drainage system. The development shall therefore be so designed and constructed that surface water from the development shall not be permitted to drain onto the highway or into the highway drainage system.

 

 

 

REASONS FOR APPROVAL ZA                                                                            

 

 

 

 

 

2004/212/CH

 

 

 

Case Officer:

Laura Martindill

Date Received:

05/02/2004

Decide by Date:

31/03/2004

Parish:

Chalfont St Peter

Ward:

Austenwood

App Type:

Full application

Proposal:

SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION

Location:

       4 PRIORY WAY    CHALFONT ST. PETER

Applicant:

MR I FISCHER

 

 

 

SITE CONSTRAINTS

 

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

 

Unclassified road

 

Northolt Airfield safeguarding zone

 

Mineral Consultation Area

 

 

 

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

 

00/0468/CH First floor extension. Permitted and implemented.

 

 

 

THE APPLICATION

 

Planning permission is sought for a single storey extension measuring 2.9 metres deep, 3.6 metres wide and 3.5 metres high. It would be sited on the boundary with No. 3 Priory Way and approximately 17 metres from the west boundary to the rear.

 

 

 

PARISH COUNCIL

 

No objection.

 

 

 

REPRESENTATIONS

 

None received at time of drafting report.

 

 

 

CONSULTATIONS

 

None relevant.

 

 

 

POLICIES

 

The Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991 –2011: Policies (none relevant)

 

 

 

The Replacement Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 2001 – 2016.  Deposit Draft – September 2003. Policies (none relevant)  

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

ISSUES

 

1.      The application site is situated within the built up area of Chalfont St Peter wherein proposals for development are normally acceptable provided that Local Plan Policies are complied with.

 

 

 

2.      The extension would in its scale respect the height and proportions of the existing dwelling. The appearance and design of the development would be appropriate and relates well to the characteristics of the site. As the extension would be sited to the rear of the dwelling the street scene would not be affected. No objections raised under Local Plan Policies GC1, GC3 and H15.

 

 

 

3.      The proposed extension would be located adjacent to an existing single storey extension and would not exceed this extension’s depth. The proposal would also integrate well with the roof of the existing extension. No objections raised under Local Plan Policies GC1 and H15.

 

 

 

4.      The proposal would be located closer to the neighbouring dwelling to the north, than the existing extension. However, as it would not extend the full depth of the existing extension it is considered that the proposed addition would appear relatively small in scale and size and moreover would not appear overbearing or result in overlooking to the occupiers of the neighbouring property. No objections raised in relation to Local Plan Policies GC3 or H14.

 

 

 

5.      There is adequate parking provision within the cartilage of the site to comply with Local Plan Policies TR11 and TR16.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

 

Subject to the following conditions

 

 

 

(1) C108 General Time Limit

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order, with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows other than those expressly authorised by this permission, or as subsequently agreed in writing by the local planning authority, shall be inserted or constructed at any time  in the north elevation of the extension hereby permitted.

 

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

 

 

 

REASONS FOR APPROVAL ZA                                                                            

 

 

 

    

 

2004/213/CH

 

 

 

Case Officer:

Laura Olson

Date Received:

05/02/2004

Decide by Date:

31/03/2004

Parish:

Little Missenden - Holmer Green

Ward:

Holmer Green

App Type:

Full application

Proposal:

SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION AND TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION INCORPORATING DORMER WINDOW IN FRONT AND REAR ELEVATIONS

Location:

       1 WOODLANDS CLOSE    HOLMER GREEN

Applicant:

M MOLLOY

 

 

 

SITE CONSTRAINTS

 

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

 

Unclassified road

 

 

 

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

 

AM/977/61: Bungalow and garage. Permitted and implemented.

 

 

 

THE APPLICATION

 

Proposes a single storey rear extension, two storey side extension and a dormer window in both the front and rear elevation. The rear extension measures 6.1m wide, 3.3m deep with a false pitch roof with a maximum height of 3.9m. The two storey side extension measures 4.7m wide, 8.0m deep with a 6.5m high pitched roof that ends in a gable end with a small hip. The chimney breast projects 0.4m from the side of the house and extends 1.2m beyond the highest point of the roof. Dimensions for the front dormer window are 1.7m wide and 1.8m high and the rear dormer is 1.2m wide and 1.7m high. Both have pitched roofs that extend up to 2.5 from the roof slope

 

 

 

PARISH COUNCIL

 

Approve.

 

 

 

REPRESENTATIONS

 

None received at time of drafting report.

 

 

 

CONSULTATIONS

 

None relevant.

 

 

 

POLICIES

 

The Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991 –2011: Policy (none relevant)

 

 

 

The Replacement Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 2001 – 2016.  Deposit Draft – September 2003. Policy (none relevant)

 

 

 

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC3, H12, H13, H14, H15, H16, H18, TR11 and TR16

 

 

 

ISSUES

 

1.     The application site lies within the built up area of Holmer Green, wherein domestic extensions and dormer windows are acceptable in principle, subject to compliance with the relevant Local Plan Policies.

 

 

 

2.     Located on the corner of Earl Howe Road and Woodlands Close, the dwelling has front and rear gardens of similar size and is set close to its western boundary, which results in the dwelling being approximately 7.0m from the edge of Earl Howe Road. Therefore, while the proposed side extension will project 4.7m into the side garden and will increase the bulk of the dwelling, it is considered that an adequate amount of side garden will remain to prevent the extension from forming a prominent feature in the street scene. The existing rear garden is smaller than at neighbouring properties, although the side and front gardens at the application site combine to form an acceptable outdoor amenity space. Further, the extensions will require the removal of an existing single garage and a utility room. It is considered that the remaining garden would be of an adequate size and would prevent the dwelling from appearing cramped on the plot. No aspect of the proposal will exceed the existing ridge height and the form and design of the dormers and extensions are considered to help with their integration with the dwelling.

 

 

 

3.     The proposals will be approximately 10m away from neighbouring dwellings and, as the majority of the bulk will be adjacent to a roadway, no concerns are raised with regard to the proposal appearing overbearing and intrusive when viewed from neighbouring properties. The proposed rear dormer is the only aspect of the proposal that will be increasing the amount of overlooking that currently exists, as there is already a front elevation dormer and a side elevation window in the roof space. In terms of impact on the privacy of neighbouring properties, it is acknowledged that the rear dormer will afford views toward the rear garden of 65 Orchard Way. However, it is recognised that the application site is within a built up area wherein it is accepted that a certain level of overlooking of neighbouring properties may occur. Further, having regard to properties that back onto the site, there is a distance of some 25m between the proposed rear dormer and the private amenity area of 65 Orchard Way, the nearest property to the rear, and it is therefore not considered that the dormer would give rise to an unacceptable level of overlooking.

 

 

 

4.     The site currently contains a one car garage and space for at least two cars to park on the drive. With regard to the proposed development, Policies TR11 and TR16 require that three spaces be provided within the curtilage. As the garage and parking space adjacent to the dwelling will be lost as part of the proposal, it is recommended that a condition requiring the submission of plans indicating the location of these three parking spaces is imposed.

 

 

 

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) The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until garaging and/or parking spaces for three vehicles have been provided in accordance with plans which shall have previously been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved garaging/parking shall subsequently be retained for the parking of vehicles.  

 

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

 

 

 

REASONS FOR APPROVAL ZA                                                                            

 

 

 

 

 

2004/215/CH

 

 

 

Case Officer:

Laura Martindill

Date Received:

05/02/2004

Decide by Date:

31/03/2004

Parish:

Chesham Bois

Ward:

Chesham Bois & Weedon Hill

App Type:

Full application

Proposal:

FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION INCORPORATING NEW ROOF WITH DORMER WINDOW IN FRONT ELEVATION AND THREE DORMER WINDOWS

Location:

       70 ST. LEONARDS ROAD    CHESHAM BOIS

Applicant:

MR MONGER

 

 

 

SITE CONSTRAINTS

 

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

 

Unclassified road

 

 

 

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

 

02/1395/CH Two storey front / side extension and single storey side /front / rear extension. Withdrawn.

 

02/0842/CH Two storey front/side extension, single storey side/front rear extension. Refused. The proposed extension by reason of its siting, close the north side boundary, scale and massing will have an overbearing appearance on the neighbouring property in Holloway Lane to the detriment of its amenities.  

 

 

 

THE APPLICATION

 

Planning permission is sought for the development of a first floor extension incorporating a new roof with a dormer window in the front elevation and three dormer windows in the rear elevation.

