CHILTERN DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE - 20th ... List - 20.10.16.pdf · National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) - Chapter 9 (Green Belt) and Paragraph 17. Core Strategy for

Classification: OFFICIAL

Page 1Classification: OFFICIAL

CHILTERN DISTRICT COUNCIL

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 20th October 2016

INDEX TO APPLICATIONS ON MAIN LIST OF REPORT

Chalfont St Giles

CH/2016/1036/FA Ward: Chalfont St Giles Page No: 2Proposal: Redevelopment of site to provide four detached dwellingsRecommendation: Refuse permission

Land at Penwynne Farm (& Burtons Timber Yard), Dibden Hill, Chalfont St Giles, Buckinghamshire, HP8 4RD

Amersham

CH/2016/1399/FA Ward: Amersham On The Hill Page No: 12Proposal: First floor and roof extensions to facilitate creation of second floor accommodation incorporating side dormer windows and roof lights, and single storey side extensionRecommendation: Conditional permission

Evenlode, 58 Orchard Lane, Amersham, Buckinghamshire, HP6 5AA

Chesham

CH/2016/1400/FA Ward: Asheridge Vale And Lowndes Page No: 16Proposal: Demolition of No 163 Chartridge Lane, provision of a new access road and erection of 7 dwellingsRecommendation: Conditional permission

163 and Land R/o 159-167, Chartridge Lane, Chesham, Buckinghamshire, HP5 2SE

Chalfont St Peter

CH/2016/1562/FA Ward: Austenwood Page No: 26Proposal: Part two storey, first floor and single storey front/side/rear extensionsRecommendation: Conditional permission

2 Russett Hill, Chalfont St Peter, Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire, SL9 8JY



REPORT OF THEHEAD OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Main List of Applications20th October 2016

CH/2016/1036/FACase Officer: Bob YoungDate Received: 02.06.2016 Decide by Date: 28.07.2016Parish: Chalfont St Giles Ward: Chalfont St GilesApp Type: Full ApplicationProposal: Redevelopment of site to provide four detached dwellingsLocation: Land at Penwynne Farm (& Burtons Timber Yard)

Dibden HillChalfont St GilesBuckinghamshireHP8 4RD

Applicant: Mr David White

SITE CONSTRAINTSArticle 4 DirectionAdjacent to Unclassified RoadArea Special Adv. ControlAdjacent Public Footpaths and Public ROWWithin Green Belt other than GB4 GB5Mineral Consultation Area

CALL INCouncillor Harrold has requested that this application be determined by the Planning Committee regardless of officers' recommendation. This he states is due to the site history and local strong views in support and against the proposal.

Councillor Bray has also called this application to Planning Committee if the recommendation is to refuse permission.

SITE LOCATIONThe application site (0.77 ha) which is within the Green Belt is located on the southern side of Dibden Hill and clearly separate from the village/town of Chalfont St Giles, the nearest urban settlement. The application site is within a rural area and is rectangular in shape and was formerly part of a larger piggery farm, (Penwynne Farm), a use which has ceased. In the early 2000's the site was divided into a number of parcels of land, each use involving a number of different commercial activities using the former farm buildings, plus other more temporary buildings and open areas.

In addition a mobile home for residential purposes was erected without planning permission, on the northern part of the application site. In this respect, the Council accepts it is established in



planning law terms, but not formally through a certificate of lawful use. A number of other commercial activities have developed without the benefit of planning permission except for the steel fabrication building allowed on appeal and Burtons Wood Yard for the storing processing of and distribution of wood which previously has a certificate of lawful use. These various buildings and activities on site include portacabin offices, transport lorries, storage fabrication works and other commercial structures including a number of skips and sea containers. It is evident therefore that the commercial uses now predominate on this agricultural /employment site involving inter alia storage of materials, transport fabrication works, plus a mobile home. The central area does not have a permitted commercial use in planning terms and is therefore still designated in land use terms as agriculture.

Beyond the application site is a mix of agricultural and paddock land plus a number of detached residential dwellings and also there are a number of established farm buildings nearby. The adjoining residential properties are predominantly detached on average sized plots. Beyond that is more open farmland and paddock land within the Green belt. Overall, in the wider context this gives the area a rural character in contrast to the more urban town/village centre of Chalfont St. Giles, to the north.

Highway AccessThe application site is accessed by unadopted single track lanes. Dibden lane itself is an unadopted single track road which is accessed from The Lagger (to the north west) and Bowstridge Land to the (north-east). Access to the various commercial activities on the parcels of land from the adjoining highway is via two unmade roads one for the Burtons Wood Yard and the other uses.

Background to current site/use arrangementsIt is important to now refer to the applicant's architects plan no. 1402/07 and 08 dated May 2016 which identifies the general juxtaposition of the various buildings as follow:-

Area 1 - This constitutes a former piggery which is disused with just a number of pig pens remaining and two block sheds. A mobile home has also been located on this part of the application site for a substantial period of time. No certificate of lawfulness has been applied for or granted.

Area 2 - This area of open land in the central part of the application site comprises a part gravel / hard surfaced area and a concrete pad area surrounded by metal railings. It facilitates the storage of materials, and parking of vehicles. A previous application proposing the land to be used for B1 and B8 uses was refused permission and a subsequent appeal was dismissed. On this basis the lawful use of this part of the application site currently used for commercial purposes is agricultural land, and as such the land does not constitute brownfield land.

Area 3 - The land comprises a large building located on the southern boundary is used for the making of steel fabricated products, a use allowed on appeal which constitutes a B2 use. However, the inspector in allowing the appeal included a condition making it personal to the appellant and restricted the hours of operation Mondays to Fridays. In view of this it is not considered that the land can be fully considered to be brownfield as the use is dependent upon the continued occupation by the appellant. The workshop is the most substantial building on site with a footprint of around 271sqm and approximate height of 6-7m. In addition there are three sea containers and three portacabins positioned nearby.

Area 4 Burtons Wood Yard - There is a large wood store building (159m2) adjoining part of the western boundary of the application site. A certificate of lawfulness was granted in 2004 confirming



the lawful use as for the storage, processing and distribution of wood. This part of the application site, therefore benefits from previously developed land Status. Generally speaking the Wood Yard is largely open and laid to hardstanding.

Overall, the site has the basic courtyard arrangements and former agricultural buildings consist with its agricultural past. However this has been combined with a number of temporary buildings and containers and various gates/fencing and other enclosures have significantly changed the former character of the former farm site and agricultural land albeit over a considerable period of time. There are and have been a plethora of commercial activities on the application site. Accordingly these uses although employment generating in visual terms conflict with the spirit and purpose of the Green Belt policy.

THE APPLICATIONThe applicant seeks full planning permission involving the demolition of all of the former farm buildings fencing, gates and the later more temporary type buildings .The proposal involves the clearance of the site entirely of the various other structures which includes sheds, containers, outbuildings and to erect four two storey detached dwellings with surface parking spaces. The proposed dwellings are large in floorspace comprising 3 No. 3-bed units and one 4 bedroom home. However, the following table shows that the dwelling units are of considerable in floor area

Plot 1 = 210m2 Plot 2 = 244m2Plot 3 = 210m Plot4 = 210m2Overall total floorspace proposed = 874m2

The application is for detailed permission to be considered with the principle of development. This also includes, design layout built envelope vehicular access, waste and recycling arrangements, drainage, appearance and materials, amenity spaces and parking

To this end, the dwellings proposed are considerable in size, and measures between 12.5m and 15m wide and around 10-12.5m deep (depending upon the plot number). Each dwelling is between as set out in the above table. The total developed floor area proposed is around 874 m2 approx.

