Source: https://isa.chiltern.gov.uk/democracy/CeListDocuments.aspx?CommitteeId=0&MeetingId=950&DF=14%2F08%2F2009&Ver=2
Timestamp: 2019-03-22 22:09:09
Document Index: 250256631

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1']

Meeting of Delegated Planning Application Reports on Friday, 14th August, 2009 - Chiltern District Council
Delegated Planning Application Reports
2009.05.01 to 2010.04.30 - Delegated Planning Application Reports, Delegated List of Planning Applications - Week Ending 2009.08.14
Determined Week Ending 14/08/2009
CH/2009/0689/FA
Retention of part single storey, part two storey side/front extension incorporating alterations to roof of existing dwelling, single storey front and rear extensions and roof extension to existing single storey side section (amendment to planning permission CH/2007/1985/FA)
Adjacent to Unclassified Road
Within Chilterns AONB
Biological Site
Adj Biological Notif Site NC1
Adjacent to Green Belt
CH/2007/1985/FA: Part single storey, part two storey side/front extension, single storey front and rear extensions and roof extension to existing single storey side section. Conditional permission.
CH/2006/1942/EU: Application for a certificate of lawfulness for an existing use relating to the occupation of the building as a single dwelling and the use of the detached outbuilding without compliance with Condition No. 5 attached to planning permission AM/1575/1973. Certificate issued.
CH/2006/1023/FA: Change of use of ground floor retail area and detached workshop to ancillary residential use. Refused permission.
CH/2003/0171/FA: Change of use of premises to veterinary surgery and self contained residential unit. Refused permission.
CH/1982/0766/FA: Erection of 2 storey rear extension to provide living accommodation. Conditional permission.
The application proposes an amendment to planning permission CH/2007/1985/FA and is for the retention of part single storey, part two storey side/front extension incorporating alterations to roof of existing dwelling, single storey front and rear extensions and roof extension to existing single storey side section in the form of roof lanterns and a dummy pitch roof to the front.
A revised planning application has been submitted because the development has not been built in accordance with the approved plans. The differences include that the:
- Roof of the main part of the dwelling has been increased in height (0.3m) and pitch with a roof lantern added to the top and four roof lights inserted into the northern side elevation;
- Depth of the dwelling has increased by 0.8m by virtue of increases to the depth of the garage and rear extension;
- Front door has been recessed further under the covered area and the area adjacent to the door has been enclosed and incorporated into the “family room”;
- Flat roof of the existing western single storey side extension has not been generally raised in height, although the dummy-pitched roof and roof lanterns were added and have been altered (dummy- pitched roof has been hipped and lanterns have been re-sited);
- Roof of the single storey rear extension has been altered to remove the first floor balcony and provide a glazed roof to the “kitchen/breakfast room”;
- Chimney has been reduced in height by 0.5m; and;
- Design of the second floor rear window and first floor side window have changed.
All other aspects of the development remain the same as previously approved.
The applicant has submitted a Design and Access Statement.
The applicant has submitted a covering letter which lists a summary of the changes made from planning permission CH/2007/1985/FA and raises the following points:
- The variations are minor
- A number of the variations were made following discussions with neighbours to reduce any effects on their properties
- Variations do not have an adverse effect on the appearance of the property or upon the amenity of adjoining dwellings
- The side veluxes are obscure glazed and will be fixed shut to eliminate any risk of overlooking. A condition is invited to secure that arrangement
- Extensions and alterations as constructed are a satisfactory form of development which comply with planning policies
In addition the applicant has submitted a letter from the occupier of Hampdendale stating that they have no objection to the four velux windows.
One letter of objection has been received from the occupiers of Brackens, raising concerns about the limited height of the chimney and specifically the potential for smoke to enter their property under certain conditions.
The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001 and July 2004). Policies as saved from 28 September 2007: Policies GC1, GC3, LSQ1, H11, H13, H14, H15, H16 H17, TR11 and TR16.
1. The site is located in the built up area of Prestwood wherein the principle of development is acceptable subject to compliance with relevant Local Plan policies. It also lies within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) therefore any proposals must conserve the high scenic value of the locality.
2. Mindful that this application is submitted further to planning permission CH/2007/1985/FA, the issues for consideration relate to the main differences between the two schemes. A full list of the differences is included under the Application section above, however the main changes which require consideration are: the increases to the height of the roof, the size of the “family room” and the overall depth of the dwelling; alterations to the dummy pitched roof on the side extension and chimney; various changes to fenestration details; and the insertion of four roof lights in the western roof slope.
3. In respect of the increases to the height and pitch of the roof of the main dwelling, the size of the family room and the depth of the dwelling, given the degree of the changes they are considered to relate satisfactorily into the existing dwelling and street scene and not cause detriment to the amenities enjoyed by neighbouring properties. Furthermore, the increase in floorspace does not give rise to parking issues, given that there is already in excess of 3 parking spaces within the curtilage of the property.
4. In regard to the alterations to the dummy-pitched roof on the western elevation and chimney on the eastern elevations, these changes reduce the size of both of these structures. The altered design of both the dummy pitched roof and chimney are considered to be acceptable in relation to the dwelling and the streetscene. It is noted that concerns have been raised in respect of potential smoke nuisance from the chimney; however, should such a nuisance occur it could be controlled by Environmental Health legislation. The structures are therefore not considered to give rise to detriment to the amenities enjoyed by neighbouring properties.
5. In terms of fenestration changes, a first floor window in the western side elevation and a second floor window in the rear elevation have been narrowed and elongated, the roof of the “breakfast/kitchen” room has been fully glazed, and the first floor rear balcony has been omitted. These fenestration changes are such that they do not give rise to detriment to the amenities of neighbouring properties.
6. In regard to the addition of four roof lights to the western side elevation, subject to a condition requiring these windows to be obscured and fixed shut, as invited by the applicant, it is not considered that an objection could be sustained in respect of neighbour amenity.
7. It is noted that Condition 3 of planning permission CH/2007/1985/FA requires a 1.8m means of enclosure to be erected along the common boundary with Brackens for a distance of 8m along the boundary where the existing garage was due to be removed and that the enclosure should remain in place thereafter. The existing garage has been demolished apart from the side wall that was on the boundary with Bracken and it is noted that this wall has been retained as a 1.75m high means of enclosure. The retention of this side wall achieves the same purpose of Condition 3, albeit 0.05m lower.
8. The following recommendation is made having regard to the above and also to the content of the Human Rights Act 1998.
1 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 other than those expressly authorised by this permission, or as subsequently agreed in writing by the local planning authority, shall be inserted, enlarged or constructed at any time in the northern and southern elevations of the extensions hereby permitted.
2 A suitable means of enclosure at least 1.75 metres high shall remain in place hereafter along the common boundary with Brackens for a distance of 8 metres along the boundary where the garage was demolished unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality and the privacy of the adjoining property.
3 Within one month of the date of this permission, the four roof lights in the northern side elevation of the dwelling shall be completely glazed using obscure glass and shall be permanently fixed shut. The window shall thereafter be permanently retained in the position shown with obscure glazing in all panes of glass and permanently fixed shut and shall not be increased in size or altered in any way.
Having regard to the existing development in the area, the relevant provisions of the Development Plan together with all other material considerations, it is considered that subject to the conditions of this approval, the proposed development accords with the Development Plan, and would not significantly affect the character or appearance of the area or the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers.
For full details of the Council's reasons for allowing the development including the relevant Development Plan policies please see the officer's report which is available on the Council's Website or at the Council offices.
CH/2009/0716/FA
Conversion of listed barn to habitable dwelling
Mr And Mrs W Mowle
Area Special Adv. Control
Within Green Belt other than GB4 GB5
CH/2009/0719/HB Conversion of listed barn to habitable dwelling. Pending decision.
AM/1773/61 Conversion of barn to house. Refused permission. Allowed at appeal.
The following relevant planning history relates to the main farmhouse and adjacent cottages at Grove Farm.
CH/2007/2321/FA Part two storey, part single storey infill extension to create one residential unit, front porch extension and first floor front/side extension. Refused permission. Detrimental to openness of Green Belt.
CH/2007/1624/FA Two storey infill extension to create one residential unit and single storey front extension. Refused permission. Detrimental to openness of Green Belt. Allowed at appeal.
The application proposes the change of use of a parcel of land and the conversion of a barn to provide a new residential property also incorporating an existing open store building. The proposed residential plot would measure a maximum of 84 metres in width by 89 metres in depth. The existing barn would be positioned 2.1 metres from the north west boundary of the proposed plot, a minimum of 46 metres from the proposed south east property boundary and 29 metres from the rear boundary of the new plot. The conversion of the existing barn would include the enclosure of the open south west side of the building, alterations to the fenestration and internal alterations including the provision of first floor gallery areas within the north west and south east ends of the building.
No objections, with a view to saving this listed barn.
The application was accompanied by a Design and Access Statement and a Structural Report for the existing barn.
The applicant has submitted a letter which can be summarised as follows.
- The structural engineer for the proposed conversion of the listed barn has confirmed that the ‘A’ frame roof structure will allow the creation of the proposed first floor level. The applicant would provide detailed information as to how this can be achieved prior to undertaking the conversion.
- The design of the internal door from the proposed kitchen area to the proposed lounge area is clarified.
- The new staircases, handrails and architraves etc. would be constructed of prepared oak referred to as ‘wrot’.
- New structural oak would have a natural sawn finish.
One email of support for the application has been received.
Historic Building Officer:
The timber barn at Grove Farm is listed Grade II. The list description says that it is “circa early C18”, but dating is in my opinion problematic. The plinth contains old narrow bricks suggesting an early date, but the framing above is made up of timbers that have all been re-used from elsewhere and reconstructed. While this practice is not exceptional, and all the joints remain pegged in the expected traditional manner, the trusses are set unusually close together, with bay widths mostly of 3 metres or less (compared with a more usual 3.5 - 4 metres in barns of similar span). The barn is also unusually long, with 10 structural bays, and does not wholly accord with usual traditional construction in this area. The long diagonal wall braces, slender wall studs and use of a ridge board, in any case suggest a later 18th or early 19th century date, as do the hipped cart entry porches or midstreys. The lean-to on the south side, between the cart entry porches, is a modern addition, with saw-cut rafters and posts, and the clerestory dormers are also modern. As for the setting of the barn, this is somewhat disconcerting as no other historic farm buildings survive to illustrate the character of the original farmyard. The nearby cottages incorporate remnants of 18th-19th century walling, but the main farmhouse has been altered and extended beyond recognition. This situation may owe much to the use of the site as a P.O.W. camp in the war. Subsequent occupation of the site as a religious retreat may explain the clerestory dormers, as the barn was used as a chapel at this period.
An outline application to convert the barn to a dwelling was made in 1961, prior to listing. It was refused by A.R.D.C. on the grounds that it would not preserve the historic character of the building, but allowed at appeal on the grounds that it would. How this could be judged without any drawings to show the changes is now difficult to imagine. I would not in any case regard the decision as setting any precedent, given the subsequent listing and the change in guidance provided by PPG 15 and on-going English Heritage advice (including “The Conversion of Traditional Farm Buildings”, 2006). The current applications are very much more detailed and have been subject to much pre-application discussion and modification with regard to the listed building issues.
Principle of conversion to a dwelling:
The barn is currently used as a store, and for occasional events such as the Pony Club Summer Camp. The applicants point to the obvious difficulties of access via Welders Lane and the constraints that this imposes on any commercial use. They also quote a figure of £200,000 as the potential cost of repair to solve the deficiencies itemised in the structural report. This high figure is perhaps clarified in the precis of the Structural Report, which notes that more significant repair works would be necessary to allow residential conversion, whereas the requirements for agricultural use would be comparatively minimal. The high cost approach seems to be advocated on the grounds of the higher standard of preservation and reduced costs of future maintenance. While this argument is perhaps influenced by the applicants’ strong desire for the conversion, I do recognise that the costs of permanently stabilising the frame and countering the effects of ongoing outward thrust will be more than the present storage use could fund, and that a more profitable use is required to ensure the long-term viability of the barn. Current guidance advocates sustainable re-use of such buildings, and does not encourage neglect to the point of dereliction. I therefore have to accept that conversion to a dwelling might provide the most relevant solution, as long as the proposals adequately preserve the special historic interest.
In this respect I am aware of local opinion that this is not only a very fine barn, but also one of the very minimal number in the locality that have escaped conversion, and should therefore be preserved unaltered regardless. In cases of exceptional historic quality and character I think that this exceptional approach could be justified. However, I do not think it tenable for a barn that, while still special, is likely to have been reconstructed at comparatively late date, as explained above, and that has already lost much of its historic context.
