Capswood, Oxford Road, Denham, Buckinghamshire, UB9 4LH 01895 837236 [email protected] www.southbucks.gov.uk
Planning Committee (SBDC)
Wednesday, 10 January 2018 at 4.15 pm
Council Chamber, Capswood, Oxford Road, Denham
A G E N D A
Item
1. Apologies for Absence
To receive any apologies for absence.
2. Minutes (Pages 5 - 10)
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 6 December 2017.
3. Declarations of Interest
To receive any declarations of interest
4. Applications and Plans
To consider the reports of the Interim Head of Planning and Economic Development.
A. Committee decision required following a site visit and/or public speaking.
17/00428/FUL - Land Between M25 And, Thorney Lane South, Iver, Buckinghamshire (Pages 11 - 30)
Chief Executive: Bob Smith Director of Resources: Jim Burness Director of Services: Steve Bambrick 17/00668/FUL - Curzon House, 48 Penn Road, Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire, HP9 2LT (Pages 31 - 42)
17/02029/FUL - Land Rear Of Dalehurst 11 Curzon Avenue And Cedar Cottage 15 Curzon Avenue, Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire, HP9 2NN (Pages 43 - 52)
17/02031/FUL - 22 Seeleys Road, Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire, HP9 1SZ (Pages 53 - 60)
17/02081/FUL - Dippingwell, Beaconsfield Road, Farnham Common, Buckinghamshire, SL2 3PU (Pages 61 - 72)
B. Committee decision required without a site visit or public speaking
17/01949/FUL- 14 Wooburn Green Lane, Holtspur, Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire, HP9 1XE (To Follow)
C. Committee observations required on applications to other Authorities
None.
D. To receive a list of applications already determined under delegated powers by the Interim Head of Planning and Economic Development (Pages 73-96)
To receive for information.
5. Outstanding Enforcement Notices (Pages 97 - 104)
To receive for information.
6. Planning Appeals and Schedule of Outstanding Matters (Pages 105 - 110)
To receive for information.
7. Planning Enforcement Report - Grenville Lodge (Pages 111 - 116)
8. Urgent Business
To consider any matters which the Chairman agrees as urgent in accordance with Section 100B of the Local Government Act 1972.
Note: All reports will be updated orally at the meeting if appropriate and may be supplemented by additional reports at the Chairman’s discretion.
Chief Executive: Bob Smith Director of Resources: Jim Burness Director of Services: Steve Bambrick Membership: Planning Committee (SBDC)
Councillors: R Bagge (Chairman) J Jordan (Vice-Chairman) D Anthony M Bezzant S Chhokar T Egleton B Gibbs P Hogan M Lewis Dr W Matthews G Sandy D Smith
Audio/Visual Recording of Meetings Please note: This meeting might be filmed, photographed, audio-recorded or reported by a party other than South Bucks District Council for subsequent broadcast or publication. If you intend to film, photograph or audio record the proceedings or if you have any questions please contact the Democratic Services Officer (members of the press please contact the Communications Officer).
Date of next meeting – Wednesday, 31 January 2018
If you would like this document in large print or an alternative format, please contact 01895 837236; email [email protected]
Chief Executive: Bob Smith Director of Resources: Jim Burness Director of Services: Steve Bambrick This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 2
PLANNING COMMITTEE (SBDC)
Meeting - 6 December 2017
Present: R Bagge (Chairman)* M Bezzant*, T Egleton*, B Gibbs*, P Hogan*, Dr W Matthews* and D Smith*
*attended site visit
Apologies for absence: D Anthony, S Chhokar, J Jordan, M Lewis and G Sandy
39. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN
It was proposed by Councillor Gibbs, seconded by Councillor Smith and
RESOLVED that Councillor Bagge be elected as Chairman of the Committee for the remainder of 2017/18.
40. MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on 1 November 2017 were confirmed and signed by the Chairman.
41. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Cllr Hogan declared that he had a personal interest under the Council’s Code of Conduct as he was a Member of Beaconsfield Town Council who had made representations about application 17/01390/FUL. Cllr Hogan confirmed that he had not attended any meetings when this application had been discussed by the Town Council nor expressed a view on the application and had not pre-determined the application.