 

 

 

The first floor development would measure at its extent 10 metre wide and 10.6 metre deep. It will reach a maximum height of 6.2 metres with the dormer windows measuring 2 metres wide, 2.2 metres high and protruding 1.3 metres from the roof slope.

 

 

 

PARISH COUNCIL

 

Refusal recommended for the following reasons:

 

·

The proposed extension would cause an overdevelopment of the site.

 

·

There would be a loss of privacy for the adjoining properties through overlooking.

 

·

It is difficult to ascertain from the plans whether there is sufficient distance from the boundaries.

 

·

As the proposed extension would increase the floor space of the dwelling it is presumed that an additional car parking space would be required. The applicant has not provided details showing this.

 

 

 

REPRESENTATIONS

 

Councillor Priestly has requested that this application be referred to the Planning Committee for determination in the event that the Officers’ recommendation is for approval.

 

 

 

One letter from the residents of No. 32 Hollow Way Lane expressing the following concerns:

 

·

The proposed development is not in keeping with the surrounding buildings.

 

·

The application proposes to convert a bungalow into a two storey house.

 

·

The proposed dormer windows would overlook the patio area and living room of No. 32 Holloway Lane.

 

 

 

CONSULTATIONS

 

None relevant.

 

 

 

POLICIES

 

The Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991 –2011: Policies (none relevant)

 

 

 

The Replacement Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 2001 – 2016.  Deposit Draft – September 2003. Policies (none relevant)  

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

ISSUES

 

1.      The application site is situated within the built up area of Chesham Bois wherein proposals for development are normally acceptable provided that relevant Local Plan Policies are complied with.

 

 

 

2.      The dwelling to which the application relates to is situated at the end of a private drive accessed from St Leonards Road. The site rises above St Leonards Road, but there is a substantial amount of landscaping to the front of the site and adjacent to St Leonards Road, which completely screens it from view. As such, the proposal would not harm the street scene from St Leonards Road. In terms of the views from the private drive, it is not considered that these will be adversely affected as the application site is situated at the end of the drive.

 

 

 

3.      Number 34 Hollow Way Lane is situated to the north and is set approximately 5 metres lower than the application site. It is also sited 7.5 metres from the boundary with the application site. Although there is some screening in the form of trees along No. 34’s south boundary including a 1.8 metre high fence the proposed extension would be clearly visible. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed extension by reason of its scale and size would have an overbearing and dominant appearance on neighbouring properties, primarily No. 34 to the detriment of residential amenity. It is therefore contrary to policies H13 and H14 of the Local Plan.  

 

 

 

4.      In respect of the dormer windows, they are considered to be of a size and scale that respects the existing windows of the dwelling. However, it is thought that the three dormer windows in the rear elevation would dominate the appearance of the roof to the detriment of properties fronting Hollow Way Lane. Furthermore, the dormer windows in the rear elevation would cause overlooking to these properties and the adjacent property No. 68 St. Leonards Road.   As such objections are raised under Local Plan Policies GC3 and H13.

 

 

 

5.      Three parking spaces are provided for within the cartilage of the site and therefore no objection is raised to this proposal on parking grounds.

 

 

 

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 development by reason of its size and scale would appear dominant and overbearing to properties fronting Hollow Way Lane. In addition to this, the three dormer windows in the rear elevation would appear overbearing and cause overlooking to properties fronting Hollow Way Lane. As such the development would be detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of these properties.  As the proposal conflicts with Policies GC3, H13 and H14 of the 1997 Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan (Including Alterations Adopted May 2001)

 

 

 

 

 

2004/216/CH

 

 

 

Case Officer:

Laura Martindill

Date Received:

06/02/2004

Decide by Date:

01/04/2004

Parish:

Chalfont St Peter

Ward:

Central

App Type:

Full application

Proposal:

FIRST FLOOR SIDE/TWO STOREY FRONT EXTENSION

Location:

    KILIMA    LINCOLN ROAD    CHALFONT ST. PETER

Applicant:

MR AND MRS J D HUGHES

 

 

 

SITE CONSTRAINTS

 

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

 

Unclassified road

 

Northolt Airfield safeguarding zone

 

Mineral Consultation Area

 

 

 

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

 

03/0757/CH First floor side and front extension. Refused. The proposed first floor extension would by virtue of its size and bulk would be dominant and overbearing in appearance to the neighbouring property. In addition to this the proposal would be of detriment to the character and appearance of the street scene. The street scene is characterised by spacious layouts where large distances between dwellings are important elements of the locally.

 

 

 

THE APPLICATION

 

Planning permission is sought for a first floor side and two storey front extension. The side extension would measure 2.7 metres wide by 11.metres deep. The front extension would measure 5.5 metres wide and 5.1 metres deep.

 

 

 

The side extension would be sited at least 3 metres from the boundary with Egerton, the front extension would be sited at least 1.5 metres from the boundary with Egerton and approximately 16 metres from the front extension.

 

 

 

The difference between this extension and 03/0757/CH, which was previously refused, is that the width of the side extension has reduced, the depth has increased and the front extension is wider.

 

 

 

PARISH COUNCIL

 

No objection.

 

 

 

REPRESENTATIONS

 

Two letters of objection have been received from both the present occupier and the prospective occupiers of Egerton. The following concerns are expressed:

 

·

The proposed extension would be too close to the boundary of Egerton and would result in an appearance that is out of character with the street scene.

 

·

The current application has not changed significantly from the previous application which was refused.

 

·

The size of the proposed extension and its proximity to this property would mean that the street scene would still appear cramped.

 

·

The proposed extension would have an overbearing impact on this property, particularly on the patio area.

 

·

The Planning Inspector noted that ‘the addition of an additional storey on top of that existing extension albeit of a much lesser depth and set back from the boundary would appear overbearing to any occupier of Egerton when enjoying this part of their garden’.

 

·

Overlooking from Velux.

 

·

Noise from extractor fan.

 

 

 

CONSULTATIONS

 

None relevant.

 

 

 

POLICIES

 

The Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991 –2011: Policies (none relevant)

 

 

 

The Replacement Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 2001 – 2016.  Deposit Draft – September 2003. Policies (none relevant)  

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

ISSUES

 

1.      The application site is located in Chalfont St Peter in an Established Residential Area of Special Character wherein the principle of development is acceptable provided that Local Plan Policies are complied with.

 

 

 

2.      The proposed extension is considered to be of a design and scale that is in keeping and respects the main dwelling. The side extension has been considerably reduced in width by 2 metres although the depth has been increased by 1.9 metres. Thus, while the extension would extend further towards the rear of the dwelling because it would not be as wide it is considered that the development would not be detrimental to the character and appearance of the street scene. This together with the proposed catslide roof would not cause the development to appear overly close to the neighbouring property.

 

 

 

The front extension has increased in width by 1.3 metres and by virtue of its design and roof appears to be sited further towards to the main dwelling than the previous application. Overall, it is considered that the distance between dwellings, which is an important feature of the area is retained. No objections under Local Plan Policies GC1, GC3 and H15.

 

 

 

3.      In respect of residential amenity the front extension would not have an adverse affect on the neighbouring properties. The side extension would still be visible from the rear garden of Egerton, the adjacent property. The Planning Inspectors comments from the Appeal relating to the previous application are noted, however, as the side extension has been reduced in width it is considered that the proposal would not appear unduly overbearing when viewed from this property due to much of the bulk being reduced by the proposed catslide roof. It The side elevation includes the insertion of two skylights, which would not be of detriment to the residents of Egerton in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy due to adequate cill heights. No objections under Local Plan Policies GC3, H13 and H14.

 

 

 

4.      There is adequate parking provision within the cartilage of the site to comply with Local Plan Policies TR11 and TR16.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

 

Subject to the following conditions

 

 

 

(1) C108 General Time Limit

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

REASONS FOR APPROVAL ZA                                                                            

 

 

 

 

 

2004/217/CH

 

 

 

Case Officer:

Nicholas Bowden

Date Received:

06/02/2004

Decide by Date:

01/04/2004

Parish:

Chesham

Ward:

Asheridge Vale & Lowndes

App Type:

Outline Application

Proposal:

PART TWO STOREY PART THREE STOREY BUILDING COMPRISING FIVE LIVE/WORK UNITS SERVED BY EXISTING ACCESS FROM ASHERIDGE ROAD

Location:

    REAR OF ASHERIDGE BUSINESS CENTRE   45 ASHERIDGE ROAD    CHESHAM

Applicant:

RUOHAN LTD

 

 

 

SITE CONSTRAINTS

 

Employment Area for Business , General Industry, Storage or Distribution

 

Unclassified road

 

Eastern Electricity - supply capability query

 

Thames Water - groundwater protection zone

 

 

 

Dwellings

 

Total New Dwellings - proposed:

5

Total Dwellings - displaced/demolished:

0

 

 

 

Floor Space

 

Codes:

BU:WH

Proposed (m2):

228:227

Displaced (m2):

0:0

 

 

 

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

 

00/0432/CH: Demolition of part of existing building, erection of single storey side extension and two storey extensions and change of use to provide five units for B2 and B8 uses (general industry and storage and distribution) together with additional parking, former Aerospace House, now Asheridge Business Centre. Permitted and implemented.