Structural Report:
This concludes that the barn is “in a structurally stable condition while exhibiting defects which could impair overall structural integrity in the future”. The main issues seem to be deflection of the wall plate resulting from the outward thrust of the roof structure, which in turn results from defects in the trusses. These stem from broken joints, cracked members and weakness around mortices designed for the previous use of the timbers. These defects are not systematic but rather an accumulation of small issues that can easily be addressed on an individual basis. The other main problem is a short section of rolling plinth on the north side. Issues such as the water-tightness of the dormers and the provision of adequate rainwater goods are standard maintenance. There is therefore no reason why the existing structure should not be capable of conversion (or retention) without major reconstruction.
I do note, however, that the report makes some assumptions that are not wholly consistent with traditional barn construction. The insistence on the ridge piece as being wholly inadequate is misled – traditional side purlin construction such as used here never relied on a ridge, and the ridge board was introduced more for ease of construction than major support. Any additional ridge should therefore not become prominent. Nor is there any evidence that aisles have been removed. Non-aisled barns with cart porches on one side and opposing flush cart doors on the other are standard for this area. In practical terms the Report does not extend to any details as to the method of carrying out repairs to the timber frame. As these are of great importance to the retention of the existing structural character, a condition requiring details of methods and materials will be essential, with a clear expectation that new oak will be used for the repairs and new features.
Impact on the exterior character of the barn:
The proposed elevations maintain the existing form of the barn with the exceptions of a very slight increase (c.200 mm) in the eaves height of the lean-to, and the overall enlargement of walls and roof by c.140 mm of insulation. The rise in the eaves of the lean-to is required to allow headroom for the doors and glazed screen within it, and in my opinion should not over-prejudice the proportions and subordinate character in relation to the main building. The catslide roof feature will be maintained, with the existing change in angle slightly adjusted to a minimally shallower pitch. The adjustment will not affect any historic fabric, and the change in appearance is fairly minimal. The increase arising from the insulation should be barely detectable as long as the existing eaves details are maintained or replicated as suggested in the Design and Access Statement. Other changes initially proposed in pre-application discussion, such as raising the cart entry porches or adding matching porches to the rear, have been abandoned.
In terms of appearance the roof will be re-clad in the existing, or matching, plain clay tiles, and the walls with matching timber cladding. The plinth is to be retained or rebuilt (for instance where it is rolling over to the rear) in matching brick. The clerestory dormers will be retained, and two new inset dormers added, one to each elevation. The inset dormers are cut into the existing roof at eaves level, and do not entail additional bulk. In the south elevation the cart entries are to be enclosed with imitation threshing boards at low level, and with glazing above. This glazing will have external vertical plank shutters similar to the existing doors. The open front of the lean-to will be mostly glazed, while other windows are few and minimally domestic in character. This is the elevation most exposed to view from the public footpath to the south. In the more private north elevation the former cart entries will be re-opened and glazed, with ‘threshing board’ plinths as to the south, and two further bays will be glazed above the plinth but with the wall studs retained behind. A pair of further triangular windows will be inserted around the diagonal brace structure. This elevation will therefore be more open than at present, but appears functional rather than particularly domestic, and allows for retention of the framing. More striking will be the large window in the east gable end. A high apex window already exists here, but the proposed two-storey window below will be wholly new. It will be framed as part of the cladding and will not entail removal of the framing behind. In terms of size this is a daring innovation, but the window does have affinity with the shape of the gable. In my opinion the overall arrangement of the new windows has a bold simplicity that is appropriate to the past and proposed future function of the barn, and a sense of architectural style that adds positively to its character. I therefore do not see reason to raise objection on this count.
The impact of the introduction of services would appear to be minimal. The flue proposed for the north roof slope will be reasonably discreet if finished in black. There is no reason why any further requirement for extract vents or pipe work should necessarily be excessive, and it should be controllable by condition.
In my opinion the proposals do much to retain the external character of the barn, with modifications that respect its historic function and basic style. As long as subject to conditions, I do not see reason to raise objection.
Impact on the internal character of the barn:
Conversion of the interior is complicated by the very frequent incidence of the roof trusses, and the low level of the tiebeams, which impede any upper storey space. The submitted scheme proposes that the central half of the barn is retained as a full-height open space, occupying 5 out of the 10 bays, with glazed screens allowing internal views of roof trusses beyond. All trusses here are to remain unaltered except for the introduction of additional ‘aisle posts’ below the tiebeams of trusses 5 and 9, to support upper floors beyond. The insertion of the upper floors is more problematic in that the formation of any extensive space entails cutting the tiebeams in three instances. I would usually object to this in standard historic barns. However, given the multiplicity of trusses in this case, and the greater proportion that remain unaltered, I have some sympathy both with the concept and the proposed means of re-establishing support by means of inserted ‘aisle posts’. This solution echoes historic carpentry practice to some extent, but it will be important to ensure that the new work is distinguishable from the old by the use of new oak.
I have greater qualms about the cart bays, which are both affected by the insertion of the proposed upper floors. The extent of these floors has been reduced prior to application so as to give a gallery effect, with shallow full height spaces behind the porch glazing, and stair wells behind the rear (north) glazing. Transverse partitions have also been removed to allow through views from front to rear. It is, however, proposed to remove sections of the main wall plate in order to allow first floor access into the porch areas of the upper floor. In view of the compromises, and in view of the major full-height space retained elsewhere, I consider the proposed arrangement just about acceptable, as long as details of alternative means of support for the retained main wall plate, and for the porch structure, are subject to approval.
The proposed method of insulation, as detailed in the Design and Access Statement, should leave all timbers exposed to internal view. Any variation should ensure that this remains the case.
Impact on the setting of the barn:
The proposed curtilage is adequate to allow good private views of the main length of the barn from within the proposed boundaries. Hard standing is already extensive and the proposed site plan retains it much as existing. Conditions should, however, ensure that materials for any replacement hard standing are subject to approval as excessive use of domestic -style paving would detract from the rural character of the setting. The post and rail fencing is already in existence, as is the 5-bar gate. These should allow the barn to remain part of the wider rural context, and should allow some continued view from the public footpath. Any hedging along the south/south-east boundary should be of local field-hedge type. The hedging already planted between the barn and house is welcome in separating the somewhat incongruous association. As usual in the case of barn conversions it would be desirable to remove permitted development rights to prevent accumulation of domestic outbuildings and other structures, especially as the historic curtilage of the building as a lone former barn may legally be regarded as minimal.
In summary, the conversion proposals provide for a reasonably certain future for the listed building, and do not entail any major reconstruction. They respect the external character of the barn while incorporating additional fenestration in a bold but sympathetic manner. Internally there is a greater element of compromise, especially in the provision of upper floors across the cart entry bays and in the structural modification of three of the roof trusses. The proposals do, however, maintain half the interior as full-height open space, and retain the timber construction on view. Given the unusual length and the frequency of trusses I consider that this approach might be justified in this instance. As long as any permission/Consent is subject to the appropriate conditions, I do not see adequate reason to raise objection on listed building grounds.
Buckinghamshire County Highway Authority:
The Highway Authority was contacted for pre-planning advice regarding the conversion of the existing barn to one dwelling. Previously the Highway Authority has raised concern to the intensification of the access onto Welders Lane due to the substandard visibility and the nature of Welders Lane being a narrow rural road.
Welders Lane is a narrow rural lane with varying carriageway widths, there are informal and formal passing bays to the west of the site, however, simultaneous vehicle flow of two small cars is possible to the east of the site. Welders Lane is subject to the national speed limit however vehicle speeds are considerably slower due to the nature of the carriageway.
The previous use of the barn would have lead to large vehicles continually accessing the site, the change of use to residential accommodation would reduce the amount of large vehicles which would have potentially been generated by the barn. Therefore given the nature of Welders Lane and the fact that a significant vehicular intensification will not be occurring and there would potentially be a reduction in large vehicles utilising Welders Lane, I would raise no objection on highway safety grounds.
I therefore have no objection to the proposal and no conditions to include in any planning permission you may grant.
Building Control – Fire Fighting Access:
The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001 and July 2004). Policies as saved from 28 September 2007: Policies GC1, GC3, GB2, GB11, H11, H12, H18, LB1, LB2, TR2, TR3, TR11 and TR16.
1. The site is located in the open Green Belt where, in accordance with Policy GB11 of Adopted Local Plan, the reuse of non-residential buildings can be considered acceptable where it can be shown that the building has been substantially complete for at least 10 years prior to the date of application, the building is not in a derelict condition, and the proposed conversion will not have a materially greater impact on the Green Belt than the existing use. Further to this, the building the subject of this application is also a Grade II listed building and therefore the proposed alterations must not cause harm to the historic interest of the building. The site is also in the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and therefore any proposal must conserve the high scenic quality of the locality.
2. The application site is accessed from a single private track from Welders Lane to the south. The existing barn is positioned to the south west of the main farmhouse and the adjacent row of cottages. There would be views of the proposed dwelling and residential plot within the wider landscape and from the public footpath running to the west and south of the application site. The Historic Buildings Officer (HBO) considers that the existing barn is a late 18th or early 19th century construction and whilst no information pertaining to the longevity of the building has been submitted it is clear that the building has been substantially complete for at least 10 years. On the basis of the structural survey submitted with the application and the site visits undertaken by the Case Officer and the Historic Buildings Officer it has been satisfied that the barn is not in a derelict condition and whilst in need of repair, is structurally sound. The proposed conversion of the building to a dwelling would not require substantial additions to the building, although it is noted that the eaves level of the existing lean-to between the two storey front projections will be raised, however there is a need for some structural repairs to the building. The submitted structural survey does conclude that the barn exhibits defects and, as noted by the HBO, the main issue seems to be the deflection of the wall plate resulting from outward thrust of the roof structure. However, she concludes that there is no reason why the existing structure should not be capable of conversion. Notwithstanding this, the HBO does note that no details as to the method of carrying out repair to the timber frame has been submitted. In addition, the proposal will involve the cutting of tie beams in order to insert the first floor level, however, the greater proportion will remain unaltered and a means of re-establishing support by means of inserted ‘aisle-posts’ has been proposed. Taking into account the comments from the HBO and the information contained within the structural survey, it is considered that the new building would not involve substantial alteration and would not amount to major reconstruction or be tantamount to the construction of a new building. A number of changes are proposed to fenestration with a number of new openings to the external elevations including the insertion of a large glazed panel to the east elevation of the building. However, as the HBO notes, this glazing would have an affinity with the shape of the gable in which it would be inserted. Furthermore, no extensions to the barn are proposed. The Design and Access Statement for the application indicates that there is no need for the building for agricultural purposes. The HBO is of the opinion that the proposal would provide a reasonably certain future for the listed building and, subject to the appropriate conditions being attached to any permission granted, the proposal would not harm the special interest of the building. It is not considered that the use of the listed barn, the adjacent open store and the proposed plot as a residential property would have a materially greater impact upon the openness of the Green Belt than the existing use. Any extension to the building, the provision of any new buildings within the curtilage of the new dwelling and the laying of any hardstanding could also be controlled by way of a condition attached to any permission granted. As such the proposal does not conflict with the criteria set out in Local Plan Policies GB11 and LB1.
3. Both the proposed dwelling and plot would provide an acceptable level of residential amenity for the future occupiers. Given the position of the proposed dwelling and the layout of the proposed plot, the proposal would not harm the amenities of the occupiers of the main farmhouse or the adjacent cottages and there are no other neighbouring residential properties which would be impaired by the proposal.
4. Buckinghamshire County Highway Authority raises no objection to the proposal in terms of highway safety. The site currently benefits from areas of hardstanding to the north, east and south of the proposed dwelling. The layout of the hardstanding to the south of the dwelling is to be reconfigured as part of the scheme; however the proposed arrangements would offer adequate parking provision for a dwelling of this size to meet the standards set out in Local Plan Policies TR11 and TR16.
1 C108A General Time Limit
2 The works hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings and the details specified in the Design and Access Statement unless otherwise subject to the conditions below or otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that there is no detriment to the character of the listed building.
3 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3(1) of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, as amended (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no development falling within Classes A to G of Part 1 of Schedule 2, or Class A of Part 2 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.
4 Before works commences a method statement for the repair of the timber frame of the barn, to include details of the techniques and materials to be used, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The repair work shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise further agreed in writing.
5 No parts of the historic timber frame of the barn shall be cut, altered or removed, other than as detailed on the approved drawings, or in accordance with the agreed repairs. Nor shall the historic frame be cleaned by means of sand-blasting. No abrasive or chemical methods for cleaning the frame shall be used unless previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
6 Any replacement or additional framing shall be installed using new oak.
Reason: To ensure that there is no detriment to or confusion as to the character of the listed building.