Cllr Bagge declared that he had a personal interest under the Council’s Code of Conduct as he was a Member of Stoke Poges Parish Council who had made representations about application 17/01678/FUL. Cllr Bagge confirmed that he had not attended any meetings when this application had been discussed by the Parish Council nor expressed a view on the application and had not pre-determined the application.
Page 5 Agenda Item 2 Planning Committee (SBDC) - 6 December 2017
42. APPLICATIONS AND PLANS
Key to the following decisions:
ADV - Consent to Display Adverts; ARM – Approval of Reserved Matters; CI - Certificate of Lawfulness Issued; CON - Conservation Area Consent; D - Deferred; D (INF) - Deferred for Further Information; D (SV) - Deferred for Site Visits; D (PO) - Deferred for Planning Obligation; D (NEG) - Deferred for Negotiations; FCG - Consent for Tree Work; PCR TPO Part Consent/Part Refusal; LBC - Listed Building Consent; OP - Outline Planning Permission; P - Application Permitted; R - Refused or Rejected; R (AO) – Refused against Officer recommendation; RC - Removal of Condition; TC - Temporary Consent; TP - Temporary Permission; ULBC - Unconditional Listed Building Consent; UP - Unconditional Permission; VG - Variation Granted; W - Application Withdrawn.
(A) COMMITTEE DECISION REQUIRED FOLLOWING A SITE VISIT AND/OR PUBLIC SPEAKING:
Decision Plan Number: 17/01390/FUL P Applicant: Mr J Hunt Proposal: External alterations, including provision of balcony/raised veranda with external stairs, all related to the change of use from B1(a) (Offices) to provide additional guest accommodation in connection with the Crazy Bear Hotel at Georgian House, 57 Wycombe End, Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire, HP9 1LX Notes:
1. A site visit was undertaken by Members. 2. Prior to consideration, Mr A Blackburne, on behalf of the objectors addressed the meeting and Mr J Collinge, on behalf of the applicant addressed the meeting. 3. The Planning Officer confirmed to members that to preserve the amenities of the adjacent property occupiers in terms of potential noise and disturbance and to prevent overlooking and loss of privacy a condition could be added at the Committees discretion to erect screening.
It was accordingly
RESOLVED that the application be permitted subject to the conditions set out in the report, with the addition of: (i) a condition stating that within one month of the date of this decision, details of a full height glass screen to be erected from the western corner of the balcony for a minimum width of 2.0m shall be submitted for approval by the District Planning Authority in writing. Such details to be amended if required until written approval is issued. The approved screen shall then be fitted, entirely in accordance with the approved details, within one month of the date of the written
61217 Page 6 Agenda Item 2 Planning Committee (SBDC) - 6 December 2017 approval and shall thereafter be maintained as such; and (ii) An informative that the applicants be requested to introduce a policy for the management of noise generated from the occupants of the building during unsociable hours.
Decision Plan Number: 17/01661/FUL P Applicant: L Aird Proposal: Demolition of existing detached garage at number 3 Freemans Close and construction of new detached dwelling. Retention of existing vehicular access to serve the new dwelling and construction of new vehicular access to serve the existing dwelling at Orchard House, 3 Freemans Close, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4ER Notes:
1. A site visit was undertaken by Members. 2. Prior to consideration, Dr. V Drewett, on behalf of the objectors addressed the meeting and Mr T Daniel, on behalf of the applicant addressed the meeting.
It was accordingly
RESOLVED that the application be permitted.
Decision Plan Number: 17/01678/FUL P Applicant: Mr T Daniel Proposal: Redevelopment of site to provide two detached dwellings with associated vehicular accesses at 27 Broom Hill, Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire, SL2 4PU Notes:
1. A site visit was undertaken by Members. 2. Prior to consideration, Professor S Mackey, on behalf of the objectors addressed the meeting and Mr T Daniel, the applicant addressed the meeting. 3. Clarification was given by the Planning Officer that Condition 3 required a schedule of materials to be submitted to the Council prior to commencement of work.