 

 

 

03/1735/CH: Part two storey, part three storey building comprising seven live/work units served by existing access from Asheridge Road. Refused, development of non-business use on allocated employment site, substandard parking and manoeuvring space and intensification of substandard access.

 

 

 

THE APPLICATION

 

Seeks outline planning permission for the erection of five live/work units on land to the rear of Asheridge Business Centre. Design, external appearance, means of access and landscaping are all reserved for subsequent approval thus all that is open for consideration in this instance is siting. The units are proposed in one building 32 metres in width and 10 metres in depth. Whilst design and external appearance are reserved for subsequent approval the indicative plans show that the building would be set into the slope on the site and would have three storey appearance to the front and two storey to the rear facing onto gardens. Parking space is suggested to the front of the building served by an access onto Asheridge Road.

 

 

 

The site is 0.17 Hectares in area with the ‘live’ element of the proposal representing a density of 30 dwellings per Hectare.

 

 

 

The application is submitted further to the refused 03/1725/CH. This application, in comparison to the refused scheme, has reduced the width of the building, increased its depth and located it towards the north west corner of the site.

 

 

 

TOWN COUNCIL

 

None received at time of drafting report.

 

 

 

REPRESENTATIONS

 

Summary of applicant’s supporting statement: Local and commercial agents have suggested that there is a need for small units to meet the requirements of new and existing businesses. The scheme is well related to surrounding land uses. The proposal is an example of sustainable development. The proposal is consistent with Structure and Local Plan Policy. Given the retention of the site for employment generating purposes it is not considered that objection is warranted under the Counci’s employment Policies. The housing units proposed are very small. The proposal is an example of sustainable development making an efficient use of previously developed land. A statement from a highway consult concludes the proposal is acceptable in highway terms.

 

 

 

CONSULTATIONS

 

County Highway Engineer: No objection subject to conditions

 

 

 

Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Fire Authority: Access to the building will be the subject of detailed Building Regulation’s Approval. In cul-de-sac road situation the nearest fire hydrant should be no further back than 100 metres from the furthest extent of the dead end.

 

 

 

Thames Water: There are public sewers crossing this site therefore no building will be permitted within 3 metres of these sewers.

 

 

 

POLICIES

 

The Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991 – 2011: Policies BS1, H5, E5, E7, TR1A.

 

 

 

The Replacement Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 2001 – 2016. Deposit Draft – September 2003: Policies 1, 10, 14 and 22.

 

 

 

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan – 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, GC4, E1, E2, H3, H5, H11, H12, TR2, TR3, TR11 and TR16.

 

 

 

ISSUES

 

1.     The application site is located on a site identified for business, general industry and storage and distribution as defined by Policy E2 of the Local Plan. In such instances proposals for development other than business, general industry or storage and distribution will not be permitted. In accordance with Government guidance in PPG4, this approach provides industrial and commercial developers and local communities greater certainty about the types of development that will and will not be permitted on the site. The employment policies in the Local Plan, carried forward from the Structure Plan, aim to reduce the pressure for new housing, related services and traffic which arise from substantial job creation whilst also aiming to sustain the local economy in order to ensure that jobs are available locally as an alternative to commuting and to minimise unemployment. In this respect it seeks to ensure that the land available for employment generating uses, as defined in the Local Plan, is conserved and that a range of premises are available to meet the needs of firms. Land lost from employment use cannot be replaced within the fully developed urban area and due to much of the District being located within the Metropolitan Green Belt and Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

 

 

 

2.     This proposal does comprise an element of employment use in the form of the ground floor and part first floor ‘work’ units. However the majority of the floorspace encompassed in the buildings comprises the residential element on upper floors, emphasised by the garden areas to the rear. The introduction of dwellings and a residential use on this site is contrary to the council’s employment policies which clearly state that proposals for non-business/general industrial/storage and distribution uses will not be permitted on allocated employment sites.

 

 

 

3.     The applicant has submitted a statement in support of the application making various suggestions. The assertion that there is some employment generating floorspace within the units is not considered to carry significant weight. The employment site is designated to provide employment uses for the benefits of residents of the District. Comments relating to sustainability objectives are also noted. Whilst living and working in the same location could reduce the need to travel for the occupants, it is also arguable that as the site will not have any other form of employment use, residents from within the District who could potentially work on the site would need to travel elsewhere. In view of the limited amount of land available within the District and the existing high level of out-commuting (revealed by the Bucks Economic Prospects Study) it is likely that this may be outside the District, contrary to sustainable development objectives.

 

 

 

4.     In respect of the ‘dwelling’ element of the proposal, five dwellings represent a density of 30 dwellings per Hectare. The floorspace of the ‘dwelling’ element is indicated to be 78 square metres. As a result none of the units meet the terms of Policy H5 relating to small units of accommodation. However as the detail of the building is not open for consideration at this outline stage it is not considered objection is warranted. However, should permission be granted for this proposal it would be necessary to secure a significant proportion of smaller units at the reserved matters stage.

 

 

 

5.     The siting of the building is considered acceptable in terms of its impact upon the character of the area. However the footprint is large and deep. As a consequence the building may appear somewhat bulky however as the detail is not open to full consideration at this stage, due to the application being in outline form only, it is not considered objection is warranted.

 

 

 

6.     In terms of impact upon neighbours’ amenity, the building is located a sufficient distance away from neighbouring dwellings such that it would be unlikely to appear intrusive or overbearing or result in a significant loss of amenity or privacy.

 

 

 

7.     Two parking spaces are available for each of the live/work units in addition to a loading area. No specific Local Plan standards are available for live/work units however two spaces would be required for the ‘dwelling’ element of the proposal. In view that the ‘work’ element of the buildings would be occupied in connection with the ‘dwelling’ element this provision is considered satisfactory. This ratio is improved over that in the refused application 03/1735/CH.

 

 

 

8.     Comments of the County Highway Engineer are noted. The scheme now proposes sufficient turning space, and the visibility is considered acceptable.

 

 

 

9.     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 identified on the Proposals Map of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 (including the adopted Alterations May 2001) as a site for Business, General Industry and Storage and Distribution development. Within these areas Policy E2 of the Adopted Local Plan states that development for other uses, or general industrial in specific circumstances, will not be permitted. The Policy objective is to ensure employment sites identified in the Proposals Map of the Adopted Local Plan remain available for business uses in order to retain the existing employment base within the District. Land for employment purposes is in limited supply within the District and cannot be replaced within the urban area, given the location of much of Chiltern District outside of the urban areas within the Metropolitan Green Belt. This Policy is in accordance with Policy E5 of The Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991-2011 which states that the re-use of existing employment sites for uses outside Classes B1, B2 and B8 of the Use Classes Order 1987 will not be permitted within Chiltern District. The proposal would result in the loss of an identified site for Business, General Industry and Storage and Distribution development which could not be replaced within the District and as such would be contrary to Policies E5 of the Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991-2011 and E2 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 (including the adopted Alterations May 2001).

 

 

 

(1) INFORMATIVE - Notwithstanding this refusal of planning permission the applicant is advised that there are public sewers crossing this site and that no building will be permitted within 3 metres of them without the approval of Thames Water. You are advised to contact Thames Water on 0845 850 2777 for information.

 

 

 

 

 

2004/218/CH

 

 

 

Case Officer:

Caroline Emery

Date Received:

06/02/2004

Decide by Date:

01/04/2004

Parish:

Chesham Bois

Ward:

Chesham Bois & Weedon Hill

App Type:

Full application

Proposal:

TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION

Location:

       15 WOODSIDE AVENUE    CHESHAM BOIS

Applicant:

MR AND MRS J BRYANT

 

 

 

SITE CONSTRAINTS

 

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

 

Unclassified road

 

 

 

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

 

None relevant

 

 

 

THE APPLICATION

 

Proposes a two storey rear extension. It would have a width of 5.1m and a depth of 4.9m. It would have an eaves height of 5.3m and a ridge height of 6.3m.