The proposed two storey detached dwellings are arranged in a loose arc around a new pond, with rear gardens facing the southern and eastern boundaries of the site. The pond is provided as a SUDS measure as well as focal feature for the communal areas. New landscaping is proposed around this pond. A picket fence is proposed along the front boundaries of each plot.

The proposed layout of the four dwelling includes rear gardens which are in excess of the minimum requirement of 15m, varying from 15m to a maximum of 30m deep. The proposed distances between each dwelling result in wide space gaps (on average 13m).

The design is "chalet" style with a low eaves lines and front dormer windows with hipped roofs. Detailing is simple with dark weatherboarding used below the eaves, clay tiles for the roof and brickwork to the lower parts of the eaves.

Three parking spaces are provided for each unit at the frontage. No garages are proposed.

Waste and recycling storage is assumed to be on-plot, as no details have been provided.



RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORYCH/2010/0939/EU - Refused - Certificate of Lawfulness for an existing use relating to the use of the whole site for open storage (B8).

CH2010/1984/EU - Refused - Certificate of lawfulness - Use of site for low level storage containers.

CH/2013/1581/EU - Refused - Certificate of Lawfulness - Use of site of storage containers (class B8) and at least one portacabin for B1 use. Appeal dismissed 21st October 2014

CH/2014/1908/FA - Refused Permission - Temporary use of the site for storage of 14 storage containers (B8), office (B1) and industrial uses (B1) for 6 months.

PARISH COUNCILNo objection.

REPRESENTATIONS12 residents have responded to the public consultation.1 is overall neutral (inconclusive)8 are in support of the application, citing the overall improvement in the appearance of the site and / or traffic uses. 3 are objections citing the volume of traffic to be generated from four new dwellings and one of these letters questions the morals and motives of the developer.

CONSULTATIONSChiltern District Tree Officer - No objection

Buckinghamshire County Ecology Officer - No objection subject to biodiversity enhancement scheme (to be secured by condition) if permission is to be granted.

Chiltern District Environmental Health - No objection subject to standard remediation conditions.

Buckinghamshire County Highway Authority - No objection. Three areas were covered 1. Volume of Traffic 2. Construction Traffic and 3. Entrance Construction. A CTMP was requested by condition. Each of these issues found that a comparison of the proposals to the consented or lawful uses was favourable.

Buckinghamshire County Strategic Access Officer - No Objection. Queried the nature of the signage erected relating to the bridleway. Noted many of the points also raised by the County Highways officer regarding the nature, condition and type of accesses to the site. Requested a condition to demonstrate parking and manoeuvring to be demonstrated onsite.

POLICIESNational Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) - Chapter 9 (Green Belt) and Paragraph 17.

Core Strategy for Chiltern District - Adopted November 2011: Policies CS1, CS2, CS4, CS8, CS16, CS20, CS24, CS25, CS26,

The Chiltern District Local Plan Adopted 1 September 1997 (including alterations adopted 29 May 2001) Consolidated September 2007 and November 2011. Saved Policies: GC1, GC3, GC4, GB2, GB22A, GB30, H11, H12, TR2, TR3, TR11, TR16

Affordable Housing SPD - Adopted 21 February 2012



Sustainable Construction and Renewable Energy SPD - Adopted 25 February 2015

EVALUATIONPrinciple of development/Green Belt1. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (PCPA) sets out that decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Paragraph 2 of the NPPF 2012 supports and reiterates this point. The application site is located within the Green Belt. Policy GB2 of the adopted/saved local plan states that all development by definition within the Green belt is inappropriate. Although the policy lists some exceptions, this does not include the redevelopment of sites for residential purposes other than those areas designated as Green belt settlement or rows of dwellings in the Green Belt. The main purpose of the policy is to maintain the openness and character of the Green Belt, which should not be compromised by new development. In this respect the proposal fails this policy.

2. However before this assessment can be undertaken Paragraph 215 of Framework expects decision makers to assign weight to policies in the Local Plan "according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the framework, the greater the weight that may be given).". This paragraph only applies to Local Plans that were examined prior to the publication of the NPPF in March 2012, which is the case for Chiltern District. Therefore, reference will be me made simultaneously to the Framework and the Local Plan.

3. Green Belt land is afforded a high level of protection in planning policy terms. There is a general presumption against development in the Green Belt. Green Belt Policy is clearly set out in paras 89 and 90 of National Planning Policy Framework. As a general note, the policy protection afforded to Green Belt land is not related to the visual impact of proposals or if such proposal can be seen from a public highway or footpath or alternatively screened from the surrounding area. The openness of the Green Belt is achieved through the regulation of proposed development.

4. The NPPF sets out that development within the Green Belt is inappropriate, unless it is one of the stated "exceptions" included at paragraphs 89 and 90. The only exception that could be broadly applied is that relating to the redevelopment of previously developed land. However, the application site is accepted as being part agricultural and therefore the site as a whole cannot be considered to fall under the definition previously developed land. The proposal therefore constitutes inappropriate development, which is, by definition harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

5 In addition to the above one of the "five purposes" served by the Green Belt (paragraph 80) is to "prevent urban sprawl" of particular significance to these proposals is the word "urban", as distinct from agricultural buildings or associated structures which one would reasonably expect to find in the open countryside. The application is within a rural area and the current proposal for residential development is considered to result in an urbanisation of the site, which is partly designated for agricultural use.

6. The NPPF further states that very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt (by reason of inappropriateness), along with any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. It is therefore necessary to consider other relevant plan policies and then to assess and balance this with the special circumstances the applicant may contend and whether the balance of judgment in respect of harm is weighted in any respect to warrant a flexible interpretation of Green belt policy.



Employment matters7. Local Plan Policy GB22A (saved) and Core Strategy Policy CS16 seek to resist the loss of employment sites in the District in order to help maintain the local economy, preserve local employment and reduce the need for more out-commuting. This approach is further supported by the recognition within the Core Strategy and NPPF of the role of employment sites in the rural economy.

8. Core strategy policy CS16 states that the loss of employment land as a result of redevelopment for other uses, including residential use, will be acceptable where there is no reasonable prospect of the site being used for employment purposes. However, this only applies to employment sites within the built-up area, thereby recognising the importance of employment sites to rural communities, and the restrictions placed on the District through the large area of land that falls within the Green Belt. The applicant has not provided any supporting evidence as to the current financial standing of the previous or operating commercial activities on the site. Furthermore no details have been produced of any details of the marketing of any of the commercial businesses within the former agricultural and other buildings.

9. The NPPF states that planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose. It is clear that the current employment uses on the site was not proactively consented or allocated for such a use. The uses were secured as a result of commencement of development without planning permission and in one case granted planning permission through an allowed Enforcement Appeal, and another by a certificate of lawful use. Whilst some commercial uses may be typically located close to transport hubs and interchanges, employment in rural locations is important to the local economy, even when the quality of vehicular access may be sub-standard. However, from past inspections of the application site by officers, it is evident that the employment uses on the site have been varied and substantive and have been an employment generator. To conclude, in order for an officer to review the employment policy matter would require supporting information from the applicant. However no viability or market appraisal in relation to current and past uses has been submitted with the application in support of the proposal to development of the whole site for residential purposes.