It was accordingly
RESOLVED that the application be permitted subject to the conditions set out in the report and that (i) condition 3 be amended to include ‘such details to comprise of yellow-multi brick and brown clay tiles’; (ii) a condition be added stating that the existing trees, hedgerows and shrubs along the eastern boundary of the site shall be retained and maintained unless any variation is previously agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority and (iii) a condition added for details of slab levels of the dwelling houses to be submitted.
61217 Page 7 Agenda Item 2 Planning Committee (SBDC) - 6 December 2017
Decision Plan Number: 17/01891/FUL R Applicant: Mr A Burrows Proposal: Construction of boathouse with dwelling above and associated car port at St Regis Paper Mill and Adj Land including Skindles Hotel Site, Mill Lane, Taplow, Buckinghamshire Notes:
1. A site visit was undertaken by Members. 2. Consultation response had been received from the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead which raised no objection. 3. Favourable comments had been received from the County Ecologist. 4. Members were advised by the Planning Officer that the Header on page 43 of the reports pack should read ‘Reasons for Refusal’ rather than ‘Conditions & Reasons’.
It was accordingly
RESOLVED that the application be refused on the grounds that the proposed development is (i) located within the Metropolitan Green Belt; (ii) if permitted, the proposal would be liable to act as a precursor of similar proposals for further residential dwellings, on other sites located within the green belt and (iii) the application is not compatible with the functional floodplain and would fall into a flood risk vulnerability category that is inappropriate to the Flood Zone in which the application site is located.
(B) COMMITTEE DECISION REQUIRED WITHOUT A SITE VISIT OR PUBLIC SPEAKING:-
None
(C) COMMITTEE OBSERVATION REQUIRED ON APPLICATIONS TO OTHER AUTHORITIES
None
(D) APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY
The Committee received for information a list of the applications dealt with under delegated authority by the Head of Sustainable Development.
43. OUTSTANDING ENFORCEMENT NOTICES
The Committee received for information a progress report and verbal update from the Enforcement Manager which set out the up-to-date position relating to Enforcement Notices.
RESOLVED that the report be noted.
61217 Page 8 Agenda Item 2 Planning Committee (SBDC) - 6 December 2017
44. PLANNING APPEALS AND SCHEDULE OF OUTSTANDING MATTERS
The Committee received for information a progress report which set out the up-to-date position relating to Planning Public Inquiries, Hearings and Court Dates.
RESOLVED that the report be noted
45. ENFORCEMENT NOTICE REPORT - LAND ADJACENT TO WAPSEYS WOOD CARAVAN PARK, OXFORD ROAD, GERRARDS CROSS
The Committee received an enforcement report and verbal update on the land adjacent to Wapseys Wood Caravan Park, Oxford Road, Gerrards Cross. The report could be seen in its entirety within the agenda pack.
Following discussion it was RESOLVED that:
1. In consultation with the Director of Services, the Head of Legal & Democratic Services be granted authority to issue and serve an Enforcement Notice pursuant to Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in respect of the unauthorised engineering operation to raise and reconfigure the level of the land through the importation, deposition and spreading of materials including (but not limited to) hardcore, broken bricks, rubble, stone, gravel and waste materials. 2. In the event that the Enforcement Notice is not complied with, that authority be given to the Head of Legal & Democratic Services to take such legal proceedings as may be considered appropriate to secure compliance therewith.
The meeting terminated at 6.07 pm
61217 Page 9 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
PART A
South Bucks District Council Planning Committee
Date of Meeting: 10 January 2018 Parish: Iver Parish Council
Reference No: 17/00428/FUL Full Application Proposal: Construction of 250 vehicle commuter car park together with associated landscaping. Location: Land Between M25 And, Thorney Lane South, Iver, Buckinghamshire Applicant: Ms Oxley Agent: Mr Paul Airey Date Valid Appl Recd: 13th March 2017 Recommendation: PER
LOCATION PLAN – This plan is supplied only to identify the location of the site and for no other purpose whatsoever.