 

 

 

TOWN COUNCIL

 

No objections.

 

 

 

REPRESENTATIONS

 

None received at time of drafting report.

 

 

 

CONSULTATIONS

 

None relevant

 

 

 

POLICIES

 

The Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991 –2011: Policies (none relevant)

 

 

 

The Replacement Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 2001 – 2016.  Deposit Draft – September 2003. Policies (none relevant)  

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

ISSUES

 

 

 

1.     The application site is situated in the built up area of Amersham, where the principle of development is acceptable subject to complying with the relevant Local Plan Policies.

 

 

 

2.     The proposed extension would be located adjacent to a similar two storey rear extension at no. 14. Although a relatively large extension it has been designed to respect the scale and proportions of the existing dwelling and the design is considered appropriate. Located to rear of the dwelling it will have no adverse impact on the street scene. A distance of 1.1m is maintained between the proposed extension and the boundary with the neighbouring property to the south east, in line with the existing dwelling. No objections raised in relation to Local Plan Policies GC1 or H15.

 

 

 

3.     The neighbouring property to the north west has a two storey extension of which its rear extent would line up with the proposed extension. There are no principal windows in the flank elevation of this existing extension at No. 14. It is considered therefore that this relationship is acceptable and no objections are raised in relation to Local Plan Policies GC3 or H14.

 

 

 

4.     The extension would be located approximately 1.1m off the boundary with No. 17a to the south east. Whilst it is noted that the two storey extension would extend approximately 3m beyond the single storey element at No. 17a, and about 5m beyond the two storey element, there are no principal windows in this side elevation. In addition this area immediately adjacent to the boundary is not considered an important amenity area given that it is the passage way between the garage and the rear garden. There is also a shed along the boundary which helps define the amenity area mainly to the south east and would also help screen the bulk of the  extension. The eaves height of 5.3m with a hipped roof also helps to reduce the impact. No windows are proposed in the south eastern elevation and a condition would be needed to prevent the insertion of any windows which would impinge on the privacy of the occupiers of this neighbouring property.   Given these circumstances it is considered that the relationship between the proposed extension and the neighbouring property to the south east is acceptable. No objections raised in relation to Local Plan Policies H14 or GC3.

 

 

 

5.     There is currently one off street parking space provided within the curtilage of the dwelling. The proposed extension would increase the floorspace of the dwelling to over 120 square metres whereby an additional off street parking space is required under Local Plan Policies TR11 and TR16. There is however sufficient space within the curtilage of the dwelling to accommodate this additional space and therefore this would be required by way of condition.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

 

Subject to the following conditions

 

 

 

(1) C108 General Time Limit

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

(3) C174 No additional windows in south east elevation of extension

 

 

 

(4) The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until garaging and/or parking spaces for two cars has been provided in accordance with plans which shall have previously been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, these spaces shall be permanently reserved for parking and kept clear of any other obstruction.

 

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

 

 

 

REASONS FOR APPROVAL ZA                                                                            

 

 

 

 

 

2004/219/CH

 

 

 

Case Officer:

Kate Jones

Date Received:

06/02/2004

Decide by Date:

01/04/2004

Parish:

Penn

Ward:

Penn & Coleshill

App Type:

Full application

Proposal:

FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION INCORPORATING NEW ROOF TO CREATE A TWO STOREY DWELLING, AND NEW PITCHED ROOF OVER GARAGE

Location:

       4 HOGBACK WOOD ROAD    KNOTTY GREEN

Applicant:

MR AND MRS C GREEN

 

 

 

SITE CONSTRAINTS

 

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

 

Unclassified road

 

Mineral Consultation Area

 

 

 

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

 

98/5259/BN     Extension of doors and small ensuite to bedroom. Permitted development.

 

 

 

02/2029/CH     First floor two storey side/rear extension incorporating a replacement garage and replacement dormer window in rear elevation. Refused – the spacing between the first floor level and the adjoining property not commensurate other properties in the area and would appear cramped. The extension is very large in relation to the existing dwelling and would not respect its scale and proportions. The two-storey side extension would have an overbearing appearance to the neighbours at No. 6.

 

 

 

03/0326/CH     First floor front/side and two-storey side/rear extension to create two-storey dwelling. Conditional permission.

 

 

 

THE APPLICATION

 

The application is an amendment to planning permission 2003/0326/CH. It proposes a first floor front/side and two-storey side/rear extension to create a two-storey dwelling measuring a maximum of 14.0m wide and 12.2m deep with a hipped roof to a height of 8.9m.

 

 

 

The difference in this application is an increase in part of the overall ridge height of 0.2m and a variation in the roof plan incorporating a crown roof with a flat roof light.  

 

 

 

PARISH COUNCIL

 

No comment.

 

 

 

REPRESENTATIONS

 

None received at time of drafting report.

 

 

 

CONSULTATIONS

 

None received at time of drafting report.

 

 

 

POLICIES

 

The Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991 –2011: Policies (none relevant)

 

 

 

The Replacement Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 2001 – 2016.  Deposit Draft – September 2003. Policies (none relevant)

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

ISSUES

 

1.     The site is located within the built up area of Knotty Green where there is in principle no objection to domestic extensions subject to compliance with relevant Local Plan policies. Since the policies under which this proposal is to be considered are the same as that of application 2003/0326/CH and the physical circumstances of the site have not changed, only the differences between this application and that previously approved will be considered here.

 

 

 

2.     The application proposes an increase in part of the ridge height of the dwelling by 0.2m and an alteration to the roof structure. Given that the distance to the neighbouring boundary within the approved scheme is retained, it is not considered that an increase in the ridge height of 0.2m will impact on the amenities of the occupants of the neighbouring dwelling. The overall height of the dwelling will remain similar to that of dwellings within this locality and the form of the roof is acceptable in that there is a clear subordination of the south element of the proposal to the main ridge when viewing the front elevation. As such no objections are made with respect to the proposed amendments.

 

 

 

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) C433 Materials - General Details

 

 

 

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order, with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows other than those expressly authorised by this permission, or as subsequently agreed in writing by the local planning authority, shall be inserted or constructed at any time at first floor level or above in the north-east or south-west side elevations of the extension hereby permitted.

 

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

 

 

 

REASONS FOR APPROVAL ZA                                                                            

 

 

 

 

 

2004/220/CH

 

 

 

Case Officer:

Andrew Somerville

Date Received:

06/02/2004

Decide by Date:

01/04/2004

Parish:

Chalfont St Peter

Ward:

Gold Hill

App Type:

Full application

Proposal:

TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION

Location:

       15 TUNMERS END    CHALFONT ST. PETER

Applicant:

MR AND MRS M NELHAMS

 

 

 

SITE CONSTRAINTS

 

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

 

Unclassified road

 

Mineral Consultation Area

 

 

 

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

 

None relevant

 

 

 

THE APPLICATION

 

Planning permission is sought for a two storey extension 2.9m wide and 7.6m deep sited on the south western flank of the existing property.  The extension would have a pitched form of roof over, with an eaves height of 4.9m, to a maximum height of 7.3m.  

 

 

 

PARISH COUNCIL

 

No objection.

 

 

 

REPRESENTATIONS

 

None received at time of drafting report.

 

 

 

CONSULTATIONS

 

None relevant.

 

 

 

POLICIES

 

The Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991 –2011: Policies (none relevant)

 

 

 

The Replacement Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 2001 – 2016.  Deposit Draft – September 2003. Policies (none relevant)  

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

ISSUES

 

1.     The application site is located within the built-up area of Chalfont St. Peter wherein the principle of the proposed extension is acceptable, subject to complying with all relevant Local Plan Policies.

 

 

 

2.     The form and scale of the proposed extension would respect those of the existing property, and with regard to the street scene appearance of Tunmers End it would be a commensurate addition.

 

 

 

3.     The extension would neither overlook or appear unduly prominent or overbearing from the adjacent property No.16 Tunmers End.  Furthermore, the common boundary is screen by a row of 5m high leylandii.  It is therefore considered that the residential amenities of the surrounding properties would be maintained.

 

 

 

4.     The front driveway area provides sufficient parking for three vehicles.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

 

Subject to the following conditions

 

 

 

(1) C108 General Time Limit

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order, with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows other than those expressly authorised by this permission, or as subsequently agreed in writing by the local planning authority, shall be inserted or constructed at any time at first floor level or above in the south west flank elevation of the extension hereby permitted.