7 The roof shall be re-clad with the plain clay tiles salvaged from the existing roof, with any deficiency made good with tiles of matching size, colour and texture. The roofs and cheeks of the existing dormers shall likewise be re-clad with the existing or matching tiles, and the cheeks of the inset dormers shall be clad either in lead or black-stained timber unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local planning Authority. At the eaves the rafter feet shall remain exposed or be replicated as detailed on Drawing (08)B.51 as appended to the Design and Access Statement. No alterations to the roof, dormer windows or rafter feet shall be carried out at any time unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To preserve the character of the listed building.
8 The timber-framed walls shall be re-clad with weather boards salvaged from the existing cladding, or with boards of matching size and profile, with a minimum width of 130 mm. New boards inserted to enclose the existing and former cart entries shall be set horizontally to appear as threshing boards, or vertically to appear as door shutters, as detailed on the approved drawings. All windows and glazed doors shall be framed with timber. All external timber, whether structural, cladding or window/door framing, shall be stained black to match the existing. No alterations to the weather boards, windows or glazed doors shall be carried out at any time unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
9 All repairs and alterations to the brick plinth shall be carried out using brick of a size, colour and texture to match the existing, and with lime mortar to match the original construction. No works to underpin the plinth shall be carried out unless full details of the works have been previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
10 The large glazed panels in the east elevation and between trusses 4 – 5 and 7 – 8 on the north elevation shall be installed outside the timber frame of the barn, leaving the frame intact behind on the inside as detailed on the approved drawings. No alterations to the glazed panels in the east elevation shall be carried out at any time unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt, and to ensure that there is no detriment to the character of the listed building.
11 Rainwater goods shall be replaced in cast iron with black finish as existing. The approved flue for the fireplace shall also be of metal construction finished in black. Details of any other external pipe work or vents shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before installation. The work shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise further agreed in writing. No alterations to the rainwater goods or any other external pipe work or vents shall be carried out at any time unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
12 The fire place/partition wall in the central full height living space shall rise no higher than first floor level unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
13 Before work commences, full details of any additional support for the upper floor, other than that deriving from the ‘aisle posts’ detailed in the application, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Full details shall be similarly submitted and approved for the means of structurally supporting and stabilising the cart entry bays and porches, given the approved removal of the wall plate to these bays. The work shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
14 Insulation shall be installed in accordance with the details shown on Sheet (08) B. 51 as appended to the Design and Access Statement, and the timber frame shall be exposed to the interior, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
15 Prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, hard surfacing shall be installed only in accordance with the approved site plan as detailed on Drawing (08) SK 11. Details of the materials to be used for any replacement of the existing or additional permitted hard surfacing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before that surfacing is installed. The hard surfacing shall then be laid out in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be maintained as approved unless subject to further agreement in writing by that Authority.
Reason: To ensure that there is no detriment to the setting of the listed building.
16 This permission shall relate to the submitted application form and plans as subsequently amended by drawing number B(09)SK21A received by the Local Planning Authority on 03.08.09.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as to what is permitted.
CH/2009/0721/HB
Mr Adam Ralton
Internal and external works to facilitate re-instatement of fire-damaged building
The Famous Fish Company
Adjacent to C Road
Adjacent Public Footpaths and Public ROW
Within 500m of SINC NC1
Thames Groundwater Prot Zone GC9
R Chess, Misbourne liable to flood GC10
Shopping Area, not PSF
AM/828/55: Hanging sign. Conditional permission.
AM/595/59: Alterations. Unconditional permission
AM/811/61: Retention of shed. Unconditional permission.
AM/1615/64: Illuminated box sign. Refused.
CH/1999/80: Internal alterations to bathroom. Permitted development.
CH/1992/0318/FA: Demolition of corrugated roof and store and erection of single storey rear extension: Conditional permission. Implemented.
CH/1992/0319/HB: Demolition of corrugated roof and store and erection of single storey rear extension. Conditional consent. Implemented.
CH/1995/0917/AD: Retention of externally illuminated hanging sign. Conditional consent
CH/1995/0918/HB: Retention of non-illuminated fascia sign and externally illuminated hanging sign. Conditional consent.
CH/2002/1262/HB: Internal alterations to structure of upper floor. Conditional consent.
The application proposes internal and external alterations to facilitate re-instatement of fire-damaged building.
A Design and Access Statement has been submitted with the application (summarised):
- Premises suffered fire damage on 16 June 2008. Repair and replacement works are necessary for elements damaged by the fire and as a consequence of the fire being extinguished.
- 11 Market Square is a 16th Century building constructed with an oak frame and a combination of brickwork, wattle and daub, and lath and plaster infill panels. There is some external render.
- The roof structures and coverings, oak framing sections, a dormer construction, and walls have suffered damage.
- The proposals for reinstating the premises are to carry out any replacements using like for like materials and construction methods.
- The roof structure is to be replaced, salvaged tiles are to be retained, roof profiles are to be reinstated.
- Front roof space soffit, gable internal walls, first floor ceilings and a ground floor ceiling are to e replaced. Wattle and daub and lath and plaster wall panels are to be repaired. Oak damaged beyond repair will be replaced.
District Historic Buildings Officer: 11 Market Square is the central building in a row of three Grade II listed buildings damaged by fire in June 2008. It shares the same 16th-early 17th century timber-framed construction as Number 13, with early daub wall panels surviving in the party wall around the shared central chimney. The fire destroyed the roof of the modern rear extension, and rose into the roof space, with great damage to all rafters and many of the loft wall panels, and partial damage to the roof trusses. As with the neighbouring buildings, the ground and first-floor rooms were less damaged by the fire, but have lost original plasterwork to walls and ceilings because of water damage essential to put out the fire. Works to repair Number 13, adjacent to the left, are essentially complete, and the re-instatement of Number 9, to the right, is well under way.
This application for Number 11 has been necessary to define the principles and extent of the re-instatement given the major extent of the damage, particularly to the roof and loft area, and has been the subject of considerable pre-application discussion. It has been prepared by the same agent as for the works to Number 13, and the proposals follow principles already approved as part of the Listed Building Consent for that property. Works have already commenced, and are being carried out by the same contractors as for Number 13. By the time of my site visit on 5th August the reconstruction of the roof and gable trusses had already taken place as proposed, and the roof pitches had been almost completely re-clad with the proposed tiles. The loft had been re-floored with replacement wide oak boards as specified in the application, and the modern flat-roofed dormer and single storey extension to the rear of the building had been reconstructed seemingly in accordance with the detail shown on the original planning permission and Consent given in 1992 (I did not check exact measurements). The kitchen extract system previously in place above the roof valley of the single-storey extension had not been re-instated, and is not proposed as part of this application. I understand that the decision to pursue these works has in part been influenced by the requirement to remove the scaffold and temporary roof in order to allow the electrical fitting out of Number 9. Outstanding works include the reconstruction of the panels in the loft gable walls, and the re-instatement of ceilings and damaged wall linings.
The roof has been re-instated using new oak rafters with flat section as typified by the old rafters, worked around the undamaged retained infill of a former dormer to the front pitch. Upper studs above the collars of the truss framing, and parts of the principal rafters, have been similarly replaced, but other truss elements have been retained, and damaged wall-plates strengthened with secondary plates. The purlins are also retained except to the rear of the fireplace bay, where a length of purlin salvaged from Number 13 has been re-used. The upper floor structure has also been strengthened with metal brackets and straps that will be hidden in the ceiling void. Panels in the party-wall truss to Number 13 are to be repaired with steel mesh and lime plaster finish as consistent with previous repairs to that building. Panels within the trusses either side of the main loft space are either to be retained with existing wattle and daub or brick infill, or replaced in traditional manner with timber lath and lime plaster finish. The roof soffits/attic ceilings are to be finished with lath and lime plaster as before, but allowing for sheep’s wool insulation to be first packed between the rafters, as detailed in Section 2.4 of the submitted Schedule of Works. Further insulation will be provided by permeable fibreboard above the rafters. This system will maintain the breathability of the building and provide a good natural environment for the long term preservation of the building. Should any variation be required for compliance with Building Regulations, further details should be subject to condition.
Works to the lower storeys of the historic building are more limited. At first floor level they will include patch repairs to wattle and daub panels, patch repairs to lime plasterwork on the walls to the front and around the chimney, and new lime plasterwork to the lath lining of the party wall to Number 9. If the laths here prove beyond retention they will be replaced with similar wooden laths. The ceiling will also be reconstructed below the retained beams with laths and lime plaster. At ground floor level the walls remain intact, and ceilings will be replaced in plasterboard as before. There will be no alteration to the surviving front of the building.
In my opinion these proposals show great respect for the surviving construction and character of the listed building and should be wholly welcome. The following conditions are necessary to ensure that the work is carried out as detailed and that possible variations, especially those subject to Building Regulations, are subject to further agreement.
The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001 and July 2004): Policies LB1.
1. The building is a Grade II Listed Building, and this application will therefore assess the impact of the proposals on the character, fabric and appearance of the Listed Building.
2. This application proposes internal alterations, including the rebuilding of part of the roof, as well as a number of walls and ceilings, following extensive fire-damage. The rebuilding is proposed to take place on a like-for-like basis, to return the building as much as possible to its appearance prior to the fire. As such, no extensions are proposed to the original dwelling. No objections are raised to the proposed works by the District Historic Buildings Officer, subject to condition. As such, no objections are raised.
1 C142 Listed Building Consent List of Works
2 All new or disturbed work to the historic parts of the interior and exterior of the building that are detailed in the application to be retained shall be finished or made good to match the existing. All works to replace missing or damaged parts of the historic building, as hereby permitted, shall be carried out using the materials detailed on the approved drawings and specified in the Design and Access Statement, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To preserve the surviving part of the listed building and ensure that works to re-instate missing or damaged parts are not detrimental to the character of the listed building.
3 The surviving historic timbers shall be not be cut, altered or removed other than as hereby permitted, unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority as part of a further schedule of repair. Charring may be scraped from retained timbers so as to leave a sound surface, but these timbers shall not be cleaned by means of sand-blasting, or by any other abrasive or chemical means unless previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
4 Prior to any variation to the means of adding insulation to the roof, as specified in Sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 of the submitted Schedule of Works, full details of the alternative insulation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: to ensure that there is no detriment to the fabric and character of the listed building.
5 Prior to any additional fireproof or sound barriers being installed to the party walls, other than those already specified in Section 2.3.43 of the submitted Schedule of Works, full details of these barriers shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
1 INFORMATIVE: It is noted that the application does not seek to restore any flue or extract ducting in connection with the restaurant use. The applicant is advised that the installation of any such fixtures to the exterior of the building will require further Listed Building Consent, and may also require planning permission. It is also noted that no works are detailed for the repair of the ground floor fireplace. The applicant is advised to consult the District Historic Buildings Officer with regard to any such works as Consent may be required.
CH/2009/0723/FA
42 Charsley Close
Mrs G Dancer
The application is for a single storey side/front extension that would be 1.7 metres wide and 1.3 metres deep. It would have a flat roof which would be 2.2 metres high.
The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001 and July 2004): Policies as saved from 28 September 2007: GC1, GC3, H13, H14, H15, TR11 and TR16.
1. The application site is located in the built up area of Little Chalfont wherein the residential extensions are acceptable in principle subject to compliance with the relevant policies of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan.
2. The single storey extension would be small in size and whilst designed with a flat roof, would not detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the character of the area. No objections are therefore raised with regard to Local Plan Policies GC1, H13(ii) and H15.
3. Given the size and its distance from the neighbouring properties, the extension would not detract from the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties. No objections are therefore raised with regard to Local Plan Policies GC3, H13(ii) and H14.
4. The proposal would not result in additional parking provision being required as part of the application and no objections are therefore raised with regard to Local Plan Policies TR11 and TR16.
2 The exterior of the development hereby permitted shall only be constructed in the materials specified on the Planning Application Form hereby approved or in materials which shall previously have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
CH/2009/0738/FA
Mr Sam Dodd
Two storey front/side extension and two storey rear extension
1 Martinsend Lane
Mr & Mrs P Osborne
Adjacent to A and B Road
Established Residential Area of Special
CH/1998/0264/FA: Alterations, two storey front and side extensions and chimney. Conditional Permission. Implemented.
The application proposes a two storey front/side extension and a two storey rear bay window extension.
The two storey front/side extension would adjoin the side of the existing catslide gable end to the north elevation, forming a larger twin gable end. The extension would measure a maximum of 10.5m in width by 7.7m in depth wrapping around the front and west side of the property, with the eaves and ridge heights matching the existing dwelling.
The rear bay window extension would measure a maximum of 3m in width by 1.4m in depth with a flat roof measuring 5.6m in height.
A Design & Access Statement has been submitted with this application.