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the South Bucks District Council permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Licence Number LA 100025874 Crown Copying. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or Civil proceedings. SCALE : NOT TO SCALE THE PROPOSAL:
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 11 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
Permission is sought for the construction of a 250 space surface-level car park intended for use by commuters and other rail users of Iver Station. It is intended that the car park would cater for future demand for parking in proximity of Iver Station as a result of the introduction of the new Crossrail line due to commence services in December 2019.
There is currently no provision for commuter car parking at Iver Station and, consequently, users of the station park in the surrounding roads of Richings Park.
Vehicular access/egress would be provided directly from Thorney Lane South, towards the southern end of the site. Pedestrian access and egress would also come out onto Thorney Lane South, towards the northern end of the site and a pedestrian (zebra) crossing would be provided across Thorney Lane South, linking up with the existing pedestrian footway and then a footpath running east/west to the south of the railway to provide direct access to the station. The majority of the spaces would be within a 250m walk of the station.
LOCATION & DESCRIPTION OF SITE:
The site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt. It comprises 1.28 hectares of land directly to the east of Thorney Lane South, to the south of the railway and to the west of the embankment leading up to the M25 motorway. Open Green Belt land lies to the south of the site, and the developed area of Richings Park abuts up to the east side of Thorney Lane South opposite the site.
The site is generally flat but gently slopes to the east where it meets the motorway embankment. The site is formerly grazing land but was recently occupied by contractors for Network Rail who used the land as a compound for the works associated with the renewal of the railway bridge. The land was stripped of topsoil during the construction process and is now in the process of being restored to its original condition.
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:
15/01632/CROS: Application under Schedule 7 (Paragraph 17) of the Crossrail Act 2008 to bring the Works Nos. 3/9A and 3/9B in South Bucks District Council into use. Application permitted. Site now in the process of being restored in accordance with this permission.
REPRESENTATIONS & CONSULTATIONS:
Parish Council comments:
No objection. Previously disturbed land in Green Belt. Iver PC supports subject to conditions to permit short-term commuter parking only and to prevent use for long-stay parking associated with Heathrow. Also a condition for a residents parking scheme.
CORRESPONDENCE:
Letters of objection have been received from or on behalf of the occupants/landowners of 20 separate properties in the vicinity of the application site. The grounds of objection are as follows: -
- No proven requirement for 750 car parking spaces (including those proposed as part of the Thorney Business Park development). Car park itself is too large;
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 12 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
- Parking in the Thorney Business Park would be better as it is closer and would benefit from any relief road; - Too far away from the station at 1.2 km at its furthest point; - Opportunistic application seeking permission prior to the redevelopment of Thorney Business Park; - Proposal would result in increased traffic on Thorney Lane and Bathurst Walk. The area cannot sustain this along with the increased number of HGV's; - Would attract commuters from further afield as it would be a bigger facility when compared to others in the vicinity such as West Drayton and Langley; - Zebra crossing would be dangerous and would cause traffic disruption on Thorney Lane South. Vehicular access into the site would be dangerous and would be a nuisance to residents in Thorney Lane South. Queuing traffic would make it difficult to enter and exit from driveways; - Increase in noise, air and light pollution; - Too far away from station; - Would lead to infill housing development or increased parking in the future; - Noise from motorway would increase as no acoustic barriers incorporated within the scheme; - Site is in Green Belt and not included in Local Plan for release from Green Belt; - Footpath access to station not safe; - Would result in increased litter on surrounding roads; - No details provided of the proposed Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in Richings Park; Concern that there would be a charge levied for parking in Richings Park; - Commuters will still park on surrounding roads if CPZ allows for free parking overnight; - Car park would be an eyesore; - Car park is too isolated and would attract crime; - Land should be restored to its original state; - Another in a long line of environmentally unfriendly developments in the vicinity of Thorney Lane South over the past 30 years, harmful to the local residents; - Impact on wildlife - the land is a natural oasis for deer, rabbits and birds