 

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

 

 

 

REASONS FOR APPROVAL ZA                                                                            

 

 

 

 

 

2004/221/CH

 

 

 

Case Officer:

Andrew MacDougall

Date Received:

09/02/2004

Decide by Date:

04/04/2004

Parish:

Chalfont St Peter

Ward:

Austenwood

App Type:

Full application

Proposal:

DETACHED DOUBLE GARAGE AT FRONT OF PROPERTY (AMENDMENT TO PLANNING PERMISSION 03/260/CH)

Location:

    MALTMANS END    MALTMANS LANE    CHALFONT ST. PETER

Applicant:

MR AND MRS JARMAN

 

 

 

SITE CONSTRAINTS

 

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

 

Unclassified road

 

Mineral Consultation Area

 

 

 

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

 

2003/0260/CH Detached double garage at front of property Conditional permission, not implemented.

 

 

 

THE APPLICATION

 

The application consists of a detached double garage located in front of the property. The garage measures 7m wide, 7 m deep and 5.1m high. The garage is located at least 2m from the front boundary to the south, 2.5m from the boundary to the east and 10m from the boundary to the west.

 

 

 

PARISH COUNCIL

 

No objection only if a condition is sought for a TPO to be placed on the hedge surrounding the garage otherwise would strongly object.

 

 

 

REPRESENTATIONS

 

None received at time of drafting report.

 

 

 

CONSULTATIONS

 

As part of the original application The District Tree and Landscape Officer was consulted. With the proposals location and external dimensions remaining substantially the same his original comments are still relevant.

 

 

 

District Tree and Landscape Officer’s comments

 

·

Screening between road and proposed garage consists mainly of laurel about 2m high on bank and beech tree about 12m high.

 

·

Existing old retaining wall about 0.6m high just over a metre from tree. Not clear from plan how proposed garage relates to retaining wall. If retaining wall kept undisturbed should be minimal root damage to beech tree.

 

·

With reasonable care other screening around garage could be retained

 

·

No objection to proposal providing existing retaining wall (and beech tree) kept undisturbed.

 

 

 

POLICIES

 

The Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991 –2011: Policies (none relevant)

 

 

 

The Replacement Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 2001 – 2016.  Deposit Draft – September 2003. Policies (none relevant)  

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

ISSUES

 

1.     The application is located in an area of Chalfont St Peter designated as an Established Residential Area of Special Character where the principle of development is acceptable subject to other relevant Local Plan policies.

 

 

 

2.     The proposed detached garage is of a design and scale considered in keeping with the existing dwelling. The garage will be well screened from the road so its impact on the street scene and the character of the area will be minimal. The District Tree and Landscape Officer has indicated that the screening can be kept. The main difference in the application from that previously permitted is the inclusion of a small gable feature in the elevation of the garage facing the house.  This will not be visible from the street.  There are no objections in regards to GC1, GC3, H4, H13 and H15.

 

 

 

3.     Although there is to be a small new window in the front elevation, this faces the existing property, and is of a low height which prevents additional overlooking to neighbouring properties. There is significant hedge and tree screening along the footpath to the east of the site and along the front boundary of the plot such that the proposed garage will not be unduly intrusive in the area or to neighbouring properties. There are no objections in regards to Local Plan Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, H13 and H14.

 

 

 

4.     There is more than sufficient parking on site to meet Local Plan 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) Before any construction work commences, named types, or samples of the facing materials and roofing materials 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 locality.

 

 

 

(3) This permission is granted on condition that none of the trees or hedges on the site, at the date of this permission, shall be felled, topped, lopped or uprooted without prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority for a period of five years from the date of implementation of this permission. Furthermore, the existing soil levels around the boles of the trees so retained shall not be altered.

 

Reason: In order to maintain, as far as possible, the character of the locality.

 

 

 

(4) The garage hereby permitted shall only be used for purposes in connection with and incidental to the occupation of Maltmans End as a private dwelling.  It shall not be used for any business, commercial or industrial purposes at any time.

 

Reason:  To prevent the undesirable establishment of any business, commercial or industrial use within the curtilage of this dwellinghouse, to the detriment of the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties.

 

 

 

(1) INFORMATIVE - The applicant is requested to note that the District Tree and Landscape Officer has indicated that in order to comply with Condition 3 of the planning permission hereby granted it will be necessary to keep the 0.6m retaining wall that is already on site because the removal of this could damage the hedge and tree.

 

 

 

(2) INFORMATIVE - The applicant is advised that in accordance with Condition 2 above, the Council will expect the proposed materials of both the walls and roof of the proposed building to closely match those of the existing dwelling on the site.

 

 

 

REASONS FOR APPROVAL ZA                                                                            

 

 

 

 

 

2004/222/CH

 

 

 

Case Officer:

Andrew MacDougall

Date Received:

09/02/2004

Decide by Date:

04/04/2004

Parish:

Chalfont St Peter

Ward:

Austenwood

App Type:

Full application

Proposal:

FRONT PORCH, SINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSION AND TWO STOREY SIDE/REAR EXTENSION

Location:

    MALTMANS END    MALTMANS LANE    CHALFONT ST. PETER

Applicant:

MR AND MRS JARMAN

 

 

 

SITE CONSTRAINTS

 

Established Residential Area of Special Character - Local Plan Policy H4

 

Unclassified road

 

Mineral Consultation Area

 

 

 

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

 

03/0260/CH Detached double garage at front of property. Conditional permission not implemented.

 

04/0221/CH Detached double garage at front of property. Amendment to planning permission 03/0260/CH yet to be determined.

 

 

 

THE APPLICATION

 

Proposed is a front porch, a single storey side extension and a two storey side/rear extension. The western boundary extension will measure 12 metres deep, up to 7 metres wide and will have an eaves height of 4.2 metres and a total maximum pitch height of 8.3 metres. The porch is 1.4 by 2.5 metres and has an overall height of 3.6 metres and the eastern side extension measures 3.3 metres high, 1.7 metres wide and 2 metres deep. The extensions will be located 1 metre from the western boundary, 0.5 metres from the eastern boundary and 20 metres from the front boundary.

 

 

 

PARISH COUNCIL

 

No objection

 

 

 

REPRESENTATIONS

 

None received at time of drafting report.

 

 

 

CONSULTATIONS

 

None relevant

 

 

 

POLICIES

 

The Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991 –2011: Policies (none relevant)

 

 

 

The Replacement Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 2001 – 2016.  Deposit Draft – September 2003. Policies (none relevant)  

 

 

 

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC3, H4, H13, H14, H15, H16, H18, TR11 and TR12

 

 

 

ISSUES

 

1.     The application site is located in within an Established Residential Area of Special Character in Chalfont St Peter where the principle of development is acceptable subject to complying with the relevant Local Plan Policies.

 

 

 

2.     It is considered that the proposed extensions are of a mass, design and scale considered in keeping with the existing property. Because of the substantial screening to the front of the site the street scene will not be significantly affected by the proposal. With the existing overall building height not increasing but being extended at present levels the character of the local area will not be significantly affected. No objections raised in relation to Local Plan Policies GC1, GC3 and H13.

 

 

 

3.     The neighbouring property Red Cottage was recently redeveloped under planning permission 01/0648/CH. It is set considerably further back on the plot than the block plan shows with a number of principal windows facing south towards Maltmans Lane. With an eaves height of 4.4 metres and total pitch heights of 7 metres to the front and 8.4 metres to the rear the proposed new flank elevation is considered overbearing and dominant appearance when viewed from Red Cottage. Given its location one metre from the flank boundary the current boundary screening is considered neither high enough nor thick enough to overcome these objections.  Due to the properties stepping the first floor rear windows would not introduce unacceptable levels of overlooking to the neighbouring properties. The new western flank window serves a dressing room and as such could be glazed with obscured glass to prevent additional overlooking. Objections raised with regard to Local Plan Policies GC1, H13 and H14.

 

 

 

4.     The eastern single storey extension and front porch are not considered overbearing or dominant in appearance; neither do they introduce additional overlooking due to them being well screened. No objections raised in relation to Local Plan Policies GC1, H13 and H14.

 

 

 

5.     There is sufficient parking space within the site to satisfy the requirements as set out in Local Plan 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 western first floor side/rear extension would, by virtue of its height, depth, bulk and proximity to the flank boundary of the site, be dominant and overbearing in appearance to the neighbouring property Red Cottage. As such the development would be detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of this property. This conflicts with Policies GC3, H13 and H14 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 (including the Adopted Alterations May 2001).