The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001 and July 2004). Policies as saved from 28 September 2007: Policies GC1, GC3, LSQ1, H13, H14, H15, H16, H17, TR11 and TR18
1. The application site is located within the built up area of Great Missenden wherein applications for residential extensions are normally acceptable in principle subject to complying with the relevant Local Plan Policies. The application site is also located within the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) wherein development should conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the landscape.
2. The application dwelling is located on a corner plot at the junction between Martinsend Lane and Trafford Road. The front elevation of the dwelling faces the northern boundary adjacent to Martinsend Lane, although the access to the site is from Trafford Road. The existing dwelling is characterised by its low eaves to the front elevation with a dormer window in the front roof slope and a small subordinate front gable. The proposed front/side extension would replace the existing single storey side extension and would adjoin the existing front projecting catslide gable. The proposed extension would significantly alter the character and appearance of the front elevation of the dwelling. Whereas the existing front elevation is characterised by its low eaves and extensive roofslope, the proposed extension would introduce two highly prominent gable features, projecting 7.4m from the existing roofslope, and at the same height as the existing ridge, which would become the dominant features on the front elevation. The front extension would not be subordinate in scale to the existing dwelling and would form a large, bulky, unsympathetic and overly prominent addition to the property which would fail to integrate satisfactorily with the existing dwelling. It is noted that the front boundary hedging provides some natural screening when travelling along Martinsend Lane from the north-east. However, vegetation should not be used to screen development that is otherwise unacceptable and in any event, by virtue of the topography of the lane, the front extension would be highly visible within the street scene when travelling downhill along Martinsend Lane from the south-west, across the frontage of The Old Manse. Furthermore, whilst the extension is sited to the south-west of the dwelling, the full depth of the gable projection would be visible from Trafford Road. It is therefore considered that the front/side extension, by virtue of its height, depth, width and design, would have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the existing dwelling and would appear unduly prominent within Martinsend Lane and Trafford Road, to the detriment of both street scenes. The proposal is therefore contrary to Local Plan Policies GC1, H13 and H15.
3. Notwithstanding the above objection, it is noted that the two storey rear bay window extension would match the existing rear bay window and as such no objections are raised to this aspect of the proposed scheme. In addition by virtue of the location of the site within the built up area, the proposed extensions would not harm the natural beauty of the landscape within this part of the Chilterns AONB.
4. In terms of neighbour impact, by virtue of the relationship of the site with neighbouring properties, the only dwelling likely to be affected by the proposal is The Old Manse to the west. It is noted that the front/side extension would replace the existing side extension and would be sited 1m from the western side boundary with The Old Manse. One window is located in the east flank elevation of The Old Manse, however this window serves an integral garage. Furthermore, the front/side extension would not project a significant distance forward of the front elevation of The Old Manse and would not appear overbearing or visually intrusive to the occupiers of this neighbouring property and would not give rise to a loss of privacy. Moreover, the rear bay window extension is of a modest depth and would be sited a sufficient distance from the boundary such that it would not appear overbearing when viewed from The Old Manse. In terms of privacy, it is noted that the west facing first floor glazed section of the rear bay window would directly face the rear amenity area of the neighbouring property. However, should this application be otherwise acceptable, it would be considered reasonable and necessary to condition this section of the bay window to be obscurely glazed so as to mitigate any direct overlooking. As such no objections are raised with regard to the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of The Old Manse.
5. The existing dwelling has a gross floor area that exceeds 120 sqm, therefore no additional car parking is required as part of this application, having regard to Local Plan Policies TR11 and TR16.
1 The front elevation of the existing dwelling is characterised by its low eaves and extensive roofslope, with a dormer window and a small subordinate catslide gable located centrally on this elevation. The proposed front/side extension would significantly alter the character and appearance of the front elevation of the dwelling. It would introduce two highly prominent gable features, projecting 7.4 metres from the existing roofslope, and at the same height as the existing ridge, which would become the dominant features on the front elevation. The front extension would not be subordinate in scale to the existing dwelling and would form a large, bulky, unsympathetic and overly prominent addition to the property which would fail to integrate satisfactorily with the existing dwelling. By virtue of the topography of the Martinsend Lane, the front extension would be highly visible within the street scene when travelling downhill along the lane from the south-west, across the frontage of The Old Manse. Furthermore, the full depth of the gable projection would also be visible from Trafford Road. The front/side extension, by virtue of its height, width, depth and design, would have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the existing dwelling and would appear unduly prominent within Martinsend Lane and Trafford Road, to the detriment of both street scenes. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies GC1, H13 and H15 of the Chiltern District Adopted Local Plan 1997 (including the Adopted Alterations May 2001 and July 2004).
CH/2009/0743/FA
CH/2009/0744/SA - Application for a Certificate of Lawfulness for a proposed operation relating to single storey side extensions on the east and west elevations, two dormer windows in east roofslope, one dormer window in west roofslope and a two storey rear extension. Pending consideration.
CH/2009/0273/SA - Application for a Certificate of Lawfulness for a proposed operation relating to single storey side extensions on the east and west elevations, two dormer windows in east roofslope, one dormer window in west roofslope and part two storey, part single storey rear extension. Certificate was part granted and part refused on the grounds that the proposed part two storey, part single storey rear extension did not fall within the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, as amended.
CH/2007/0415/FA - Front porch, single storey rear extension and a two storey side extension to both sides of dwelling. Refused permission on the grounds that, by reason of its design, the proposed side extension would not integrate with the character and appearance of the existing property and would appear visually intrusive when viewed from the neighbouring property, No. 34 Highland Road.
CH/2006/1589/FA - Front porch, single storey rear extension and a two storey side extension to both sides of dwelling. Refused permission on the grounds that the proposed extension would result in the site appearing overdeveloped and the dwelling appearing cramped towards this boundary. Furthermore, the proposed extension would result in the visual coalescence of built form with the neighbouring property to the west, No. 34 Highland Road. In addition, due to its height, depth and proximity to the boundary with No. 34 Highland Road, the proposed extension would have appeared overbearing and visually intrusive to this neighbouring property to the detriment of its amenity.
The application proposes a two storey rear extension and a front porch to an existing dwelling.
The proposed two storey rear extension would have a maximum width of 8.5 metres and a depth of 3.9 metres. The proposed extension would align with the maximum ridge height of the existing dwelling and would incorporate two half hipped side projections and two dormer windows within its rear elevation.
The proposed front porch would have a maximum width of 2.5 metres, a depth of 1.5 metres and a maximum ridge height of 3.8 metres.
Two letters of comment received stating the following:
- No objection, in principle, to the proposed development, provided that the proposed windows facing No. 34 Highland Road are suitably fitted with obscure glass.
- The submitted plans inaccurately show the boundary line in relation to the neighbouring property, No. 34 Highland Road. The boundary treatment between these two properties is formed by hedging and there are no existing fence panels and posts.
We have assessed this application as having a low environmental risk within our remit. Therefore, we will not be providing comments on this application.
The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001 and July 2004) Policies as saved from 28 September 2007: Policies GC1, GC3, H11, H13, H14, H15, H16, H17, TR11 and TR16.
1. The application site is located within an Established Residential Area of Special Character within the built-up area of Amersham wherein proposals for residential extensions are normally acceptable, in principle, subject to complying with relevant Local Plan Policies.
2. The application site comprises a detached dwelling within a deep plot. The proposed two storey extension would be located to the rear of the application property and would increase the depth of the existing flank elevations by 3.9 metres, introducing half-hipped projections which would extend either side of the main roof slope. Whilst this proposed two storey rear extension would notably increase the scale and bulk of the application property, it would align with the maximum width and height of the application property, respecting these proportions and representing an acceptable addition to the application property. Furthermore, mindful of its location to the rear of the application property, the proposed extension would be viewed within the context of the existing built form of the application site and, given the varying scale and depths of the surrounding two storey properties, the proposed rear extension would not appear prominent, visually obtrusive or out of character within the street scene of Highland Road. The proposed two storey rear extension would not have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of either the application property or the locality with regard to Local Plan Policies GC1, H13, H15 and H16.
3. The proposed two storey rear extension would be located a minimum distance of approximately 3 metres from the common boundary with the neighbouring property to the east, No. 30 Highland Road. It is noted that No. 30 Highland Road benefits from a single storey rear extension adjacent to the common boundary with the application site and has no windows within its western elevation facing the application site. It is also noted, however, that there are first floor windows within the rear elevation of No. 30 Highland Road from where the proposed rear extension would be visible. However, given its distance from No. 30 Highland Road, the proposed two storey rear extension would not appear overbearing or visually intrusive to this neighbouring property. Furthermore, no windows are proposed within its eastern flank elevation and, as such, the proposed rear extension would not result in a reduction in privacy for the occupants of No. 30 Highland Road. The proposed two storey rear extension would be located a minimum distance of approximately 3.6 metres from the neighbouring property to the west, No. 34 Highland Road. This neighbouring property has a first floor window and a ground floor bay window within its eastern flank elevation in a section off set from the boundary and one ground floor window and one first floor window within the rear elevation from where the proposed extension would be visible. However, mindful of its distance away from this neighbouring property and its hipped roof, the proposed two storey rear extension would not appear overbearing or visually intrusive when viewed from this neighbouring property. Similarly, no windows are proposed within its western flank elevation and, as such, the proposed rear extension would not result in an unacceptable reduction in the privacy enjoyed by the occupants of No. 34 Highland Road. No objections are, therefore, raised to the proposed two storey rear extension in terms of its impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties and with regard to Local Plan Policies GC3, H13 and H14.
4. The proposed front porch would represent a modest and subordinate addition to the application property which would neither appear prominent nor visually obtrusive within the street scene. Similarly, given its modest size and scale the proposed front porch would not adversely impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties. No objections are, therefore, raised with regard to Local Plan Policies GC1, GC3, H13, H14, H15 and H17.
5. The existing application property has a gross floorspace exceeding 120 square metres and the application site contains sufficient off street parking to accommodate three vehicles. The proposed extensions do not, therefore, necessitate any further parking provision. As such, the application site complies with the Council’s Parking Standards and no objections are raised regarding Local Plan Policies TR11 and TR16.
2 C431 Materials to Match Existing Dev
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/rooflights/dormer windows shall be inserted or constructed at any time at first floor level or above in the western and eastern elevations of the two storey rear extension hereby permitted without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
1 INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that the side dormer windows and the single storey side extensions shown on the proposed elevations Dwg. No. SB/01/08 were not included within the description of the development and were not, therefore, assessed during the course of the application.
CH/2009/0749/FA
Mr Nathaniel Baker
Ballinger South Heath And Chartridge
Single storey rear garden room and raised patio
Mr & Mrs Wintgens
GB settlement GB5,6,12,23,H7,13,19
CH/2004/2330/FA – Two storey side extension and front porch – Conditional permission.
CH/1974/0010/OA – Erection of dwelling for elderly relative – Refused permission.
The application proposes a single storey rear extension that will have a depth of 4.5 metres and a width of 6.2 metres. The roof will consist of a glazed sloping section between a parapet wall on either side of the extension and a rear facing glazed gable, to a ridge height of 3.7 metres.
A raised patio is also proposed and it will have a height of 0.75 metres, will extend a maximum of 8 metres from the rear of the dwellinghouse and will have a maximum width of 11.7 metres.
A Design and Access Statement has been submitted with the application.
The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001 and July 2004): Policies as saved from 28 September 2007: GC1, GC3, GB5, GB12, H13, H14, H15, H17, LSQ1, TR11 and TR16.
1. The site is located within the Green Belt Settlement of South Heath where extensions to existing dwellings are acceptable in principle, providing they comply with the relevant Local Plan Policies. It is also within Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty where development should conserve or enhance the natural beauty of the landscape.
2. The proposed single storey extension will project from the rear elevation of the dwellinghouse by 4.35 metres and will have a rear facing gable end feature. The proposed rear extension will have a parapet wall on either side and the elevations and roof will be predominantly glazed. By virtue of its location to the rear of the property the proposal will not be visible in the street scene. The proposed rear extension will integrate satisfactorily with the existing property. The proposed raised patio will replace an existing patio to the rear of the dwellinghouse, will extend nearly the full width of the property and will have a maximum depth of 8 metres with steps down to the rear garden area. The proposed rear extension and raised patio will not appear prominent within the locality and will not adversely affect the scenic quality of this part of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. As such, no objections are raised with regard to Local Plan Policies GC1, GB12, H13, H15, H17 and LSQ1.