Design/character & appearance10. Four 2 storey detached family sized dwellings are proposed to replace all the former buildings the site. 11. The application is detailed and therefore consideration must be made to the type and form of the proposed development. Comparisons are made in the planning statement that seek to highlight the favourable net area developed as being reduced from a coverage of 864 square metres to 540 square metres. However, no comparison of volume (which informs openness) is made. Amplifying this point, officers are concerned about the scale of development. Whilst the description of development describes "chalet" style units, these homes will be two storeys in height and incorporate significant floor space. In terms of making comparison there are many examples of a typical 4/5 bedroom home of around 140-150m2. The "3-bed" units proposed in this development are much larger than the average sized modern small family dwelling.

12. Overall, notwithstanding the overall" in principle" objection on Green Belt grounds to the current proposal, an assessment has been made in respect of the architectural and urban design merits and there are concerns that the proposed dwellings would be of a scale and design that would result in a suburban form of development, that is out of keeping with the character of the rural area and Green Belt.



Residential amenity13. The proposed dwellings would be set away from the boundaries of the site and would not have a detrimental impact on the amenities of any neighbouring residential properties.

14. All the proposed dwellings would have rear gardens in excess of 15 metres in depth and would provide adequate amenity space for future occupiers of the development.

Parking/Highway implications15. Access to the site is restricted as the adjoining roads are single carriageway. Both access routes involve narrow and unmade private roads or varying quality and condition. It is accepted that a residential use in this location would, in highway terms, likely to result in less commercially related traffic to and from the application site. It would also be likely to result in less traffic generation compared to the commercial storage, fabrication and distribution uses.

16. It is evident that the main vehicular access routes are single lane and pose some highway safety concerns. However, the Highways Authority raise no objection to the proposals based largely on the comparative exercise under taken above.

17. The Framework sets out the legal test for highways refusals at Paragraph 32 stating that only where "Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. “In the case of these proposals it is clear that these proposals bring an advantage to the granting of consent for a limited number of new dwellings. This benefit does contribute towards the overall planning balance, but in any event does not constitute "very special circumstances" on its own. As such the proposal would have no parking implications and the scheme therefore complies with policies TR11 and TR16.

Affordable housing18. Due to recent changes in National Planning Guidance the Council can no longer be requiring a contribution towards Affordable Housing, either in the form of one of the proposed dwellings or a financial contribution for off-site provision as the current proposal falls below the threshold for such a contribution.

The Case for Very Special Circumstances19. The site has a considerable history in relation to enforcement investigations, appeals one allowed, and one dismissed, and previous investigations of breaches of planning control. This case report is based on prevailing national and local planning policy and is neutral of such matters.

20. The applicant's agent in his Planning Statement acknowledges (at page 7) that the proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt and should therefore only be approved in very special circumstances. The threshold for allowing such a development is indeed a very high one. However, against the background of the past planning history which is substantive the applicant seeks to make a case that very special circumstances exist for the current proposal for four detached dwellings.

21. It has been established in case law that such circumstances are unrelated to the agreed benefits of the provision of new housing or more broadly the redevelopment of a site. The nationally significant "Gallagher Homes" case (Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council v Gallagher Homes & Lioncourt Homes [2014] EWCA Civ 1610) clarified that 'housing supply shortfall' cannot equate to such circumstances alone.



22. In R (Timmins) v Gedling Borough Council (EWHC 220 (Admin), Timmins challenged the Council and argued that the Council has misinterpreted or misapplied national policy Paragraph 88 (which refers to Very Special Circumstances). To arrive at a conclusion that very special circumstances exist in accordance with paragraph 88 of the NPPF, the decision maker must weigh the "other considerations" against the combined harm which is caused to the green belt by reason of inappropriateness and another harm. The High Court ruled that "other" harm had to be added to the harm on the Green Belt. In the case of this development the harm is identified affecting the Green Belt (by virtue of the urbanisation of the site) and secondly the loss of an employment site. The benefits contended by the applicant does not outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and loss of rural employment.

23. Furthermore in respect of sustainability, the site is not in a sustainable location and not easily accessed by public transport. This weighs against the site as being a sustainable location for new housing, with a greater dependency on modes of travel other than by public transport.

24. The applicant argues that the loss of commercial activities could potentially reduce traffic congestion and noise associated with the commercial activities. This is referred to in a number of consultation responses from nearby residents and this adds some weight to proposals, in terms of a more positive environmental outcome. However, this needs to be balanced with the loss of employment generating activities on this rural site which is contrary to Core Strategy policy CS16. No evidence has been provided by the applicant to support his contention about the financial background to any of the businesses operating on the site or those that previously were in situ or indeed any evidence in respect of the prospect for marketing those units which have the benefit of permission.

In summary, the applicant has therefore failed to support the case in terms of providing viability information relating to the businesses which currently operate on the site. Furthermore no evidence has been provided on any marketing of those units which have regularised status in planning use terms. As such, the applicant's contention in respect of the benefit of allowing a residential development on the application site with the loss of an employment site without any other robust evidence to support this would in officers' view fails to make a convincing case necessary to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt.

Conclusions25. To conclude, there is a strong in-principle objection to the proposed development which conflicts with the NPPF 2012 and the Council's adopted plan with saved policies Local Plan Policies GB2, GB22A, and the Core Strategy Policy CS16. Furthermore, it is considered that the proposal would by virtue of its scale and design in its context, increase the scale and prominence of the buildings resulting in an urbanising effect to the detriment of the openness of the Green Belt and to the rural character of the area. This would be contrary to Local Plan Policies GB2, GC1 and Core Strategy Policy CS20 and the NPPF.

26. As outlined above, residential development can only be considered acceptable on this site where very special circumstances exist. Such circumstances must clearly outweigh the in-principle objection to development in addition to other considerations, including the loss of employment land. It is not considered that the applicant has addressed the supporting evidence required to warrant a case of very special circumstances to be made with no details of financial operating status or marketing of the current buildings and those uses which are established in planning law terms.



27. In the applicants planning statement, several recent appeal decisions have been cited as supportive of the overall case. Whilst it is accepted that certain elements of the adopted Green Belt policies can fare unfavourably when assessed against the National Planning Policy Framework the saved Green Belt policies and those in the Council's core Strategy are still considered sound and robust, contrary to the view of the applicant. Officers remain satisfied that the threshold for "Very Special Circumstances" has clearly not met in this case. Therefore, the fundamental in principle, objection persists together with that of the scale and design of the development and lack of marketing and supporting evidence in respect of viability in respect of the current employment uses. Therefore, the application is recommended for refusal.

Working with the applicant28. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the Council, in dealing with this application, has attempted, where possible, to work in a positive and proactive way with the Applicant/Agent and was focused on seeking solutions to the issues arising from the development proposal.

29. In this case, the Agent was advised against progressing a planning application in a pre-application meeting and subsequent written correspondence due to fundamental objections to the land use proposed and substantive conflict with national and Local Plan Policy. Officers' pre-application advice stated in part that "no material considerations are apparent to outweigh these matters of principle or constitute the "very special circumstances" required to support a proposal of this nature in this location."