 

 

 

 

 

2004/223/CH

 

 

 

Case Officer:

Kate Jones

Date Received:

09/02/2004

Decide by Date:

04/04/2004

Parish:

Penn

Ward:

Penn & Coleshill

App Type:

Full application

Proposal:

REPLACEMENT ENTRANCE GATES TO SECONDARY ACCESS

Location:

    TIMBERED COTTAGE    WITHERIDGE LANE    PENN

Applicant:

MR AND MRS JEREMY HALL

 

 

 

SITE CONSTRAINTS

 

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

 

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

 

Ancient Woodland

 

Class B Road

 

Area of Special Advertisement Control

 

 

 

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

 

03/1665/CH     Detached single storey swimming pool building to replace existing detached outbuilding (amendment to planning permission 99/1872/CH). Refused – would harm the openness of the Green Belt since it is neither small in size nor subordinate in scale to the original dwelling house.

 

 

 

03/0324/CH     Detached triple garage with storage area in roof space (amendment to planning permission 91/1590/CH). Conditional permission.

 

 

 

01/0953/CH     Part two storey part single storey side/rear extension including conservatory. Conditional permission.

 

 

 

99/1872/CH     Detached single storey swimming pool building to replace existing detached outbuilding. Conditional permission.

 

 

 

99/1590/CH     Detached triple garage, conservatory on side elevation and part two storey part single storey rear extension. Conditional permission.

 

 

 

99/1368/CH     Detached single storey swimming pool building & ancillary facilities to replace existing detached outbuilding. Withdrawn.  

 

 

 

CH/664/82     Detached building for games room. Conditional permission.

 

 

 

CH/6/81     First floor extension. Conditional permission.

 

 

 

CH/174/77     Detached private concrete garage. Conditional permission.

 

 

 

THE APPLICATION

 

The application proposes entrance gates to the secondary access to replace the existing. The gate posts will each measure 0.5m in width and 2.2m in height. The gates will measure 3.6m wide and an average of 1.9m high.

 

 

 

PARISH COUNCIL

 

No comment.

 

 

 

REPRESENTATIONS

 

None received at time of drafting report.

 

 

 

CONSULTATIONS

 

County Highway Engineer: The access is existing with gates on the boundary. The proposal is for new gates set back 5m from carriageway edge and surfacing of access. The proposal is an improvement on the existing situation. Therefore, no objection.

 

 

 

POLICIES

 

The Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991 –2011: Policies GB3 and LS2.

 

 

 

The Replacement Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 2001 – 2016.  Deposit Draft – September 2003. Policies 8 and 29.

 

 

 

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC3, LSQ1, GB2, GB25, TR2 and TR3.

 

 

 

ISSUES

 

1.     The site is located within the open Green Belt and the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty where there is in principle no objections to entrance gates provided that the special character and high scenic quality are conserved or enhanced and the openness of the Green Belt is not harmed. Other relevant Local Plan policies should be complied with, including the need to preserve highway safety.

 

 

 

2.     It is considered that the proposed entrance gates would not intrude on the amenity of other properties or be visually intrusive in the landscape. The gates will be constructed predominantly of bricks and timber and with an overall maximum height of 2.2m are not considered to be out of character within the locality or harmful to the openness of the Green Belt.

 

 

 

3.     The proposed entrance gates are set back 5m from the carriageway and are an improvement on the existing situation. Therefore no objections are raised on highway grounds.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

(1) INFORMATIVE - I253 Need to obtain licence from Local Highway Authority to carry out work       

 

 

 

REASONS FOR APPROVAL ZA                                                                            

 

 

 

 

 

2004/225/CH

 

 

 

Case Officer:

Nicholas Bowden

Date Received:

09/02/2004

Decide by Date:

04/04/2004

Parish:

Little Missenden

Ward:

Holmer Green

App Type:

Full application

Proposal:

REPLACEMENT HOUSE (AMENDMENT TO PLANNING PERMISSION 03/1878/CH)

Location:

    NABS FARM    SPURLANDS END ROAD    GREAT KINGSHILL

Applicant:

MR S BURNHOPE

 

 

 

SITE CONSTRAINTS

 

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

 

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

 

Class C Road

 

Unclassified road

 

North Thames Gas pipeline

 

Area of Special Advertisement Control

 

 

 

Dwellings

 

Total New Dwellings - proposed:

1

Total Dwellings - displaced/demolished:

1

 

 

 

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

 

AM/0592/70: Outline application for agricultural workers dwelling. Permitted.

 

 

 

AM/1218/70: Agricultural workers dwelling (submission of details pursuant to outline planning permission AM/0592/70). Approved and implemented.

 

 

 

CH/1043/81: Deletion of condition 4 from AM/0592/70 to allow house to be occupied by person other than agricultural or forestry worker. Refused, holding could remain economically viable by retaining agricultural dwelling.

 

 

 

95/0381/CH: Application for certificate of lawfulness relating to the occupation of dwelling without compliance with agricultural occupancy restriction imposed on planning permission AM/0592/70. Refused, insufficient evidence demonstrated that dwelling had been occupied for at least ten years without compliance with condition.

 

 

 

95/0984/CH: Application for certificate of lawfulness relating to the occupation of dwelling without compliance with agricultural occupancy restriction imposed on planning permission AM/0592/70. Granted.

 

 

 

00/0164/CH: Part first floor, part two storey rear extension incorporating balcony and three dormer windows in front elevation. Permitted and extant.

 

 

 

01/0361/CH: Extension to existing garage to form double garage with pitched roof over. Permitted and extant.

 

 

 

01/1362/CH: Replacement house. Withdrawn.

 

 

 

02/0004/CH: Detached double garage. Permitted and extant.

 

 

 

02/1957/CH: Two storey and single storey side extension, single storey rear extension with roof terrace above and link detached garage. Refused, extensions not subordinate to original dwelling would be disproportionately larger harmful to openness and character of Green Belt, fails to integrate with existing dwelling.

 

 

 

03/0362/CH: Two storey side extension, two single storey rear extensions, one with roof terrace above, and detached double garage. Withdrawn.

 

 

 

03/0888/CH: Two storey side extension, two single storey rear extensions, one with roof terrace above and detached double garage. Permitted and extant.

 

 

 

03/1386/CH: Replacement house. Permitted and extant.

 

 

 

03/1741/CH: Detached double garage and store. Permitted and extant.

 

 

 

03/1878/CH: Replacement house (amendment to planning permission 03/1878/CH). Permitted and extant.

 

 

 

THE APPLICATION

 

Seeks full planning permission for a replacement house. The proposed house would be of maximum dimensions 19.5 metres in width, 8.3 metres in depth with a maximum height of 7.6 metres. The house features dormer windows to the front and rear and flint panelling on three elevations.

 

 

 

The application is submitted as an amendment to planning permission 03/1878/CH. Alterations to this scheme comprise an enlargement in the width of the house by 0.7 metres.

 

 

 

PARISH COUNCIL

 

Approve.

 

 

 

REPRESENTATIONS

 

One letter received which raises no objections to the application.

 

 

 

CONSULTATIONS

 

Transco: Examination of these plans reveal that our plant may be affected by these works.

 

 

 

POLICIES

 

The Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991 – 2011: Policies GB3 and LS2.

 

 

 

The Replacement Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 2001 – 2016. Deposit Draft - September 2003: Policies 8 and 29.

 

 

 

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC3, GB2, GB7, LSQ1, TR11 and TR16.

 

 

 

ISSUES

 

1.     The application site is located within the open Green Belt and within the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty wherein there is no objection in principle to replacement dwellings subject to the new dwelling not being materially larger than that which it replaces. Proposals should also conserve and enhance the high scenic quality of the landscape and achieve compliance with relevant Local Plan Policies.

 

 

 

2.     In this instance the application is submitted as an amendment to planning permission 03/1878/CH. This proposal incorporates an increase in width of the house by 0.7 metres bringing the overall width to 19.5 metres. The impact of this enlargement is not dramatic however does comprise an incremental enlargement of the house which needs to be considered carefully. Cumulative enlargements could result in the house becoming materially larger than the existing dwelling and thus erode the openness of the Green Belt. However in this instance it is not considered that the modest enlargement proposed would result in serious harm to the Green Belt. Nevertheless any further revisions that may be proposed would have to be considered carefully in order to ensure that proposals would not result in detriment to the Green Belt or Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

 

 

 

3.     It is not considered that this proposal gives cause for further objection and as there has been no significant change in circumstances since the consideration of the previous application no objections are raised.