3. The proposed raised patio would be set away from the neighbouring dwellings and would not result in any loss of privacy for the neighbouring occupiers. The proposed single storey rear extension will extend up to the boundary with the neighbouring property, Norvic. The part of the extension extending along the neighbouring boundary will consist of a parapet wall projecting from the rear elevation of the dwellinghouse by 4.5 metres. It will have a height of 4.5 metres where it adjoins the dwellinghouse and will taper down to 3.35 metres at its full extent. The neighbouring dwelling, Norvic, has a ground floor living room window and a rear patio area located in close proximity to the boundary with the application property. By virtue of its height, depth, resultant bulk and its location on the boundary, the flank wall of the proposed rear extension would appear visually intrusive and overbearing when viewed from the neighbouring ground floor rear window closest to the boundary and the rear amenity area serving the adjoining dwelling. Although there is presently a 2.5 metre high fence on the boundary at this point, the flank parapet wall of the proposed extension would be considerably higher and this elevation would consist of a blank unrelieved wall. The visual impact of the proposed extension would be detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling and the proposal therefore fails to comply with Local Plan Policies GC3 and H14.
4. The existing dwelling exceeds 120 square metres in gross floor area, and as such, the proposal does not generate a requirement for any additional parking to be provided, having regard to Local Plan Policies TR11 and TR16.
1 By virtue of its height, depth, resultant bulk and its location on the boundary, the flank wall of the proposed rear extension would appear visually intrusive and overbearing when viewed from the ground floor rear window that is closest to the boundary on the adjoining property, Norvic, and from the rear amenity area serving this neighbouring dwelling. This would be detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling and as such, the proposal is contrary to Policies GC3 and H14 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 (Including the Adopted Alterations May 2001 and July 2004).
1 INFORMATIVE: The plans show a 2.4 metre high close boarded fence along the west neighbouring boundary, projecting beyond the single storey rear extension. This did not form part of the formal application. The erection of a fence over 2 metres in height in this location cannot be constructed as permitted development and would require express planning permission.
CH/2009/0756/TP
Mr Keith Musgrave
Crown reduction of two oak trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order
Mrs C Moir
The Chiltern District Council (Land at Bennetts Cottage, Chalgrove and Naper Villa, Finch Lane, Knotty Green) Tree Preservation Order 1999 (No 5 of 1999) covering an area of trees.
CH/2000/0915/OA Detached house and double garage served by access onto Finch Lane (southern part of garden of Bennetts Cottage). Conditional permission.
CH/2001/0109/TP Reduction of branches of five oak trees and an ash tree overhanging the garden of Bennetts Cottage. Conditional permission.
CH/2001/0840/FA Front porch and part two storey, part single storey front/side extension incorporating triple garage, insertion of dormer window in north east roof slope of dwelling and construction of pitched roof over existing dormer window in front elevation of dwelling. Conditional permission.
CH/2003/0980/OA Detached house and double garage served by access onto Finch Lane (renewal of CH/2000/0915/OA) (southern part of garden of Bennetts Cottage). Conditional permission.
CH/2004/1986/TP Felling of all trees within garden apart from oak and ash trees on boundary with Chacombe Place. Conditional permission. Appeal against condition 1 (works must be completed within five years of date of permission) and condition 2 (work approved shall exclude felling of two oak trees towards end of rear garden and birch tree on boundary with 3 Old Farm Close). Split decision: appeal against condition 1 - dismissed, appeal against condition 2 - only felling of one oak allowed. [Partially implemented at time of making applications CH/2009/0756/TP and CH/2009/0758/TP.]
CH/2005/1074/TP Variation of condition 1 of CH/2004/1986/TP to allow felling with no time limit. Refused permission.
CH/2005/1075/TP Variation of condition 2 of CH/2004/1986/TP to allow felling of two oaks and a birch. Refused permission.
CH/2009/0758/TP Felling of all trees within garden apart from the oak and ash trees on the boundary with Chacombe Place, the large oak tree towards the end of the garden and the birch tree on the boundary with 3 Old Farm Close. Not yet determined.
CH/2002/0097/TP Crown reduction of three ashes, two oaks, a hawthorn and six conifers (12 Chacombe Place). Conditional permission.
CH/2002/1677/TP Crown reduction of an ash and an oak (11 Chacombe Place). Conditional permission.
CH/2002/2096/TP Crown reduction of three oak trees and a hawthorn (10 Chacombe Place). Conditional permission.
CH/2003/0820/TP Felling of a yew (9 Chacombe Place). Conditional permission.
CH/2004/1065/TP Felling of a cypress (12 Chacombe Place). Conditional permission.
CH/2005/1186/TP Felling of two cypresses (12 Chacombe Place). Conditional permission.
CH/2005/1973/TP Reduction of branches on one side of a line of ash trees (12 Chacombe Place). Conditional permission.
CH/2005/1974/TP Felling of twelve ash trees (12 Chacombe Place). Permitted in part.
CH/2006/1219/TP Crown reduction of an oak tree (12 Chacombe Place). Conditional permission.
CH/2006/1351/TP Crown reduction of an oak tree and an ash tree (11 Chacombe Place). Conditional permission.
Oak ref 829 - reduce by 40%.
Oak standing on lawn - lift crown, shape and reduce by 40%. Remove at least 5m from southern limb, both height and spread.
Applicant’s reasons for making the application:
Tree 829 - oak - for consistency with other adjacent trees on the boundary (see CH/2006/1219/TP, 12 Chacombe Place). Neighbours consider that the tree is currently undesirably large for its surroundings, especially its proximity to their property.
Oak standing on lawn - so that the tree is the same height as the trees on the Chalgrove (Chacombe Place) boundary. Before these trees were cut back they were all much taller than this tree, which is too large for its surroundings. It effectively prevents any useful cultivation of the southern end of the garden of Bennetts Cottage, due to shading and water abstraction. Lawn beneath it has been reduced largely to moss. Southern limb suffers from stress and is a "hazard beam" - see para 23 of Inspecting Officer's report in appeal GOSE/107/1/CHIL/38802 against condition 2 of felling consent CH/2004/1986/TP.
District Tree and Landscape Officer: There is a line of large oaks and an ash along the boundary of the rear garden of Bennetts Cottage with the houses in Chacombe Place and one large oak in the rear garden of Bennetts Cottage.
Most of the trees along the boundary with Chacombe Place have been heavily reduced in recent years under various permissions. However it appears that much of this work was more extensive than what was approved. One of the oaks in this line (Tree 829) is on the Bennetts Cottage side of the fence and this is situated behind 12 Chacombe Place. It is proposed to reduce this tree because of concerns from the neighbours and to keep it more in line with the other trees. It is a large tree about 18m in height that is generally in good health but the lower foliage appears to be suffering from a mildew infection but this should not have a long-term effect on the tree. The tree also has a fairly long branch extending to the side towards Knottocks Close. Some reduction of the tree would help improve the balance of the crown and is considered to be reasonable management. However a 40% reduction is considered to be too heavy and 30% would be more appropriate.
The oak within the garden is a large specimen tree about 20m in height growing towards the end of the garden. An oak in poorer condition to the side of this tree was removed a few years ago leaving the larger oak with a somewhat unbalanced crown. It also has a long limb extending to the south towards Old Farm Close. Some crown reduction could help to restore the balance of the crown and is considered to be reasonable management. However a 40% reduction is considered to be too heavy and 30% would be more appropriate.
The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001 and July 2004): Policy TW2.
1. The two oak trees are situated in the rear garden of the property and they can be seen in some views from the surrounding roads.
2. Both trees are now larger than the other oaks in the vicinity and both have somewhat unbalanced crowns as a result of their growing conditions. In both cases some reduction of the trees would help improve the balance of the crowns and this is considered to be reasonable management. However a 40% reduction is considered to be too heavy and 30% would be more appropriate.
1 C109 Time Limit for Consent under TPO
2 The tree surgery hereby approved to the two oak trees shall not exceed crown reduction and minor re-shaping by 30% to leave more evenly-balanced tree with a natural shape.
1 INFORMATIVE - You are advised that all tree work should be carried out in accordance with the safety standards and working practices recommended in British Standard 3998:1989 Recommendations for Tree Work, and that the best way to ensure this is to use a suitably qualified and experienced tree surgeon.
2 INFORMATIVE - All cuts in crown reduction or reshaping work to trees should be to a suitable outward pointing side bud or small branch and should be made just outside the line of the branch bark ridge and branch collar of the retained branch in accordance with British Standard 3998:1989 Recommendations for Tree Work.
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.
CH/2009/0758/TP
Felling of all trees within the garden apart from the oak and ash trees on the boundary with Chacombe Place, the large oak tree towards the end of the garden and the birch tree on the boundary with 3 Old Farm Close, all protected by a Tree Preservation Order
CH/2004/1986/TP Felling of all trees within garden apart from oak and ash trees on boundary with Chacombe Place. Conditional permission. Appeal against condition 1 (works must be completed within five years of date of permission) and condition 2 (work approved excludes felling of two oak trees towards end of rear garden and birch tree on boundary with 3 Old Farm Close). Split decision: appeal against condition 1 - dismissed, appeal against condition 2 - only felling of one oak allowed. [Partially implemented at time of making applications CH/2009/0756/TP and CH/2009/0758/TP.]
CH/2009/0756/TP Crown reduction of two oak trees. Not yet determined.
Renewal of felling consent CH/2004/1986/TP which (subject to conditions) permits the felling of all trees in the garden of Bennetts Cottage apart from the oak and ash trees on the boundary with Chacombe Place.
Uneasy about removal of a blanket TPO.
To enable me to continue to manage my garden without having to make repeated applications for felling consent in respect of individual trees.
TPO 5/99 is a "blanket" (area) TPO and applies inter alia to Bennetts Cottage. There is an extant felling consent CH/2004/1986/TP for all trees covered by the TPO at Bennetts Cottage (subject to conditions) except for the trees on the Chacombe Place boundary.
Request that you lift the blanket TPO so far as it relates to Bennetts Cottage. Para 3.18 of the "TPOs - a guide to the law and good practice" that area TPOs should be applied "only in emergencies and then only as a temporary measure until the trees in the area can be assessed properly and reclassified."
Ten years have now passed since the alleged "emergency" (the redevelopment by Banner Homes of the Napervilla and Chalgrove sites) which gave rise to the imposition of the TPO. The "emergency" never applied to Bennetts Cottage, which was never contemplated as part of the development, as has been explained at length in correspondence relating to CH/2004/1986/TP. In any event, the "emergency" has long since passed, the development now having been completed.
The continuation of the area TPO on Bennetts Cottage for ten years cannot be considered "good practice" within the terms of the Guide. For practical management of the garden, it requires us to keep in place a felling consent such as CH/2004/1986/TP, the periodic renewal of which is a burden on us and a waste of the Council's administrative resources.
District Tree and Landscape Officer: Tree Preservation Order No 5 of 1999 protects all the trees within the defined area that were present on the site at the time that the order was made in 1999. This includes the trees at Bennetts Cottage and in phases 2 and 3 of the Chacombe Place development. All trees on the site at the time are protected irrespective of their size and quality, which would include many trees that are not of suitable quality for individual protection. The intention would be to replace this general Tree Preservation Order with a more specific Order in due course when sufficient resources are available.
Permission was granted for the felling of most of the trees on the site under CH/20006/1986/TP with the exception of the oak and ash trees on the Chacombe Place boundary, two oaks within the garden and a birch on the boundary with 3 Old Farm Close. The conditions on this permission were appealed with the result that the Secretary of State allowed the felling of the smaller oak within the garden.
Since that time the smaller oak within the garden has been removed, there has been some trimming of the ornamental conifers at the front of the house and very recently a line of cypresses beside the house providing screening from Old Farm Close and an old apple tree have been removed.
The general situation is therefore fairly similar to that in 2006. There are many trees within the garden of Bennetts Cottage and there is little justification for the removal of the trees within the application. No arboricultural reason has been given for the work nor is there any mention of any specific problem caused by the trees. However there would be little justification for a refusal of consent for the removal of trees of little amenity value or not individually worthy of a Tree Preservation Order.
There are few trees with a significant public amenity value on the site apart from the oaks and ashes on the boundary with the Chacombe Place development. There is a large oak towards the end of the garden and a birch on the boundary with 3 Old Farm Close, which are considered to be the most important as in 2006. The other trees are mainly small and include many cypresses. There are two larger spruces but they are poorly shaped.
Consequently it is considered that the permission should be renewed as before with the exception of the trees on the Chacombe Place boundary, the large oak within the garden and the birch on the boundary with 3 Old Farm Close. The other trees within the site are not considered to have sufficient public amenity value to justify a refusal.