Human Rights30. The following recommendation is made having regard to the above and also to the content of the Human Rights Act 1998.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse permission For the following reasons:-

1 Within the Green Belt, most new development is considered to be inappropriate and there is a general presumption against such development. Development which is not inappropriate is set out in Local Plan Policy GB2 and Paragraphs 89 and 90 of the Framework. The construction of new residential development within the open Green Belt is inappropriate in accordance with the above guidance and policy. The proposed scheme therefore represents inappropriate development which by definition is harmful to the Green Belt, seriously eroding the openness and rural character of the countryside. The site is also not within a sustainable location. No very special circumstances have been presented to outweigh the harm arising from the inappropriate development and other harm identified. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy GB2 of the Chiltern District Local Plan Adopted 1 September 1997 (including alterations adopted 29 May 2001) Consolidated September 2007 and November 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2 The application site is partly used for business and storage purposes. Policy CS16 of the Core Strategy deals with employment land and aims to secure the long term retention of a portfolio of employment sites and premises within the District. This is in order to help maintain the local economy, preserve local employment and reduce the need for more out-commuting. Policy CS16 details that the redevelopment of employment sites, for non-employment uses will be acceptable where there is no reasonable prospect of the site being used for employment purposes or where there it is creating significant amenity issues or where the use is creating significant highway problems. No evidence has been submitted



with the planning application to demonstrate that there is no reasonable prospect of the site being used for employment purposes or that it is creating significant amenity or highway issues. The application site presents an opportunity, however modest, to continue to contribute to achieving a long term portfolio of employment sites within the District. As such, the proposal would result in the loss of a valuable employment site and is contrary to Policy GB22A of The Chiltern District Local Plan Adopted 1 September 1997 (including alterations adopted 29 May 2001) Consolidated September 2007 and November 2011 and Policies CS16 of the Core Strategy for Chiltern District (Adopted November 2011) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

3 The proposed residential dwellings would be of a scale and design, which is out of keeping with the character of the rural area and the Green Belt within which is it is situated. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy GC1 (a) (b) & (g) of The Chiltern District Local Plan Adopted 1 September 1997 (including alterations adopted 29 May 2001) Consolidated September 2007 and November 2011 and Policies CS20 of the Core Strategy for Chiltern District (Adopted November 2011) and the National Planning Policy Framework.



CH/2016/1399/FACase Officer: Vicki BurdettDate Received: 25.07.2016 Decide by Date: 24.10.2016Parish: Amersham Ward: Amersham On The HillApp Type: Full ApplicationProposal: First floor and roof extensions to facilitate creation of second floor

accommodation incorporating side dormer windows and roof lights, and single storey side extension

Location: Evenlode58 Orchard LaneAmershamBuckinghamshireHP6 5AA

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Shepherd

SITE CONSTRAINTSArticle 4 DirectionAdjacent to Unclassified RoadThames Groundwater Prot Zone GC9

CALL INCllr Shepherd has requested that this application be determined by the Committee regardless of officer's recommendation

SITE LOCATIONThe application relates to a detached two storey dwelling at 58 Orchard Lane, Amersham. The application site is neighboured by No. 54 and No. 56 Orchard Lane, both of which are detached two storey dwellings of a similar scale.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORYCH/1974/0654/FA - CP - Single storey extension

CH/1981/1696/FA - CP - Single storey storeroom

CH/2016/0456/FA - CP - Replacement garage with pitched roof

CH/2016/1023/FA - CP - Increase in roof ridge height to facilitate extended first floor accommodation and single storey side extension

THE APPLICATIONThe application proposes a first floor and roof extension to facilitate the creation of second floor accommodation incorporating side dormer windows and roof lights and single storey side extension.

This application seeks to alter the previously approved scheme (CH/2016/1023/FA) by way of providing three dormer windows and a roof light. Therefore, only these additional elements including the provision of a loft conversion will be assessed.



Two dormers are proposed in the west flank elevation as well as one roof light whilst one dormer window is to be provided in the east flank elevation. The proposed dormers would provide additional habitable accommodation at second floor level, and would measure 2.2m in width, 2.3m in depth and would have a maximum height of 2.1m. They would be constructed of tiles to match the existing whilst they would contain obscure glazing.

TOWN COUNCILAmersham Town Council have made the following comments:

"ATC members felt that this application had an inappropriate design as well as being overdevelopment of the site and an excessive use of dormers".

REPRESENTATIONSNone received

CONSULTATIONSNone received

POLICIESNational Planning Policy Framework

Core Strategy for Chiltern District - Adopted November 2011: Policies CS4 and CS20.

The Chiltern District Local Plan Adopted 1 September 1997 (including alterations adopted 29 May 2001) Consolidated September 2007 and November 2011. Saved Policies: GC1, GC3, H13, H14, H15, H18, TR11 and TR16.

Residential extension and householder development (SPD) - September 2013

EVALUATION

Principle of Development1. The application site is located within the built up area of Amersham wherein extensions and alterations to dwellings are acceptable, subject to complying with relevant Development Plan Policies.

Impact on Character and Appearance2. Local Plan Policy GC1 refers to the design and appearance of the development and requires all proposals to be assessed with regard to the scale of development, height, siting and relationship with adjoining boundaries and highway, car parking, materials, form, detailing of building work in sensitive locations and design against crime.

3. Local Plan Policy H18 refers to dormer windows on dwellings throughout the district. It states that such windows should respect the scale, proportions and external appearance of the roof. Furthermore, they must also use external materials which match those of the existing roof and windows on the same elevation.

4. The application site comprises a two storey detached dwelling with a pitched roof. The previous permission (2016/1023/FA) related to the provision of a second floor, the enlarged roof of which this application seeks to utilise for additional accommodation. The bulk and massing of the roof has therefore been accepted. The proposed dormers are considered to be sympathetically designed features, being small scale and would therefore sit satisfactorily in each side roof slope.



5. Whilst the side dormers would be visible in the street scene, in isolation they could potentially meet the criteria set out in Class B, Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) England 2015 (as amended) whereby they would constitute permitted development. It is noted that other properties situated in Orchard Lane have constructed similar dormer windows.

6. Therefore, no objections are raised to Development Plan Policies GC1, H13, H14, H15, H18, Core Strategy Policy CS4 and CS20 and the Residential Extensions and Householder Development SPD.

Impact on Neighbouring Amenity7. The proposed dormers would be situated in both flank elevations, two located in the west elevation with a roof light and the other dormer in the east elevation. Due to the height of the roof as previously approved, the dormer windows and roof light would not directly look into any windows in the flank elevations of neighbouring properties. However, it would be appropriate to impose a condition ensuring that the windows would be obscure glazed and if less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which they would be installed shall be non-opening. This is to ensure that there would be no detrimental impact to neighbouring occupiers.

8. The size and scale of the proposed dormers in relation to the existing dwellinghouse and surrounding properties are considered to be acceptable, nor overbearing to neighbouring occupiers.

9. It is therefore considered there would not be a significant detrimental impact on the residential amenity to neighbouring properties, in accordance with the Development Plan Policies GC3, H11, H13 and H14.

Parking Implications10. The proposed roof dormers and roof light would not be considered to create a significant increase in the gross external floor area of the dwellinghouse. The property benefits from a detached garage located at a shared access with No. 56 and a gravelled/hardstanding driveway situated to the front of the property, which overall can facilitate at least 3 vehicles. The existing parking arrangements are therefore unaffected by the proposed development and it is concluded that the scheme complies with Local Plan Policies TR11 and TR16 relating to parking and manoeuvring.

Working with the applicant11. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the Council, in dealing with this application, has worked in a positive and proactive way with the Applicant/Agent and has focused on seeking solutions to the issues arising from the development proposal.

12. Chiltern District Council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by;

- offering a pre-application advice service,

- updating applicants/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application as appropriate and, where possible and appropriate, suggesting solutions.

In this case, Chiltern District Council has considered the details as submitted which were considered acceptable.



Human Rights13. The following recommendation is made having regarded to the above and also to the content of the Human Rights Act 1998.