 

 

 

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) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3(1) of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no development falling within Class A of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the said Order shall be erected, constructed, or placed within the application site unless planning permission is first granted by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority can properly consider whether any future proposals will constitute overdevelopment of the site or will in any other way be detrimental to the character of the locality.

 

 

 

(1) INFORMATIVE - The applicant is advised that equipment operated by Transco may be affected by this proposal. The applicant is advised to seek further information from Transco on 01277 236908.

 

 

 

REASONS FOR APPROVAL ZA                                                                            

 

 

 

 

 

2004/226/CH

 

 

 

Case Officer:

Nicholas Bowden

Date Received:

09/02/2004

Decide by Date:

04/04/2004

Parish:

Great Missenden - Prestwood

Ward:

Prestwood & Heath End

App Type:

Full application

Proposal:

REAR CONSERVATORY, SINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSION AND DETACHED DOUBLE GARAGE AT FRONT

Location:

    THE RETREAT   PETERLEY LANE    PRESTWOOD

Applicant:

MR AND MRS P MARK

 

 

 

SITE CONSTRAINTS

 

Green Belt other than GB4 or GB5 settlement

 

Within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

 

Class A Road

 

Class C Road

 

Road Improvement - Improvement Line

 

Area of Special Advertisement Control

 

adj Biological Notification site

 

 

 

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

 

AM/1636/73: Front porch and first floor extension. Permitted and implemented.

 

 

 

87/1972/CH: Single storey extension. Permitted and implemented.

 

 

 

88/1342/CH: Single storey extension. Permitted and unimplemented.

 

 

 

89/3229/CH: Retention of single storey extension and detached double garage (amendments to planning permissions 87/1972/CH and 88/1342/CH). Permitted.

 

 

 

90/1215/CH: Alterations and single storey front extension. Permitted and unimplemented.

 

 

 

98/0778/CH: Alterations, part single storey, part two storey, part three storey extension on north side elevation, conservatory and part first floor, part second floor side extension on south side elevation. Refused, extensions not subordinate in size and scale to original dwelling forming a disproportionate addition to dwelling harmful to openness and character of Green Belt and Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and overlooking from second floor dormer window in the east elevation to neighbouring Cherrywood.

 

 

 

99/0457/CH: Single storey infill extension between house and garage, rear conservatory, pitched roofs over existing flat roofed dormers at first floor level and three dormer windows at second floor level. Permitted and part implemented in that the link extension to the garage has been constructed.

 

 

 

02/1796/CH: Closure of existing access onto Wycombe Road and construction of new access onto Peterley. Permitted and implemented.

 

 

 

03/1724/CH: Rear conservatory, single storey front extension incorporating replacement garage, first floor side extension on north elevation, two storey side extension incorporating balcony on south elevation and dormer window in front (west) and rear (east) elevations. Refused, cumulative increase in size of dwelling would not be subordinate in size or scale to the original dwelling and overlooking to the neighbouring Cherrywood.

 

 

 

THE APPLICATION

 

Proposes alteration and extension to the existing building. Works comprise:

 

· A replacement and enlarged conservatory on the rear elevation 10.5 metres in width, 3 metres in depth and 3.6 metres in height.

 

· Demolition of side projecting garage and link extension and erection of single storey bay window 6.3 metres in width, 1.2 metres in depth and height of 2.8 metres.

 

· Pitched roofs over existing flat roof dormers (extant under 99/0457/CH).

 

· Insertion of three dormers in second floor level of roof (extant under 99/0457/CH).

 

· Detached double garage to front of dwelling 6.6 metres by 7.1 metres with gabled ends and ridge height of 6.6 metres.

 

 

 

PARISH COUNCIL

 

No objections.

 

 

 

REPRESENTATIONS

 

One letter of objection received which comments upon overlooking and concern about outlook from the obscure glazed dormer window and noise created by building work.

 

 

 

CONSULTATIONS

 

None relevant/received at time of drafting report.

 

 

 

POLICIES

 

The Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991 – 2011: Policies GB3 and LS2.

 

 

 

The Replacement Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 2001 – 2016. Deposit Draft - September 2003: Policies 8 and 29.

 

 

 

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC3, GB2, GB13, LSQ1, H14, H15, H16, H17, H18, TR11 and TR16.

 

 

 

ISSUES

 

1.     The application site is located within the open Green Belt and Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In such instances extensions to dwellings may be acceptable subject to them remaining subordinate in scale to the original dwelling and not intrusive in the landscape. Proposals should also conserve and enhance the high scenic quality of the landscape.

 

 

 

2.     In this instance the application is submitted further to the refused 03/1724/CH. In comparison to the refused scheme the scale of alterations to the existing building has been reduced. The new dormer windows and pitched roofs over the existing flat roofed dormers are the same as the extant 99/0457/CH and it is not considered that objection is warranted to these elements in themselves. The proposed conservatory replaces and enlarges the existing conservatory however this enlargement is offset to a great degree by the removal of the single storey projection linking in with the attached garage. While the dwelling has been significantly extended in the past, in view of the demolition of the side projection, it is not considered that the building would be enlarged disproportionately.

 

 

 

3.     However the detached double garage is of a substantial size with a large footprint and high roof ridge. The garage would be of a dramatic size and would appear excessively large in relation to the original dwelling and would not be subordinate in size or scale to the original dwelling. The garage would be harmful to the openness and character of the Green Belt.

 

 

 

4.     The previous proposal also would have resulted in overlooking to the neighbouring Cherrywood to the rear from the second floor rear dormer window. This proposal has indicated that the window would be obscure glazed which is considered sufficient to mitigate overlooking concerns. Indeed this approach was taken on the extant 99/0457/CH which featured an identical dormer window.

 

 

 

5.     Sufficient parking space is available within the site in order to meet the Council’s parking standards.

 

 

 

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) Within the Green Belt as defined on the Proposals Map of The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997, it is the Local Planning Authority's general policy to allow ancillary residential outbuildings subject to them being both small in size and subordinate in scale to the original dwelling. In this instance the proposed garage is excessively large and by virtue of its substantial size, bulk and high ridge line would result in a building that would be neither small in size nor subordinate in scale to the original dwelling. As such the building would be harmful to the openness and character of the Green Belt and fails to comply with Policies GB2 and GB15 of The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 (including Adopted Alterations May 2001), GB3 of The Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991 - 2011 and 8 of The Replacement Deposit Draft Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 2001 - 2016.

 

 

 

 

 

2004/227/CH

 

 

 

Case Officer:

Andrew MacDougall

Date Received:

10/02/2004

Decide by Date:

05/04/2004

Parish:

Amersham

Ward:

Chesham Bois & Weedon Hill

App Type:

Full application

Proposal:

SINGLE STOREY SIDE/REAR EXTENSION

Location:

       11 LEXHAM GARDENS    AMERSHAM

Applicant:

MR AND MRS J GROOM

 

 

 

SITE CONSTRAINTS

 

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

 

Unclassified road

 

Thames Water - groundwater protection zone

 

 

 

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

 

None relevant

 

 

 

THE APPLICATION

 

Proposed is a single storey side/rear extension measuring 13.9 metres deep, 6 metres wide with a lean to roof height of 2.7 metres rising to 3.7 metres and a boundary wall height to the rear of the proposal of 4 metres. The extension will be located on the boundary with No.13, 6 metres from the front boundary with Lexham Gardens and 30 metres from the rear boundary.

 

 

 

TOWN COUNCIL

 

No objection.

 

 

 

REPRESENTATIONS

 

One letter of objection received raising the following planning issues.

 

·

The windows of our dining room, kitchen and side conservatory face the side of the proposed extensions, which will abut the boundary of our property and will be very close to our house. The replacement side extension will be higher than the one it replaces and the new rear extension will be considerably higher than the existing wooden fence.

 

·

The new extensions will be dominating and overbearing, resulting in a hemmed-in claustrophobic effect on our property.

 

·

The new walls will completely obliterate the existing view of sky and trees from the kitchen window and substantially reduce the view from the dining room.

 

·

The available light to the kitchen and dining rooms will be greatly diminished as these windows are the only source of daylight to these rooms.

 

 

 

CONSULTATIONS

 

Thames Water – With regard to sewerage infrastructure we do not have any objections.

 

 

 

POLICIES

 

The Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991 –2011: Policies (none relevant)

 

 

 

The Replacement Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 2001 – 2016.  Deposit Draft – September 2003. Policies (none relevant)  

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

ISSUES

 

1.     The application site is located in the built up area of Amersham where the principle of development is acceptable subject to complying with the relevant Local Plan Policies.