1. There are many trees in the garden of Bennetts Cottage. Some are largely hidden from public view but others can be seen from the surrounding roads, particularly Chacombe Place, Finch Lane and Old Farm Close
2. The application follows an earlier permission to allow the felling of most of the trees on the site in order to allow for the continued management of the trees in the garden without the need for frequent permissions. The earlier permission, reference CH/2004/1986/TP, did not include the felling of the oak and ash trees on the boundary with Chacombe Place, a large oak tree towards the end of the rear garden and a birch tree on the boundary with 3 Old Farm Close, and as such this application is being assessed on the basis that the felling of these trees does not include the above mentioned trees. No arboricultural reason has been given for the removal of the trees but government guidance states "if the amenity value of the tree or woodland is low and the impact of the application in amenity terms is likely to be negligible, consent might be granted even if the LPA believe there is no particular arboricultural need for the work". The important trees in this respect are considered to be the trees on the boundary with Chacombe Place, the large oak towards the end of the garden and the birch on the boundary with 3 Old Farm Close. Consequently it is considered that the permission should be granted for the felling of the same trees as previously allowed under permission CH/2004/1986/TP.
1 INFORMATIVE: For the avoidance of doubt you are advised that the removal of the oak and ash trees on the boundary with Chacombe Place, the large oak tree towards the end of the garden and the birch tree on the boundary with 3 Old Farm Close have not been permitted by this consent.
2 INFORMATIVE - You are advised that all tree work should be carried out in accordance with the safety standards and working practices recommended in British Standard 3998:1989 Recommendations for Tree Work, and that the best way to ensure this is to use a suitably qualified and experienced tree surgeon.
CH/2009/0766/FA
Mrs Rosie Foreman
Change of use of ground floor and first floor dental practice (use class D1) to residential (use class C3)
Hyatts Yard
22-24 Red Lion Street
Shopping area. Rear Servicing Ches S12
CH/2006/1883/FA: Change of use of part of ground and first floors from D1 to residential. Conditional permission.
CH/2006/1885/HB: Internal alterations. Consent granted.
CH/2009/0767/HB: Internal alterations and alterations to fenestration to facilitate change of use of ground floor and first floor dental practice to residential. Under consideration.
At neighbouring sites (14/14A Red Lion Street):
CH/2006/1101/FA: Change of use to dental practice. Conditional Permission and implemented.
This application is for the change of use of part of ground and first floor currently known as 2 Hyatts Yard from Use Class D1 to a residential use. External alterations comprise the insertion of a roof light to the rear of the building.
The Design and Access Statement has been submitted and includes the following points:
- Site is a mix of professional, retail and residential use.
- Approval was granted for conversion to 2 flats- permission is now sought to convert to one flat.
- Dental practitioners have moved to nearby premises.
- Current owner runs retail operation on ground floor and intends to occupy proposed flat.
- Configuration of building is not ideal for most office use without considerable alterations to the fabric.
- Part of the building subject of this application is probably early Victorian.
- Much of the space was residential prior to 1969 when dental practice occupied the site.
- No change to outside of building.
- Internal features will be retained or covered sympathetically.
- Development will help to preserve the building as part of local heritage.
- Less car parking will be required than dental surgery
- No original fabric will be removed.
- No new openings proposed in original structure.
County Highway Engineer (summary):
No objections and no conditions to recommend.
District Historic Buildings Officer:
22-24 Red Lion Street and 1-3 Hyatts Yard are listed Grade II as two separate entries on the list, but are interconnected in terms of use and ownership. The shop premises on the ground floor, and Flats 1 and 3 Hyatt’s Yard, are to remain unaffected, and the proposals relate only to 2 Hyatts Yard, formerly a dental surgery. This property occupies a small section of the ground floor, and the whole of the first floor of the south east range of the buildings that extend around the enclosed courtyard at Hyatts Yard, but also extends into part of the first floor of the front range above the shop, forming part of 22-24 Red Lion Street. Permission and Consent were given in 2006 for conversion of the surgery to two small flats.
The front range listed as 22-24 Red Lion Street is of early-mid 19th century date, with shallow-pitched slate roof, rendered façade, shop fronts either side of a central carriage arch, and 16-pane sash windows above. One of the sashes has been altered to a bay window. As with the previous application there are no proposed changes to this part, but the upper rooms, already somewhat modernised, are undergoing like-for-like refurbishment. The much earlier 16th-17th century structure of the north west and north-east ranges of Hyatts Yard are unaffected. Instead the proposals affect a much altered brick structure now enclosed in the east corner, and the first-floor workshop/store along the south east side of the yard. This workshop appears to have been constructed between the other buildings in the later 19th century. It is not of great structural interest but does form a very distinctive part of the group because of its continuous strip of windows towards the yard. Inside it is lined out, walls and ceiling, with matchboard panelling, the ceiling with a multiplicity of old hooks. The building looks only to the yard as the adjacent church has been built immediately against the rear wall, with an extension wrapping around the east corner.
The previous permission and Consent allowed for the partitioning of both the enclosed brick corner building and the workshop, but only on the basis that part of the matchboard linings and ceiling would be retained. These new applications are kinder to the original character in retaining the workshop area as an open living room, but seek other changes that include removal of half the ceiling so as to gain light from the end opening to the roof void. Given the late date and previous permissions, I do not consider that objection could be wholly justified. I still consider, however, that the ceiling, complete with hooks, should be retained to the remainder, along with part of the panelling. This is duly annotated on the drawings. The continuous windows are to be retained but adapted so as to allow for some opening lights. With regard to the brick corner building, the walls are to be repaired, and the modern partitions removed. A roof light has already been inserted into the north east pitch. As this roof light will be completely concealed by the extension to the church, I do not see reason for objection. Proposed works to strengthen and repair both roofs will not significantly affect any historic interest. On the ground floor the proposals again affect only modern partitions.
Therefore no objection from the listed building aspect as long as any new permission /consent is subject to conditions.
The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001 and July 2004). Policies as saved from 28 September 2007: Policies GC1, GC2, GC3, H3, H12, CSF2, CA1, CA2, LB1, TR11, TR16, S7 and S9.
1. The site is located within the District Shopping Centre of Chesham and the Chesham Conservation Area. Changes of use at ground floor may be acceptable provided the use does not detract from the vitality and viability of that part of the shopping centre. The change of use from a community facility to a residential use is not normally acceptable at first floor level however it is necessary to take into account Policy CSF2 which deals with the loss of community facilities. The building is also a Grade II Listed Building and the proposal needs to comply with the other relevant policies of the Adopted Local Plan.
2. This application follows a previous proposal, reference CH/2006/1883/FA, which permitted the change of use of this part of the building to two separate flats. The proposal has now been revised to provide a single, larger flat from the conversion of the former dental practice. The principle of the conversion to residential and the loss of the dental practice here (which has relocated to more accessible premises at No. 14 Red Lion Street) has therefore been accepted.
3. The proposed conversion to a single flat would result in a loss of one flat when compared to the previous permission. However, the District Historic Building Officer (HBO) considers that the retention of the main workshop as a single room is kinder to the original character of the building, therefore in this instance, having regard to the benefits to the listed building, no objections are raised to the less efficient use of the site in terms of the number of residential units. The HBO also states that although much of the ceiling will be removed, this is of a later date and therefore would not justify objection. It is also noted that the proposed roof light in the rear elevation will be hidden from view by the surrounding buildings.
4. In terms of the other aspects of the scheme, it is considered that the conversion of this part of the building to a single flat, with a small enlargement of the existing Flat 1, as opposed to two would not have any significant implications for the acceptability of the conversion. There are no additional exterior works that would affect the character or appearance of the conservation area. In addition, the use of the site would remain residential and mindful of the reduction in the number of residential units, neighbouring residents would not experience any material increase in disturbance. No objections were previously raised in terms of amenity space or car parking provision and mindful that the number of flats is being reduced, no new objections arise.
5. Mindful of the above considerations, it is considered that the current proposal would not result in any significantly different impact compared to the approved scheme and it would therefore be unreasonable to raise objection to this current scheme, subject to the previous Conditions being attached to any permission granted.
2 Before work commences on the conversion, full details of the method of providing fire and sound barriers between the new flat and the retail space below shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure that there is no detriment to the fabric or character of the listed building.
3 Before work commences on the conversion, full details of the methods of venting the new kitchens and bathrooms hereby permitted, to include details of materials and finishes for any external vents, flues or pipe work shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
4 C131 All plans amended by one plan - 1323/01D - 28 July 2009
CH/2009/0767/HB
Internal alterations and alterations to fenestration to facilitate change of use of ground floor and first floor dental practice to residential
Shopping area.Rear Servicing Ches S12
CH/2009/0766/FA: Change of use of ground floor and first floor dental practice (use class D1) to residential (use class C3). Pending consideration.
14/14A Red Lion Street, CH/2006/1101/FA: Change of use to dental practice. Conditional Permission and implemented.
This application is for internal alterations and alterations to the fenestration to facilitate the change of use of the ground floor and first floor dental practice to a residential use. External alterations comprise the insertion of a roof light to the rear of the building. Internal alterations include new supporting beams, removal of panelling, alterations to the ground floor WCs to create a shower and utility room and first floor alterations to create a bedroom with en-suite in a former surgery and staff room towards the rear.
The Design and Access Statement accompanying the application contains the following points:
District Historic Building Officer:
The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001 and July 2004). Policies as saved from 28 September 2007: Policy LB1
2. The Historic Buildings Officer comments indicate that the works are generally acceptable in terms of preserving the special architectural and historic interest of the building, provided conditions are attached to the decision to control materials, interior finishes and retention of certain features of the building. As such, no objections are raised to the proposal.
1 C141A Listed Building Consent Time Limit
2 C142 Listed Building Consent List of Works
3 C436 Listed Building Mat Affecting Int
4 The existing pine board ceiling, complete with hooks, shall be retained within the north east half of the living room, as shall the pine board cladding to the internal north east wall of this room.
5 Before any works are carried out on the existing windows to the living room, full details of the modifications to be made shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
6 Before the installation of any fire and sound barriers between the new flat and the existing flats and shop premises, full details of the method of installation and the materials to be used shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
7 Before the installation of the ensuite bathroom, full details of any external pipe work and/or vents, to include details of the proposed materials and finishes, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
8 C131 All plans amended by one plan - 1323/01D - 28 July 2009
CH/2009/0774/FA
Part conversion of garage into habitable accommodation
CH/1996/0991/FA - Demolition of bungalow and erection of detached house with integral garage and alterations to shared vehicular access. Conditional permission. Implemented.
CH/1996/0666/FA - Demolition of bungalow and erection of detached house with integral double garage. Refused permission on the grounds that, due to its height and bulk in close proximity to the southern boundary of the application site, the proposed dwelling would have been overbearing and obtrusive when viewed from the neighbouring property ‘Long Meadow’.
The application proposes the part conversion of an existing integral garage into habitable space.
Condition 5 of planning permission CH/1996/0991/FA states:
‘The garage 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 garaging of vehicles clear of all carriageways.’
Therefore, the part conversion of the existing garage requires planning permission.
The submitted plans also detail three proposed dormer windows within the rear roofslope of the application property which would facilitate a loft conversion. However, these rear dormer windows do not require planning permission as they are considered to be permitted development. As such, these dormer windows will not form part of the assessment of this application. Furthermore, the submitted plans also detail three rooflights within the front roofslope and one sun pipe within the rear roofslope of the application property. However, these alterations to the existing dwelling are not, in this instance, considered to constitute development and will also not form part of the assessment of this application.
The Parish Council supports the objections of the occupants of the neighbouring properties, Holmwood and The Alamo, relating to potential overlooking from the proposed dormer windows. The Council supports the suggestion from the neighbouring occupants that rooflights be installed instead of the proposed rear dormer windows.
A Design and Access Statement has been submitted with this application.
Two letters of objection received stating the following:
- The submitted Location plan is out of date and does not accurately show the existing footprint of the neighbouring properties, Holmwood and The Alamo. Holmwood extends further back into its garden than is shown and benefits from a single storey rear conservatory. There are also a number of rooms within The Alamo that will be affected by the proposal which are not shown on the submitted Location plan.
- The installation of dormer windows within the rear roofslope of Rosebank will adversely impact upon the privacy of the neighbouring properties, Holmwood and The Alamo, to the north east and north west respectively. The height of the proposed dormer windows at second floor level will allow a clear line of sight over the boundary hedges into these neighbouring properties, patio, conservatory and gardens, particularly into the ground floor kitchen and living area and into the two first floor bathrooms of The Alamo.
- The existing boundary hedge between the application property and Holmwood is insufficient to protect the privacy of the neighbouring occupants.
- No objections would be raised to the proposal if it were modified to use rooflights within the rear roofslope to match those proposed to the front of the building. Rooflights would have much less of an impact upon the privacy of the neighbouring properties and would still facilitate the loft accommodation desired by Rosebank.
The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001 and July 2004) Policies as saved from 28 September 2007: Policies TR11 and TR16.
1. The application site is located within an Established Residential Area of Special Character within the built-up area of Little Chalfont wherein proposals for alterations to residential properties are normally acceptable, in principle, subject to complying with relevant Local Plan Policies.