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional permissionSubject to the following conditions:-

1 C108A General Time Limit

2 C432 Materials As on Plan or spec

3 Before the first occupation of the loft conversion hereby permitted the dormers and rooflight at second floor level in the east and west flank elevations shall be fitted with obscured glazing and any part of the dormers/rooflight that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be non-opening. The dormers and rooflight shall be permanently retained in that condition thereafter unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the amenities and privacy of the adjoining property.

4 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order, with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows other than those expressly authorised by this permission, or as subsequently agreed in writing by the local planning authority, shall be inserted or constructed at any time at first floor level or above in the east and west elevations of the dwellinghouse. Reason: To protect the amenities and privacy of the adjoining property.

5 AP01 Approved Plans



CH/2016/1400/FACase Officer: Melanie BeechDate Received: 25.07.2016 Decide by Date: 18.10.2016Parish: Chesham Ward: Asheridge Vale And

LowndesApp Type: Full ApplicationProposal: Demolition of No 163 Chartridge Lane, provision of a new access road and

erection of 7 dwellingsLocation: 163 and Land R/o 159-167

Chartridge LaneCheshamBuckinghamshireHP5 2SE

Applicant: MAA Land Ltd

SITE CONSTRAINTSAdjacent to C Road

CALL INCouncillor Bacon has requested that this application be determined by the Committee if the officer's recommendation is to approve.

SITE LOCATIONThe application site is located on the north eastern side of Chartridge Lane within the built up area of Chesham. It consists of the existing dwelling at no. 163 Chartridge Lane and part of the rear gardens of nos. 159-167 Chartridge Lane. The site is surrounded by other residential gardens.

THE APPLICATIONThe application seeks planning permission to demolish the existing dwelling at no. 163 Chartridge Lane and create a new access, 4.8m in width, to a development of 7 dwellings situated on land to the rear of nos. 159 - 167 Chartridge Lane.

The proposed development consists of 5 detached dwellings, and two semi-detached dwellings, all with 4 bedrooms. The semi-detached building (plots 1 and 2) measures 15m wide, 10m deep and 8.5m high with an eaves height of 5.5m. It will be constructed of red multi-brick with plain roof tiles and each property includes a front projecting element and front porch.

Plots 3, 6 and 7 are detached dwellings measuring 10.3m wide, 8m deep and 8.5m high with an eaves height of 5.25m. Plots 3 and 7 include 3 roof lights and a playroom within the roof space. The proposed materials are red multi facing brick at the bottom with dark red tile cladding above, and a plain roof tile.

Plots 4 and 5 are detached dwellings measuring 8m wide, 9.5m deep and 8.5m high with an eaves height of 5.5m. These dwellings have a small front projecting element at ground floor level on the right hand side and bay windows on the left hand side. The proposed materials are red multi facing brick with an element of dark red tile cladding and a plain tile roof. Plot 4 includes 4 roof lights and a playroom within the roof space.



The development includes 19 car parking spaces, private gardens and landscaping, and bin storage.

This application follows refusal of a proposed development on this site for 8 dwellings (reference CH/2016/0473/FA).

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORYCH/2010/1899/FA - Former Site of 197 and Land at 203 & 205, and rear of 201 & 207 Chartridge Lane; and rear of 68 - 78 Berkeley Avenue, Chesham - Erection of five detached dwellings, four pairs of semi-detached dwellings, one building comprising four terraced dwellings, one building comprising three terraced dwellings and three detached buildings providing a total of fourteen flats, associated garaging, bin and cycle stores, served by new access off Chartridge Lane - Conditional Permission. This site now forms part of the development known as Brandon Mead.

CH/2013/1666/FA - 147 Chartridge Lane and rear of 143 & 145 Chartridge Lane, Chesham - Redevelopment of the site to provide three detached dwellings, one pair of semi-detached dwellings and a garage - Conditional Permission. This site is now known as De Vere Close.

CH/2015/2184/OA - Land to the rear of 149-177 Chartridge Lane and 44-66 Berkeley Avenue, Chesham - Construction of 36 residential units (Access) (Outline application with some matters reserved) - Refused permission.

CH/2016/0473/FA - Demolition of No 163 Chartridge Lane, provision of new access road and erection of 8 dwellings - Refused permission.

TOWN COUNCILInitially recommended refusal on the grounds of inadequate access but removed their objection following the submission of amended plans.

REPRESENTATIONS6 neighbour objections have been received, which are summarised below:- Overlooking 157 Chartridge Lane and 52 and 62 Berkeley Avenue- Poor, uniform design- Insufficient gardens- Loss of trees and wildlife habitats- Increased traffic and additional access onto Chartridge Lane causes increased safety risk and congestion- Inconvenient parking within the site will lead to on-street parking- Flooding- Increased demand on services such as drainage and sewage- Character of Chartridge Lane is being eroded- Suggest bungalows situated closer to Chartridge Lane- No. 62 Berkeley Avenue believes that the north-western boundary of the application site is inaccurately plotted and states that a strip of their land is included within the application site. They confirm that they have no intention of selling and therefore the development will not be possible. - Impact on no. 62 Berkeley Avenue - loss of light, loss of privacy, air pollution, noise pollution.

A further objection has been received from W.E Black Ltd (building contractors and developers) which is summarised below: - Proposal is for an overdeveloped, poorly planned, piecemeal development which makes inefficient use of available land



- Additional access onto Chartridge Lane is inappropriate, where a comprehensive redevelopment of the site can be delivered via Brandon Mead and De Vere Close- Road layout will dominate the overall design- Refuse vehicles waiting on Chartridge Lane would cause a highway safety hazard- Inconvenient and contrived parking layout- Poor outlook from primary rooms- Overlooking 157 Chartridge Lane- Development does not relate well to the existing streetscape- Comprehensive development of whole site makes more efficient use of land and will respect the street scene of Chartridge Lane and character of the area - The development must not frustrate future intensification opportunities to develop the wider site. - Proposal does not overcome previous reasons for refusal.

CONSULTATIONSBuckinghamshire County Highway AuthorityNo objection subject to conditions.

Buckinghamshire County Ecology AdviserNo objection subject to conditions.

Chiltern District Tree and Landscape OfficerNo objection subject to conditions.

POLICIESNational Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), March 2012.

Core Strategy for Chiltern District - Adopted November 2011: Policies CS1, CS2, CS4, CS8, CS10, CS11, CS20, CS24, CS25, CS26, CS30, CS31.

The Chiltern District Local Plan Adopted 1 September 1997 (including alterations adopted 29 May 2001) Consolidated September 2007 and November 2011. Saved Policies: GC1, GC3, H3, H11, H12, TR2, TR3, TR11, TR15, TR16.

Sustainable Construction and Renewable Energy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Adopted 25 February 2015.

EVALUATIONPrinciple of Development 1. The site is located within the built up area of Chesham where in accordance with Policy H3, proposals for new dwellings are acceptable in principle subject to there being no conflict with any other Local Plan policy. The site is also identified as part of a wider site in the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA), published in January 2016 as a 'suitable' site for housing.

2. In addition, the spatial strategy for Chiltern District, in accordance with Policies CS1 and CS2 of the Core Strategy, is to focus development on land within existing settlements and in particular to the built up areas of the main settlements which includes Chesham.