 

 

 

2.     The proposal is of a design, size and scale in keeping with the existing property. The proposal is set back a good distance from Lexham Gardens so remains unobtrusive on the street scene. The proposal will not have a significantly different appearance than the existing single garage due to the proposal incorporating a rolling shutter door in the front elevation. The main height of No.11 remains unchanged. No objections are raised in relation to Local Plan Policies GC1 and H15.  

 

 

 

3.     The proposal will be located on the boundary between No.11 and No.13 Lexham Gardens. Currently the boundary is made up of the flank wall of the existing garage and utility room measuring approximately 9.5 metres deep and wooden fencing further towards the rear of the site. The proposed extension will increase the depth of this boundary wall to 13.3 metres. The central part of the extension will have a similar eaves height though towards the rear of the proposal the boundary wall height will be increased to 4 metres for a length of 1.5 metres before lowering to an eaves height of 3 metres for the rear extension. It is considered that given the depth of the proposal and the significant increase height towards the rear of the boundary wall, the proposal will be dominant and overbearing in appearance resulting in a significant loss of light to No.13’s dining-room/lounge principal window which is located approximately midpoint opposite the proposal. Objections raised with regard to Local Plan Policies GC2, GC3 and H13 and H14.

 

 

 

4.     With the property having an existing gross floor space in excess of 120 m2, there is no requirement for an additional parking space to be provided. However, because an existing space is being lost due to the removal of the garage this space will have to be replaced. This can be done to the front of the property due to an adequate sized front garden. No objections raised in relation to Local Plan 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: Refuse permission

 

For the following reasons

 

 

 

(1) The proposed extension would, by virtue of its height, depth and bulky appearance, be dominant and overbearing in appearance No.13 Lexham Gardens leading to a significant loss of light to the dining/lounge principal window of this property. As such the development would be detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of this neighbouring property. This conflicts with Policies GC2, GC3, H13 and H14 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 (including the Adopted Alterations May 2001).

 

 

 

 

 

2004/228/CH

 

 

 

Case Officer:

Laura Olson

Date Received:

10/02/2004

Decide by Date:

05/04/2004

Parish:

Little Missenden - Holmer Green

Ward:

Holmer Green

App Type:

Full application

Proposal:

PART TWO STOREY PART SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION

Location:

       25 BROWNS ROAD    HOLMER GREEN

Applicant:

MR AND MRS P JARROTT

 

 

 

SITE CONSTRAINTS

 

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

 

Class C Road

 

 

 

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

 

02/0243/CH: Rear single storey extension incorporating rear conservatory and single storey front extension. Approved, front extension implemented.

 

 

 

THE APPLICATION

 

Proposes a part two storey, part single storey rear extension. The single storey element of the proposal extends 2.1m from the rear of the dwelling, is 4.2m wide, and has a mono-pitch roof up to 3.4m high. It will fit into a corner angle created by the proposed two storey extension, which is replacing an existing single storey rear extension. The ground floor of the two storey extension is 5.4m wide and the first floor above it is stepped in on either side to create a 3.8m wide element. Both floors will project no further than 2.9m into the rear garden and its hipped roof has a ridge height of 7.0m.

 

 

 

PARISH COUNCIL

 

Approve.

 

 

 

REPRESENTATIONS

 

None received at time of drafting report.

 

 

 

CONSULTATIONS

 

None relevant

 

 

 

POLICIES

 

The Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991 –2011: Policies (none relevant)

 

 

 

The Replacement Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 2001 – 2016.  Deposit Draft – September 2003. Policies (none relevant)  

 

 

 

The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001): Policies GC1, GC3, H12, H13, H14, H16, H17, TR11 and TR16

 

 

 

ISSUES

 

1.     The application site lies within the built up area of Holmer Green, wherein there is no objection to domestic extensions in principle, subject to compliance with the relevant Local Plan Policies.

 

 

 

2.     It is noted that application 02/0243/CH approved a rear ground floor extension and an attached conservatory. In the current application, the conservatory has been removed and the positioning and dimensions of the single storey extension remain similar. As such, the main consideration of this application will be the acceptability of the proposed first floor extension.

 

 

 

3.     As the proposed development is set on the rear of the dwelling and little additional structure will be visible from the roadway, no concern is raised in terms of the proposal’s impact on the street scene. The roof of the two storey extension is set below the ridge of the existing house and this, along with the limited bulk of the first floor element, contributes to the subordinate appearance of the whole scheme. It is noted that the stepped shape of the proposed first floor results in it being at least 1m from the side boundary. This distance is considered acceptable as it is not a significant variance with other properties in the area and although this stepped design results in small, mismatched single storey side projections, it is considered that the scheme in its entirety would integrate satisfactorily.

 

 

 

4.     In 02/0243/CH, no objection was raised with regard to the proposal’s impact on neighbouring No. 23 and it is not considered that the addition of a first floor element will introduce any new concerns. With regard to neighbouring No. 27, it is noted that no first floor side elevation windows are featured in the proposal. As such, it is not considered that the proposal will significantly decrease the level of privacy currently enjoyed at No. 27. Any overlooking occurring from the proposed rear elevation windows will not be materially greater than the existing situation. No. 27 is set forward on its plot and its single storey rear extension, which has no side elevation primary windows to habitable rooms, will be adjacent to the proposed two storey element. Further, the proposed 2.9m deep flank wall will be visible from the first floor rear elevation windows of No. 27. However, the subordinate roof height, modest depth and stepped in positioning of the proposed two storey extension will prevent it from appearing overbearing and intrusive when viewed from this neighbouring property.

 

 

 

5.     The application site currently contains a drive with space for at least three vehicles to park. This provision of parking is sufficient to comply with the requirements of Policies TR11 and TR16.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permission

 

Subject to the following conditions

 

 

 

(1) C108 General Time Limit

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order, with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows shall be inserted or constructed at any time at first floor level or above in the south west elevation of the extension hereby permitted.

 

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

 

 

 

REASONS FOR APPROVAL ZA                                                                            

 

 

 

 

 

2004/229/CH

 

 

 

Case Officer:

Kate Jones

Date Received:

10/02/2004

Decide by Date:

05/04/2004

Parish:

Chesham

Ward:

Hilltop & Townsend

App Type:

Full application

Proposal:

FRONT CONSERVATORY

Location:

       32 TAYLORS ROAD    CHESHAM

Applicant:

MRS STEPHENSON

 

 

 

SITE CONSTRAINTS

 

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

 

Unclassified road

 

 

 

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

 

CH/423/76     Detached garage and workshop. Conditional permission.

 

 

 

THE APPLICATION

 

The application proposes a front conservatory measuring 2.4m wide by 2.4m deep with a ridge height of 2.7m. It will be located 0.35m from the boundary with the neighbouring dwelling No. 30.

 

 

 

TOWN COUNCIL

 

No objection.

 

 

 

REPRESENTATIONS

 

One letter has been received from the occupants of the neighbouring property. Whilst not objecting to the application, the neighbours would like the south east elevation of the proposed conservatory to be obscure glazed to prevent overlooking.

 

 

 

CONSULTATIONS

 

None relevant.

 

 

 

POLICIES

 

The Adopted Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991 –2011: Policies (none relevant)

 

 

 

The Replacement Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 2001 – 2016.  Deposit Draft – September 2003. Policies (none relevant)

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

ISSUES

 

1.     The application site is located within the built up area of Chesham where there is in principle no objection to such a conservatory subject to compliance with relevant Local Plan policies.

 

 

 

2.     The application proposes a front conservatory which is of a satisfactory design for the location. Given that the structure is of a light construction with predominantly glazed elevations and that the existing dwelling projects 0.8m further forward than the proposal, it is considered that the conservatory will not appear prominent within the street scene.

 

 

 

3.     The proposed conservatory is located 0.35m from the boundary with the neighbouring dwelling No. 30. Whilst it is noted that the conservatory will lie within close proximity to a ground floor window of a habitable room of the neighbouring property, it is considered that by virtue of the nature of the building (being light in frame and design) and due to its relatively low height, the conservatory will not appear prominent or overbearing to the occupants of No. 30. Provided that the glass of the south east elevation is obscure glazed and fixed up to 1.8m in height, no overlooking will occur. This can be secured through a condition.

 

 

 

4.     The site has at least three off-street parking spaces and as such no objections are raised with respect to Policies TR11 and TR16.

 

 

 

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