2. The existing application property has a gross floorspace exceeding 120 square metres. The proposed part conversion of the existing garage would result in there being insufficient internal floorspace within the garage to accommodate a parked vehicle. However, the existing forecourt is of a sufficient size to accommodate three parked vehicles, thus complying with the Council’s Parking Standards. As such, no objections are raised regarding Local Plan Policies TR11 and TR16.
1 INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that the rear dormer windows as detailed on Drawing Nos. 2166/09/8'A' and 2166/09/7'A' could be constructed as permitted development, under the provisions of Class B of Part 1, Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, as amended, and, therefore, do not require planning permission. These dormer windows are permitted by Class B subject to the following condition, 'the materials used in any exterior work shall be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse'. The applicant is also advised that the rooflights within the front roofslope and the sun pipe within the rear roofslope as detailed on Drawing Nos. 2166/09/8'A' and 2166/09/7'A' are not considered to be development and do not require planning permission.
Lane Gate Cottage
Weedon Hill Past The Green
Adjoining Common Land
Adjoining Public Amenity Open Space
AM/0890/61: Two storey rear extension with flat roof. Conditional permission.
CH/1977/0755/FA: Conversion of garage to living accommodation. Refused.
CH/1991/0673/FA: Alterations, two storey side extension, front porch and covered walkway to connect to detached garage. Conditional permission.
CH/2001/0879/FA: Front porch, single storey side extension, pitched roof over dormer windows in rear elevation, double pitched roof with twin gables to replace flat roof over existing two storey rear extension and detached triple garage. Conditional permission.
CH/2002/1456/FA: Two storey side and rear extension, pitched roof over existing dormer window, insertion of two additional dormer windows in rear elevation and detached triple garage and store. Refused permission. Size and bulk harmful to open nature of Green Belt.
CH/2002/1827/FA: Two storey side and rear extension, pitched roof over existing dormer window, insertion of two additional dormer windows in rear elevation and detached triple garage. Conditional permission.
CH/2003/0535/FA: Two storey front/side/rear extension and two additional dormer windows in the rear elevation (amendment to planning permission CH/2002/1827/FA). Conditional permission.
CH/2004/0485/FA: Two storey front/side/rear extension and two additional dormer windows in the rear elevation (amendment to planning permission CH/2003/0535/FA). Conditional permission.
This application proposes a first floor side extension, a front roof extension, front porch extension and a single storey rear extension.
The proposed first floor side extension would measure 5.3 metres in depth by 2.4 meters in width. It would have a clipped-gable roof with maximum ridge height of 6.7 metres. It would include the addition of two dormer windows to replace those being removed by the extension. The proposed dormer windows would be either side of the first floor projecting extension and measure 1.2 metres in width by 2.2 metres in height.
The front roof extension would increase the pitch of the roof at the front elevation from an approximately 30 degree pitch to a 45 degree pitch, to increase useable floor space in the first floor rooms below.
The proposed front porch extension would measure a maximum of 2.7 metres in depth by 1.9 metres in width. The porch would have a pitched roof with maximum height 2.7 metres.
The proposed single storey rear extension would measure 1.2 metres in depth by 2.2 metres in width.
The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001 and July 2004): Policies as saved from 28 September 2007: GC1, GC3, GB2, GB13, LSQ1, H13, H14, H15, H16, H17, TR11, TR16.
1. The site is located in the open Green Belt where in accordance with Policy GB13 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan, the extension of an existing dwelling can be considered acceptable where the extension is both subordinate to the size and scale of the original dwellinghouse and not intrusive within the landscape. Additionally, the site is located within the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) where development should conserve and enhance the special landscape character and high scenic quality of the AONB.
2. Lane Gate Cottage is a detached dwelling located in a fairly isolated location in the open Green Belt, to the north of Hyde Heath village. It has a relatively traditional appearance, being of a chalet bungalow appearance with first floor accommodation facilitated by pitched-roof dormer windows. Whilst the dormer windows are rendered, the dwelling itself is of brick construction with some dark-stained timber framing visible externally. The property has undergone several previous extensions, such that any further additions would not be subordinate to the size and scale of the original dwelling. The proposed first floor side extension would project 2.4 metres in depth to the north, and replace two existing small dormer windows. It would have a hipped roof with clipped gable, with a ridge height set 0.5 metres below the ridge of the existing dwelling. Two new dormer windows would be inserted to either side of the first floor extension, matching the size and design of existing dormer windows on the dwelling. The proposed roof extension would increase the pitch of the roof on the northern section of the western roofslope, from approximately 30 degrees to approximately 45 degrees. This is to increase the useable floor area within the rooms at first floor, which are currently limited by the slope of the roof. However, the actual floor area of the rooms at first floor level will not change. The increase in roof pitch will lead to the creation of a small area of flat roof; however this will not appear prominent within the area. In addition to the above, two small single storey extensions are proposed, one to infill a corner to the north east of the existing dwelling, and one to extend the existing covered porch. By virtue of their location on the dwellinghouse it is considered that the proposed extensions would not materially affect the openness of the Green Belt and would not be intrusive within the landscape. The proposed dormer windows would respect the scale, proportions and other features of the existing roof of the existing dwelling. The proposed extensions would integrate well with the existing dwelling, with a similar design, and would not adversely affect the special landscape character of the Chilterns AONB. As such, no objections are raised with regard to Policies GC1, GB13, LSQ1 or H15 of the Adopted Local Plan.
3. The nearest neighbouring dwelling is located over 90 metres from the application site. As such, it is not considered that the proposed extensions would appear overbearing or visually intrusive, or adversely affect the privacy or amenities of the occupants of any nearby dwelling. No objections are raised on the grounds of neighbour impact.
4. The existing dwelling exceeds 120 sqm in gross floor area and therefore no additional parking is required as part of this application, having regard to regarding Local Plan Policies TR11 and TR16.
CH/2009/0786/FA
38 Quarrendon Road
Mr G Burford
CH/1988/1277/FA: Two storey rear extension, front porch and bow window. Conditional Permission. Implemented.
The application proposes a front porch with a depth of 1.5 metres and a width of 2.45 metres. It will have a hipped roof above with an eaves level of 2.4 metres and a maximum ridge height of 3.8 metres.
The front porch will replace an existing porch canopy.
We have assessed this application as having a low environmental risk within our remit.
Thames Water would advise that with regard to sewerage infrastructure we would not have any objection to the above planning application.
The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001 and July 2004): Policies as saved from 28 September 2007: GC1, GC3, H13, H14, H15, H17, TR11 and TR16.
1. The application site is located in the built up area of Amersham wherein the principle of development is acceptable subject to complying with the relevant Local Plan Policies.
2. The proposed porch will replace an existing porch canopy and will be visible in the street scene by virtue of its siting at the front of the property. However, taking into account its small scale and its location approximately 6.5 metres from the site frontage, it is considered that it will integrate well with the existing property and will not detract from the character and appearance of the dwelling or the street scene. No objections are therefore raised with regard to Local Plan Policies GC1, H13(ii) and H15.
3. Mindful of the modest height and depth of the proposed porch, it is considered that it will not appear visually intrusive for the occupiers of any neighbouring property or give rise to a loss of privacy. No objections are therefore raised in relation to Local Plan Policies GC3, H13(i) and H14.
4. The site benefits from adequate parking for in excess of three vehicles and this proposal raises no parking implications, therefore no objections are raised with regard to Local Plan Policies TR11 and TR16.
CH/2009/0790/FA
Single storey side extension, dormer window to south eastern elevation and a first floor/roof extension to north western elevation to facilitate first floor accommodation
67 Narcot Lane
Mr John Burrell
CH/2008/1134/FA Single storey side extension with roof extension above incorporating a dormer window to the rear elevation, single storey front extension and one dormer window to side elevation. Withdrawn.
The application proposes a first floor/roof extension to the north west roof slope, a dormer window to the south east roof slope and a single storey side extension to the north west side of the building.
The proposed first floor/roof extension would measure a maximum of 4.5 metres by 4.8 metres and 3.4 metres in height with a flat crown roof.
The proposed dormer window would also have a flat crown roof and would measure a maximum of 1.7 metres by 1.6 metres and 2.1 metres in height.
The proposed single storey side extension would measure 2.7 metres in width by 3.5 metres in depth and a maximum of 3.1 metres in height with a flat roof and a parapet wall along the north west elevation.
The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001 and July 2004). Policies as saved from 28 September 2007: Policies GC1, GC3, H11, H13, H14, H15, H16, H17, H18, TR11 and TR16.
1. The application site is located within the built up area of Chalfont St Giles where residential development is acceptable subject to compliance with the relevant policies of the Local Plan.
2. The application property is a detached chalet bungalow within a row of detached, semi-detached and terraced dwellings along the north east side of Narcot Lane. There are a variety of extensions visible within the street scene. The existing building has gable ends at the front and rear and flat-roofed single storey side and rear projections. The proposed dormer window to the existing south east roof slope would have a flat crown roof and would be positioned relatively close to the main ridgeline of the building. However given its width and position it would not be detrimental to the appearance of the property and is not objectionable in relation to Local Plan Policy H18. The proposed single storey side extension would be small in scale and would be positioned to the rear of the existing attached garage on the north west side of the application dwelling. Whilst the proposed parapet wall along the north west side of the proposed single storey side extension would be greater in height that the garage which it would adjoin, by virtue of its scale and siting this extension would not be an obtrusive addition to the building and would not be detrimental to the character of the area. As stated, a number of the dwellings along this part of Narcot Lane have been extended, however none of the chalet bungalows within the immediate vicinity have large first floor side extensions visible within the street scene. The proposed first floor side extension would be almost equal in height to the roof slope in which it would be sited and would extend out over the existing attached garage and the proposed single storey side extension. When viewed from the front of the site, the first floor side extension would also notably increase the first floor width of the dwelling, altering the modest proportions of the existing chalet bungalow. Given its width, height, depth and flat crown roof, the proposed first floor side extension would appear as an unduly large, bulky and prominent addition to the north west roof slope which would create an unbalanced appearance within the street scene. As such the proposed first floor side extension would not reflect the form and design of the existing dwelling and would appear as a prominent, awkward and contrived addition to the building which would be to the detriment of the appearance of the property and the character of the road.
3. With regard to the impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring residents, the proposed single storey and first floor side extensions would not project beyond the front or rear elevations of number 65 Narcot Lane, the neighbouring property to the north west. There are currently no windows within the flank elevation of number 65 facing the application site and whilst there may be some views of number 65 from the proposed first floor side extension, given the position of the proposed side extensions relative to the dwelling at 65 Narcot Lane, the proposal would not be detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of this property. The proposed dormer window to the south east side of the building would face the bungalow at 69 Narcot Lane. However it would serve a non-habitable en-suite bathroom and as such, if the application were otherwise acceptable, could be conditioned to be obscurely glazed in order to prevent a harmful reduction in the privacy of number 65. Furthermore, the proposed dormer window would not result in an overbearing appearance for the occupiers of this property. No other neighbouring residents would be impaired by the proposal.
4. The site currently benefits from an area of hardstanding and a single garage offering parking provision for in excess of 3 vehicles. Whilst the proposed extensions would further increase the floor area of the building, the existing parking arrangements would be unaffected by the proposal. No objections are therefore raised in relation to Local Plan Policies TR11 and TR16.
1 The proposed first floor side extension to the north west side of the building would be almost equal in height to the roof slope in which it would be sited and would extend out over the existing and proposed single storey side projections. When viewed from the front of the site, the first floor side extension would also notably increase the first floor width of the dwelling, altering the modest proportions of the existing chalet bungalow. Given its width, height, depth and flat crown roof, the proposed first floor side extension would appear as an unduly large, bulky and prominent addition to the north west roof slope which would create an unbalanced appearance within the street scene. As such the proposed first floor side extension would not reflect the form and design of the existing dwelling and would appear as a prominent, awkward and contrived addition to the building which would be to the detriment of the appearance of the property and the character of the road. The proposed first floor side extension is therefore contrary to Policies GC1, H13 and H15 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 (Including Adoptions May 2001 and July 2007).
CH/2009/0793/FA
Single storey rear extension and extension to basement.
Mr Chris Zandonati
GB settlement GB4,6,12,23,H7,13,19
CH/2009/0358/FA: Single storey rear extension and first floor link between main house and outbuilding. Refused permission: The first floor link extension would not have related well to the existing dwelling, forming an unsympathetic addition which would have appeared awkward and overly prominent in the street scene, to the detriment of both the character and appearance of the dwelling and the street scene
CH/2008/0532/FA: Replacement two storey house with accommodation in the roof space and a new vehicular access. Refused permission.
CH/2007/2234/FA: Replacement two storey house with accommodation in the roof space and a new vehicular access. Withdrawn.