Design/character & appearance3. As stated above, an application for 7 dwellings on this site was refused on 30th June 2016. The first reason for refusal was as follows:



"By reason of the distances to the boundaries and between the proposed dwellings, the development appears cramped and overdeveloped with inadequate manoeuvring space for refuse and emergency service vehicles. As such, it is an inappropriate form of back land development which has a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policies GC1 and H3 of The Chiltern District Local Plan Adopted 1 September 1997 (including alterations adopted 29 May 2001) Consolidated September 2007 and November 2011 and Policy CS20 of The Core Strategy for Chiltern District, Adopted November 2011."

In order to address this reason for refusal, the proposed number of dwellings has been reduced from 8 to 7, and the layout has been amended to be more spacious and so that refuse and emergency service vehicles can enter the site and turn safely, allowing them to exit the site in a forward gear.

4. With regard to the scale and density of the proposed development, there is a minimum distance of 3m between the dwellings at the rear of the site, in comparison to 2.5m on the previous proposal. The distances to the south-eastern and north-western boundaries are 1.5m and 1.9m respectively, compared to 1m and 1.2m previously. In addition, the total footprint covered by buildings has been reduced from 608sqm to 473sqm, a reduction of approximately 30%.

5. These amendments have improved the character and layout of the scheme, which is considered to reflect the general scale and density of the locality. The design of the proposed dwellings is also considered to be of good quality and it is noted that no objection was previously raised with regard to the design of the dwellings. It is also noted that the development does not preclude further development of the wider site in future.

Residential amenity6. With regard to the impact of the proposed development on the amenities of neighbouring properties, a comprehensive assessment was carried out for the previous application and no objections were raised in this regard. In comparison to the previous scheme, plot 7 is slightly closer to the south-western and north-western boundary, and plot 6 has been re-orientated on the plot. Overall, the location of the dwellings, the distances to neighbouring properties and the position of windows is such that the development does not significantly impair the amenities of neighbouring residents, subject to conditions. The proposal therefore complies with Policy GC3 of the Local Plan.

7. The fourth reason for refusing the previous application related to garden sizes and stated that;

"The proposed dwellings would have small rear garden areas in relation to the size of the dwellings, providing inadequate amenity space for the future occupiers of the development. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policies GC3 and H12 of The Chiltern District Local Plan Adopted 1 September 1997 (including alterations adopted 29 May 2001) Consolidated September 2007 and November 2011 and Policies CS25 and CS26 of The Core Strategy for Chiltern District, Adopted November 2011."

Given the revised layout, and the reduction in the number of dwellings and built footprint, the gardens are now larger than in the previous scheme, with an average size of 139sqm in comparison to 109sqm. The dwellings also now have front gardens. Although the rear garden depths range from 12m-15m, this is comparable to the garden depths in Brandon Mead and De Vere Close and therefore the proposal complies with Policy H12 of the Local Plan.



8. Bin storage is provided for each dwelling and as discussed below, there is sufficient space for a refuse vehicle to enter and turn within the site.

Parking/Highway implications9. The second reason for refusing the previous application was as follows:

"By reason of the cramped layout of the development and minimum width of the road within the site, there is insufficient manoeuvring space for refuse vehicles. As such, refuse vehicles are unlikely to enter the site, and would therefore rather wait on Chartridge Lane, causing a potential highway safety hazard. Furthermore, the distance that residents would need to carry their waste and recycling bins the road exceeds 30m, which is the recognised acceptable standard in Manual for Streets. As such, waste may not be collected, resulting in poor amenity levels for the future occupiers of the development and have a harmful impact on the visual amenity of the area. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policies GC1, GC3, TR2 and TR3 of The Chiltern District Local Plan Adopted 1 September 1997 (including alterations adopted 29 May 2001) Consolidated September 2007 and November 2011 and Policies CS20, CS25 and CS26 of The Core Strategy for Chiltern District, Adopted November 2011."

In order to address this reason for refusal, the access drive has been widened so that it measures 4.8m for the entirety of its length and a turning area at the top of the access drive has been provided. A swept path analysis has been submitted on drawing no. 2PL 01d which demonstrates that refuse and emergency vehicles would be able to manoeuvre comfortably within the site and the Highway Authority have confirmed that the access road would be considered for adoption. As such, there would not be a need for refuse vehicles to wait on Chartridge Lane or for residents to carry their waste for long distances.

10. With regard to the impact of the development on the road network, the comments from the Highway Authority are noted and no objections are raised in this regard.

11. The third reason for refusing the previous application was as follows:

"The proposed garages are small in size with narrow doors and accessed via narrow driveways. It is therefore unlikely that they will be used for parking vehicles and as such, there will be a shortage of useable and convenient parking spaces within the site, resulting in cars parking along the access road or outside the site, creating a potential highway hazard and inconvenience to future residents. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policies TR11, TR15, TR16, TR2 and TR3 of The Chiltern District Local Plan Adopted 1 September 1997 (including alterations adopted 29 May 2001) Consolidated September 2007 and November 2011 and Policies CS25 and CS26 of The Core Strategy for Chiltern District, Adopted November 2011."

The current proposal has removed the garages from the scheme and provided 19 car parking spaces within the site. This complies with the Council's standards set out in Policy TR16 of the Local Plan. Although the driveways for some of the dwellings are long, there is sufficient turning space at the top of the access drive to manoeuvre. The driveways are located adjacent to the dwelling which they serve and are therefore conveniently located for the future occupiers of the development. As such, there will be minimal need to park on the street.

Ecology12. Policy CS24 of the Core Strategy states that the Council will aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity within the District. In this respect it states that development proposals should protect biodiversity and provide for the long-term management, enhancement, restoration and, if possible,



expansion, of biodiversity, by aiming to restore or create suitable semi-natural habitats and ecological networks to sustain wildlife. Where development proposals are permitted, provision will be made to safeguard and where possible enhance any ecological interest. This is consistent with paragraph 118 of the NPPF which aims to conserve and enhance biodiversity.

13. In this regard, an Ecological Assessment and Preliminary Roost Assessment have been submitted with the application. These have found no evidence of bats and conclude that the dwelling to be demolished has only a negligible potential to support roosting bats. As such, an informative is considered sufficient to advise the applicant of their responsibilities in the unlikely event that a bat is found during demolition.

14. In order to enhance biodiversity, a condition is recommended to require a landscaping scheme to be submitted which includes biodiversity features to encourage wildlife. Finally, an informative is recommended relating to breeding birds.

Trees and landscaping15. Policy GC4 of the Local Plan states that existing trees and hedgerows in sound condition and of good amenity and wildlife value, together with any other existing landscape features of the site which are an important part of its character, such as ponds, should be retained. In this regard, the comments from the Tree and Landscape Officer are noted, which raises no objection to the proposal subject to a condition to ensure adequate protection for the trees to be retained.

Flooding and drainage16. The site is not within any designated flood zone or Critical Drainage Area but it in order to manage surface water drainage, a soakaway is proposed in each of the residential gardens. This is considered sufficient to minimise the risk of potential surface water flooding.

Affordable Housing17. The previous application for 8 dwellings attracted one affordable housing unit because the maximum combined gross floorspace exceeded 1,000sqm. However, the reduction in floorspace now means that the development falls below the thresholds set out by the Government in terms of affordable housing. The Planning Practice Guidance states that there are specific circumstances where contributions for affordable housing and tariff style planning obligations (section 106 planning obligations) should not be sought from small scale and self-build development, including developments of 10 units or less, or which have a gross floorspace of less than 1,000sqm. As the development now falls below these thresholds, no objection is raised to the proposal without an affordable housing contribution.