The application proposes a single storey rear extension. The extension would measure 7m in width by 6.1m in depth with a pitched roof measuring a maximum of 5m in height to the ridge. The single storey extension would also extend the existing basement level by an additional 1.6m in depth.
This application follows a previous refusal, reference CH/2009/0358/FA, which was for a single storey rear extension, increase to the depth of the basement, and a first floor link extension between the dwelling and the outbuilding. The only difference is that the first floor link extension is no longer proposed.
Head of Health & Housing:
Our records indicate the presence of a “smithy” (present in 1876 and 1897), which is within the application site. Therefore the Land Quality Informative is required.
County Archaeological Service: We have consulted the Historic Environment Record and conclude that, on present evidence, this scheme is too small-scale to have significant archaeological implications in this location.
The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001 and July 2004). Policies as saved from 28 September 2007: Policies GC1, GC3, GB2, GB4, GB12, H13, H14, H15, H17, TR11 and TR16.
1. The application site is located within a GB4 row of dwellings within the Green Belt area of Coleshill, wherein applications for residential extensions may be acceptable subject to complying with the relevant Local Plan Policies. Local Plan Policy GB12 is relevant in this instance and states that the Council will permit residential extensions within a GB4 row of dwellings within the Green Belt providing that Local Plan Policies H13 to H17 (inclusive) and other Policies in the Local Plan, are complied with.
2. By way of background, planning application CH/2009/0358/FA proposed a single storey rear extension and a first floor link between the main house and an existing outbuilding. The application was refused on the grounds that the first floor link extension would not have related well to the existing dwelling, forming an unsympathetic addition which would have appeared awkward and overly prominent in the street scene, to the detriment of both the character and appearance of the dwelling and the street scene. However, no objections were raised with regard to the single storey rear extension.
3. In comparison with CH/2009/0358/FA, the link extension is no longer proposed and the single storey rear extension remains unchanged. As such, given that no objections were previously raised in relation to the scale and design of the single storey extension or with regard to the impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties, no objections are raised now.
4. There is sufficient parking within the site to meet the requirements set out in Local Plan Policies TR11 and TR16.
1 INFORMATIVE: The Council's records indicate the presence of a "smithy" (present in 1876 and 1897), which is within the application site. Should any contaminants be identified on site, please contact the Council's Health & Housing Division for further advice. A general guidance document on the "Development of potentially contaminated sites in the Chiltern District" is available and should be requested from the Health & Housing Division.
CH/2009/0797/FA
3 The Lincolns
Mr Ben Hiles
This application proposes a single storey side extension and a single storey rear extension.
The proposed single storey side extension would be built in front of the existing garage door, and would measure 3 metres in width and 2.5 metres in depth. It would have a flat roof with a height matching the existing garage. A rooflight is proposed in the existing side element, projecting 0.3 metres above the existing flat roof.
The proposed rear extension would measure 3.25 metres in depth and width, and would have a flat roof with a maximum height of 2.9 metres.
The submitted plans also show the laying of hardstanding to the front of the property, however this would benefit from permitted development rights under Class F of Part 1, Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, as amended, provided it is either of a porous material or drains to a porous or permeable surface within the curtilage. In addition, the conversion of the existing garage into habitable accommodation is also shown on the submitted plans, however this does not require planning permission.
The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001 and July 2004): Policies as saved from 28 September 2007: GC1, GC3, GB12, LSQ1, H13, H14, H15, H17, TR11, TR16.
1. The application site is located within the Green Belt Settlement of Little Kingshill, where extensions to dwellings may be acceptable subject to complying with the relevant Local Plan Policies Additionally, the site is located within the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) where development should conserve and enhance the special landscape character and high scenic quality of the AONB.
2. The application dwelling is a two storey property, linked to the neighbouring dwelling to the north by the single storey garages. The proposed front extension would be constructed in front of the existing garage entrance and would form the new entrance to the dwelling. It would be located between the flank elevation of the existing dwelling and the flank wall of the car port at the neighbouring dwelling to the north. The proposed rear extension would be located in a corner between the rear of the existing garage, and the flank wall of an existing single storey rear extension to the neighbouring dwelling to the north. Whilst the front extension would be visible from the street, it would remain set back from the main frontage of the property and mindful of its modest scale, it is not considered to adversely affect the character or appearance of the locality. By virtue of its small size and location to the rear of the dwelling, the proposed rear extension would not be overly prominent in the locality and would not adversely affect the character or appearance of the area. As such, no objections are raised to the proposed extensions with regard to their impact on the existing dwelling or the locality.
3. The proposed single storey rear extension would be adjacent to a single storey rear extension at the neighbouring dwelling to the north, No. 1 The Lincolns. It would not project to the rear of this neighbouring rear extension and as such would not appear overbearing or visually intrusive, or adversely affect the privacy or amenities of the occupants of this dwelling. The proposed front extension would be adjacent to the brick wall of the car port at the same neighbouring dwelling and as such would not be immediately visible from this property. It is not therefore considered that the proposed extensions would adversely affect the amenities of the occupants of any neighbouring dwelling, and no objections are raised with regard to neighbour impact.
4. At present, the existing dwelling has a gross floor area of less than 120 sqm, thereby requiring two off-street parking spaces, which are provided by virtue of the existing garage and driveway. The proposed extensions would increase the gross floor area to more than 120 sqm, therefore three spaces should be provided within the curtilage. The garage conversion and front extension would mean there is space for only one vehicle on the existing driveway. However, as the garage conversion could be undertaken without planning permission, which itself would increase the habitable floorspace to over 120 sqm and would only leave one space on the driveway, as an identical shortfall of parking arises from the proposed extensions, in this instance it is not considered reasonable to object to the shortfall of on-site parking provision.
1 INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that the laying of hardstanding to the front of the property benefits from permitted development rights, under the provisions of Class F of Part 1, Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, as amended. However, this is subject to the hard surfacing either being constructed from porous materials or alternatively that provision is made to direct water run-off from the hard surface to a permeable or porous surface within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse.
CH/2009/0808/FA
1 Weedon Close
Mr E Goldsmith
The application is for a single storey front and side extension which would have a maximum width of 4.6 metres and depth of 5.9 metres. The extension would have a flat roof, 2.7 metres high.
Object to flat roof extension on highly visible corner plot. Unattractive design in a prominent position.
The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001 and July 2004): Policies as saved from 28 September 2007: GC1, GC3, H13, H14, H15, H17 TR11 and TR16.
1. The application site is located within the built up area of Chalfont St Peter wherein residential extensions are acceptable in principle subject to compliance with the relevant policies of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan.
2. The single storey front and side extension would wrap around the north west corner of the existing dwelling and would replace the existing flat roofed single storey front and single storey side projections. The extension would respect the scale and proportions of, and the design would integrate satisfactorily with the existing dwelling. It is therefore not considered that the proposed extension would detract from the character and appearance of the existing dwelling or the street scene. No objections are therefore raised with regard to Local Plan Policies GC1, H13(ii) and H15.
3. The single storey front and side extension is sited 3.2 metres from the side boundary with No. 2 Weedon Close and in light of its modest height and small projection beyond the front elevation it is not considered that it would have an adverse impact on the residential amenities of the occupiers of this neighbouring property. It is also not considered to impact on the residential amenities of other surrounding properties. No objections are therefore raised with regard to Local Plan Policies GC3, H13(i) and H14.
4. The existing dwelling has a gross floor area of less than 120 metres squared and the proposed extension will not increase this beyond 120 metres squared. The proposed extension therefore has no parking implications therefore no objections are raised with regards to Local Plan Policies TR11 and TR16.
3 This permission shall relate to the submitted application form and plans and the additional drawing no. 6886/07 received by the Local Planning Authority on 11th August 2009.
CH/2009/0812/FA
Single storey side extension, pitched roof over existing garage and single storey link extension to garage
2 Upper Hollis
Dr & Mrs Streule
The application proposes a single storey side extension, a pitched roof over an existing double garage and a single storey link extension to the garage. The single storey side extension will have a depth of 2.8 metres, a width of 3.8 metres, with a hipped roof ridge height of 3.8 metres and eaves to match the existing. The pitched roof over the garage will replace an existing flat roof and it will have a ridge height of 3.9 metres and eaves to match the existing. The single storey link will infill the gap between the dwellinghouse and the garage, with a depth of 5.2 metres, a maximum width of 3.1 metres, a pitched roof with a ridge height of 3.9 metres with eaves to match the existing.
The Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan - 1997 (including The Adopted Alterations May 2001 and July 2004): Policies as saved from 28 September 2007: GC1, GC3, H13, H14, H15, H17, LSQ1, TR11 and TR16.
1. The site is located in the built up area of Great Missenden wherein the principle of development is acceptable subject to complying with the relevant Local Plan Policies. In addition, the site is located within the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, wherein development should enhance or preserve the scenic quality of the landscape.
2. The proposed single storey side extension would be visible within the street scene, however it is of a modest scale and the design integrates well with the existing bungalow. The pitched roof over the garage and the link extension would also be visible from the public realm, however they would be at a subservient height to the existing dwelling and their design reflects that of the existing bungalow. The extensions are not therefore considered to appear overly prominent in the street scene or the wider locality and no objections are raised in relation to Local Plan Policies GC1, H13, H15, H17 and LSQ1.
3. By virtue of their modest height and the distance to the neighbouring boundaries, the proposed pitched roof over the garage and the single storey link extension are not considered to appear visually intrusive to the occupiers of any adjacent property. The proposed single storey side extension to the north east will be located 0.82 metres from the neighbouring boundary with No. 4 Upper Hollis, however, the hipped roof will slope away from the boundary and by virtue of its modest height, depth and width the proposed single storey side extension will not appear overbearing or visually intrusive to the occupiers of No. 4. As such, no objections are raised with regard to Local Plan Policies GC3 and H14.
4. The existing property exceeds 120 square metres in gross floor area and as such, the proposal does not generate a requirement for any additional parking. No objections are raised regarding Local Plan Policies TR11 and TR16.
CH/2009/0818/SA
Application for a Certificate of Lawfulness for the proposed use of the premises as a restaurant/cafe falling within Use Class A3
Ms Lucy Horton
CH/2006/0872/FA: Change of use from shop (use class A1) to a mixed use comprising a tea room (use class A3) and a sweet shop (use class A1). Conditional Permission. Implemented.
CH/2001/0994/FA: Change of use of part of ground floor from shop (use class A1) to sale of hot food and drink (use class A3). Refused: Adverse impact on occupants of neighbouring flats which front courtyard to the rear resulting from noise nuisance and cooking odour.
CH/2000/1165/FA: Change of use of part of ground floor from shop (use class A1) to sale of hot food and drink (use class A3). Refused: Shift in balance from predominantly retail uses to 54% non-retail uses; adverse impact on occupants of neighbouring flats which front courtyard to the rear resulting from noise nuisance and cooking odour.
The application seeks a Certificate of Lawfulness for a proposed change of use of the premises from a mixed use comprising Use Classes A1 (retail) and A3 (restaurant/cafe) to wholly Use Class A3.
A supporting statement has been submitted by the applicant. The main points can be summarised as follows:
- We would like to open a bistro/café serving hot and cold food.
- We do not visualise that the use will be detrimental to anybody in the vicinity. As we will not be frying food there will be no unpleasant “fatty” cooking smells.
This application is claiming that the proposed use as a tearoom falling within Class A3 of the Use Classes Order does not require planning permission and is lawful following an existing mixed use; split between an A1 sweet shop and an A3 tea-room granted conditional permission in 2006.
There is no evidence to suggest that the A3 use of the whole site has acquired immunity. The mixed use was only granted in 2006.
There is nothing in the Use Classes Order suggesting that a mixed use establishes a lawfulness of either use to the whole site. It would follow that the A3 use could convert to A1 under the Order but not the A1 to A3.
There is nothing to suggest a primary and ancillary use.
The application should be refused on the basis that planning permission is required for the proposal.
1. This application is for a certificate of lawfulness for a proposed use of the premises as a bistro/cafe falling within Use Class A3. This application, for the avoidance of doubt, falls to be determined on the basis of the evidence submitted and not on the planning merits of the case.
2. The application unit currently comprises a mixed use consisting of a shop (Use Class A1) and a Tea Room (Use Class A3). The current mixed use was granted conditional permission under application reference CH/2006/0872/FA. In this instance, the proposed change of use from the authorised mixed use comprising Use Classes A1 and A3 to a sole A3 use is not permitted under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended). The proposed change of use therefore requires planning permission. As such the application for a certificate of lawfulness is refused.
RECOMMENDATION: Cert of law for proposed dev/use refused
1 The certificate is REFUSED for the proposed use of the premises for a use falling wholly within Use Class A3 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended).
CH/2009/0824/FA