Conclusion18. The proposed development is considered to have addressed the previous reasons for refusal in relation to the scale, layout and density of the scheme, the space for refuse and emergency vehicles, the parking arrangements and the garden sizes. No new objections are raised and therefore the current proposal is considered to comply with the relevant Development Plan policies and the NPPF.

Working with the applicant19. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the Council, in dealing with this application, has worked in a positive and proactive way with the Applicant / Agent and has focused on seeking solutions to the issues arising from the development proposal.Chiltern District Council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by;



offering a pre-application advice service,updating applicants/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their

application as appropriate and, where possible and appropriate, suggesting solutions.In this case, Chiltern District Council has considered the details as submitted which were considered acceptable.

Human Rights 20. The following recommendation is made having regard to the above and also to the content of the Human Rights Act 1998.



2 Before any construction work commences, named types, and samples of the facing materials and roofing materials to be used for the external construction of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the development is not detrimental to the character of the locality, in accordance with Policies GC1 and H3 of the Chiltern District Local Plan Adopted 1 September 1997 (including alterations adopted 29 May 2001) consolidated September 2007 and November 2011, and Policy CS20 of the Core Strategy for Chiltern District (Adopted November 2011).

3 Notwithstanding the submitted details, no development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping at a scale of not less than 1:500 which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, with details of those to be retained, those to be felled being clearly specified, and full details of those to be planted. This shall include full details of the locations, size and species of all trees, hedgerows and shrubs to be planted, removed and retained and should include the installation of bat and/or bird bricks and/or boxes. Reason: In order to maintain, as far as possible, the character of the locality and to ensure biodiversity enhancements and to ensure a good quality of amenity for future occupiers of the dwellings hereby permitted, in accordance with policies GC1, GC4 and H3 of the Chiltern District Local Plan Adopted 1 September 1997 (including alterations adopted 29 May 2001) consolidated September 2007 and November 2011, and policy CS20 and CS24 of the Core Strategy for Chiltern District (Adopted November 2011)

4 Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the proposed boundary treatments for the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved boundary treatments shall then be erected/constructed prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted and thereafter retained in situ, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.Reason: To protect, as far as possible, the character of the locality, in accordance with policies GC1 and H3 of the Chiltern District Local Plan Adopted 1 September 1997 (including alterations adopted 29 May 2001) consolidated September 2007 and November 2011, and policy CS20 of the Core Strategy for Chiltern District (Adopted November 2011).

5 No development shall take place until a Tree Protection Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This plan shall clearly show the trees



and hedges to be retained and those to be removed, along with the positions of tree protection fencing and any other appropriate tree protection measures. Before any other site works commence on the development hereby permitted this tree protection fencing shall be erected around all the trees and hedges to be retained in accordance with both this plan and British Standard 5837:2012. The fencing shall then be retained in these positions until the development is completed. During this period no construction work shall take place, no materials whatsoever shall be stored, no fires shall be started, no excavation shall take place and there shall be no change in ground levels within these enclosed areas. The Tree Protection Plan shall also show no-dig construction for the proposed hardstanding areas and pathways within the root protection areas of the retained trees. These protection measures shall then be implemented in accordance with the details in the approved plan.Reason: To ensure that the retained trees and hedges on the site are safeguarded during building operations and to maintain the character of the area, in accordance with policies GC1, GC4 and H3 of the Chiltern District Local Plan Adopted 1 September 1997 (including alterations adopted 29 May 2001) consolidated September 2007 and November 2011, and policy CS20 of the Core Strategy for Chiltern District (Adopted November 2011).

6 No tree or hedge shown to be retained on the Tree Protection Plan approved under condition 5 shall be removed, uprooted, destroyed or pruned for a period of five years from the date of implementation of the development hereby approved without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. If any retained tree or hedge is removed, uprooted or destroyed, or dies during that period, another tree shall be planted of such size and species as shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Furthermore, the existing soil levels within the root protection areas of the retained trees and hedges shall not be altered. Reason: To maintain, as far as possible, the character of the locality, in accordance with policies GC1, GC4 and H3 of the Chiltern District Local Plan Adopted 1 September 1997 (including alterations adopted 29 May 2001) consolidated September 2007 and November 2011, and policy CS20 of the Core Strategy for Chiltern District (Adopted November 2011).

7 No other part of the development shall begin until the new means of access has been sited and laid out in accordance with the approved drawing. Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway, in accordance with Policies TR2 and TR3 of the Chiltern District Local Plan Adopted 1 September 1997 (including alterations adopted 29 May 2001) consolidated September 2007 and November 2011 and Policies CS25 and CS26 of The Core Strategy for Chiltern District, Adopted November 2011.

8 No other part of the development shall begin until the visibility splays shown on the approved drawings have been provided on both sides of the access. The area contained within the splays shall thereafter be kept free of any obstruction exceeding 0.6 metres in height above the nearside channel level of the carriageway.Reason: To provide adequate intervisibility between the access and the existing public highway for the safety and convenience of users of the highway and of the access, in accordance with Policies TR2 and TR3 of the Chiltern District Local Plan Adopted 1 September 1997 (including alterations adopted 29 May 2001) consolidated September 2007 and November 2011 and Policies CS25 and CS26 of The Core Strategy for Chiltern District, Adopted November 2011.

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



Reason: To enable vehicles to draw off, park and turn clear of the highway to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway, in accordance with Policies TR2, TR3, TR11 and TR16 of the Chiltern District Local Plan Adopted 1 September 1997 (including alterations adopted 29 May 2001) consolidated September 2007 and November 2011 and Policies CS25 and CS26 of The Core Strategy for Chiltern District, Adopted November 2011.

10 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order, with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows other than those expressly authorised by this permission, shall be inserted or constructed at any time in the following elevations of the stated dwellings hereby permitted:- North west elevation of the dwelling on Plot 1- South east elevation of the dwelling on Plot 2- North west elevation of the dwelling on Plot 4- North west and south east elevation of the dwelling on Plot 5- South east elevation of the dwelling on Plot 6- South west elevation of the dwelling on Plot 7. Reason: To protect the amenities and privacy of the adjoining properties, in accordance with policy GC3 of the Chiltern District Local Plan Adopted 1 September 1997 (including alterations adopted 29 May 2001) consolidated September 2007 and November 2011.

11 The windows at first floor level in the side elevations of plots 1-5, prior to the first occupation of each dwelling which that window serves, shall be fitted with obscured glazing and any part of the window that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be non-opening. The windows shall be permanently retained in that condition thereafter.Reason: To protect the amenities and privacy of the adjoining properties, in accordance with policy GC3 of the Chiltern District Local Plan Adopted 1 September 1997 (including alterations adopted 29 May 2001) consolidated September 2007 and November 2011.


INFORMATIVES

1 INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that the owners of 62 Berkeley Avenue and 161 Chartridge Lane have raised concern that the development site includes parts of their land. Therefore the applicant is advised to resolve land ownership issues with these owners prior to commencing development.

2 INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that all species of bat and their roosts are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. The applicant and contractors should be aware that all bats and any structures used by them are protected by law, and that works likely to disturb bats or their resting places (even if undertaken at a time of year when the bats are absent) require a licence from Natural England. Should a bat be encountered during development, work should cease immediately and advice should be sought from Natural England (tel. Batline 0345 1300228). Bats should preferably not be handled (and not without gloves) but should be left in place, gently covered, until advice is obtained. Particular care and vigilance should be taken when roof tiles or slates are removed (remove by hand and check underside for bats before stacking, particularly the ones over the gable ends and ridge tiles.) Fascias,



barge boards and external cladding may also provide roost opportunities for bats and should be disturbed with care. As a further precaution, undertaking roof work during the months of March to May, or September to November will avoid the main hibernation and breeding seasons when bats are most sensitive to disturbance.

3 INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that all wild birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), including their nests (whilst in use or being built) as well as any eggs the nest may contain. Therefore, vegetation should not be removed, nor buildings demolished, during the bird nesting season. This is weather dependant but generally extends from 1st March to 31st August (inclusive). If this is not possible, a qualified ecologist should check the areas concerned immediately prior to vegetation removal/building demolition to ensure that no nesting or nest-building birds are present. If any nesting or nest-building birds are present, no vegetation/building demolition should be removed until the fledglings have left the nest.

4 INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that the works required to construct the access will need to be constructed under a Section 184 of the Highways Act legal agreement. This Small Works Agreement must be obtained from the Highway Authority before any works are carried out on any footway, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the highway. A minimum period of 3 weeks is required to process the agreement following the receipt by the Highway Authority of a written request. Please contact Development Management at the following address for information:-

Highways Development Management 6th Floor, County HallWalton Street, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire HP20 1UYTelephone 0845 230 2882

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

6 INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that it is an offence under S151 of the Highways Act 1980 for vehicles leaving the development site to carry mud onto the public highway. Facilities should therefore be provided and used on the development site for cleaning the wheels of vehicles before they leave the site.

7 INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that no vehicles associated with the building operations on the development site shall be parked on the public highway so as to cause an obstruction. Any such wilful obstruction is an offence under S137 of the Highways Act 1980.



CH/2016/1562/FACase Officer: Andrew WhiteDate Received: 22.08.2016 Decide by Date: 17.10.2016Parish: Chalfont St Peter Ward: AustenwoodApp Type: Full ApplicationProposal: Part two storey, first floor and single storey front/side/rear extensionsLocation: 2 Russett Hill

Chalfont St PeterGerrards CrossBuckinghamshireSL9 8JY

Applicant: Mr Bharat Patel

SITE CONSTRAINTSArticle 4 DirectionAdjacent Conservation AreasAdjacent to Unclassified RoadHeathrow Safeguard (over 45m)Mineral Consultation AreaNortholt Safeguard zone

CALL INCouncillor Wertheim has requested that the Planning Application be determined by Planning Committee "due to renewed local concern".

SITE LOCATIONThe dwelling is located on gently rising land within a residential cul-de-sac on the edge of Chalfont St. Peter which comprises large detached two-storey dwellings with open plan front gardens. The site backs onto the North Park and Kingsway Conservation Area.

THE APPLICATIONThe application proposes the construction of part two storey, first floor and single storey front, side and rear extensions. The application is identical in all respects to the permission granted under CH/2013/1218/FA. As such, the existing garage wall on the north side would be removed to allow for the construction of a two storey side extension 4.6m wide by 6.9m depth, with eaves at 4.7m and ridge height of 7.7m. To the rear (west), the existing single storey projection would be demolished to allow for the construction of a part single storey/part two storey rear extension. At ground floor level the extension would measure a maximum 16.1m width and 5.1m depth. The single storey element would have a flat roof (2.7m height) and the 1st floor section would have matching ridge height to the existing dwelling. To the front (east), the existing roof slope would be extended to form a catslide over a proposed single storey section. The existing dormer window would be replaced with one of 1.6m width and 2m height. The existing front porch overhang would be infilled with a 1st floor section added above and would be 5m width, 2.3m depth with eaves at 4.7m and ridge height 7.4m.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORYCH/2013/0249/FA. Part two storey, part single storey side/rear extension, part first floor, part single storey front extension and alterations to fenestration. Refused Permission: (1) Harm to character



and appearance of the locality due to scale, width and appearance of first floor side extension, (2) Harm to privacy and amenity of occupiers of No. 1 Russett Hill due to height, depth and projection beyond rear amenity space and location of side windows.

CH/2013/1218/FA. Part two storey, part first floor, part single storey front/side/rear extension. Conditional Permission. Not Started.

PARISH COUNCILNo objection.

REPRESENTATIONSOne letter of objection received.Proposal would cause noise, parking issues and ugly extensions would ruin the uniform look of the cul-de-sac.

Bickerton's Aerodromes Ltd. "The site is within the Denham Aerodrome Traffic Zone and under the flight path …any occupants in this location will both hear and see aircraft operations and it is important that all concerned are aware of the juxtaposition of the sites".

CONSULTATIONSNone relevant.

POLICIESNational Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Core Strategy for Chiltern District - Adopted November 2011: Policies CS4, CS20.

The Chiltern District Local Plan Adopted 1 September 1997 (including alterations adopted 29 May 2001) Consolidated September 2007 & November 2011. Saved Policies: GC1, GC3, H13, H14, H15, H16, H18, CA2, TR11 and TR16.

Residential Extensions and Householder Development SPD - Adopted 10 September 2013.

Sustainable Construction and Renewable Energy SPD - Adopted 25 February 2015.

EVALUATION Principle of development1. The site is located in the built up area of Chalfont St. Peter where extensions to existing dwellings are acceptable in principle, subject to complying with the relevant policies of the Development Plan. The site is also adjacent to a Conservation Area, wherein development must preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Design/character & appearance2. The proposed extensions would be identical in all respects to the planning permission CH/2013/1218/FA and there have been no material changes to the relevant National or Local planning policies as they relate to design, character and appearance. As such, the proposed extensions would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the locality and would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Residential amenity3. There has been no change to the siting and scale of the proposed extensions compared to the planning permission CH/2013/1218/FA. As such, subject to the imposition of planning conditions



to ensure that:

- any additional 1st floor windows proposed in the northern and southern elevations are subject to planning control; - the 1st floor window in the northern elevation is obscure glazed and non-opening below 1.7m; and - no part of the roof of the extension is used as a roof terrace or balcony

it is considered that the proposed extensions would not adversely affect the amenities of any nearby properties

Parking/Highway implications4. The proposal would have no adverse parking implications, having regard to the Council's standards.

Conclusions5. The scheme is considered to accord with Development Plan policies and guidance contained in the NPPF.

Working with the applicant6. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the Council, in dealing with this application, has worked in a positive and proactive way with the Applicant / Agent and has focused on seeking solutions to the issues arising from the development proposal.Chiltern District Council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by;- offering a pre-application advice service,- updating applicants/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application as appropriate and, where possible and appropriate, suggesting solutions.

In this case, Chiltern District Council has considered the details as submitted which were considered acceptable.

Human Rights7. The following recommendation is made having regard to the above and also to the content of the Human Rights Act 1998.



2 C431 Materials to Match Existing Dev

3 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order, with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows other than those expressly authorised by this permission, or as subsequently agreed in writing by the local planning authority, shall be inserted or constructed at any time at first floor level or above in the northern or southern side elevations of the extension hereby permitted.Reason: To protect the amenities and privacy of the adjoining property.



4 Before the first occupation of the extension hereby permitted the window at first floor level in the northern side elevation shall be fitted with obscured glazing and any part of the window that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be non-opening. The window shall be permanently retained in that condition thereafter. Reason: To protect the amenities and privacy of the adjoining property.

5 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no part of the roof of the rear extension hereby permitted shall be used at any time as a balcony or roof terrace, nor shall any access be formed thereto. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining properties.




The End

Documents

CHILTERN DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE - 20th ... List - 20.10.16.pdf · National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) - Chapter 9 (Green Belt) and Paragraph 17. Core Strategy for