etc. - Impact on security of people's homes as strangers are attracted to the area; - Impact from noise and dust during construction; - Impact on outlook from houses in Thorney Lane South, overlooking a car park rather than a field; - Impact on the narrowest part of the Colne Valley Park between London and Slough; - The compound for the rebuilding of the railway bridge was a temporary use of this land, its previous use being for the grazing of horses. It is therefore disingenuous to suggest that this proposal would be 'a significant improvement on the previous use.' This temporary use of the site (which was conditioned to be restored to its original condition - a process which is currently underway) should not be a material planning consideration in the assessment of this planning application; - More sustainable methods of transport should be promoted for rail users such as buses, cycling or park and ride. A large car park would only encourage commuters to travel to it from neighbouring towns; - Potential flooding of properties from rainwater run-off from the site; - Any case for the provision of a car park should be subject to a robust assessment of all other options; - Cars parked on this land together with the provision of a hard-surface would reduce openness, contrary to the requirements of paragraph 90 of the NPPF and would have an urbanising influence on the site. The proposal therefore amounts to inappropriate development and in the absence of 'very special circumstances' the scheme should be refused; - Thorney Lane South is a permanent defensible boundary to the Green Belt to the east of Richings Park. The application proposal would allow the built-up area of Richings Park to sprawl eastwards. It would also fail to safeguard the Green Belt countryside to the east of
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 13 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
Thorney Lane from encroachment. Therefore, the second test of paragraph 90 of the NPPF (purposes of including land within the Green Belt) is also failed; - Disabled parking spaces are in excess of 200m walking distance from the station, far exceeding the suggested 50m threshold for disabled badge holders; - Proposed car park does not provide a suitable solution for taxi drop-offs and waiting at the station; - The proposal does not provide direct access to the station without the need to conflict with road traffic; - No indication how the development is to be funded and delivered.
The planning agents acting on behalf of the owners of the Thorney Lane site, Thorney Lane LLP conclude their comments, inter-alia, as follows. "(The Council) could choose to accept an ad hoc application for a car park (subject to highways and flooding objections) without any proper assessment as to whether it is the most appropriate location. Or it can wait for a comprehensive proposal that has the potential to deal with multi-modal interchange and provide far better integration with Iver Station. The development of Green Belt land is not a matter to be taken lightly and the Council should not accept one proposal simply because it is likely to be delivered more quickly than a potentially better one.
Letters of support have been received from 17 separate properties in the vicinity of the application site including one giving support to the application from the Richings Park Residents Association. The grounds of support can be summarised as follows: -
- The proposal is a sensible use of a portion of land which is of little use, agriculturally or otherwise; - The provision of a badly needed car park for commuter use would alleviate the chronic congestion problems around car parking currently affecting Richings Park; - Essential services often cannot access Richings Park because of the congestion caused by on- street commuter parking. Grass verges are currently being destroyed and roads cannot be swept properly. Congestion has a damaging effect on shops close to the station. This will only get worse when Crossrail starts; - Parking restrictions should also be put in place in Richings Park; - It is inconceivable that a new 21st Century rail service in Crossrail should not be supported by commuter parking facilities; - Car park needs to be sufficiently lit and provide car charging points; - Car park should be screened by fencing and trees; - The land in question does not provide amenity value to local residents and neither does it perform the task of preventing urban sprawl; the M25 does that. The benefit to the community is considerably higher than any loss of Green Belt.
Two letters have also been received supporting the proposal with the following caveats: -
- Car park must be restricted to cars with no lorry or bus parking; - The 30mph limit should be extended further south to the roundabout or even further west to where the road narrows in Richings Way as school buses collect and drop children outside the Tower Arms; - Concerned that vehicles and pedestrians exiting the site are safe;
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 14 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
SPECIALIST ADVICE:
Crossrail:
The site of this planning application is identified outside the limits of land subject to consultation under the Safeguarding Direction. The implications of the Crossrail proposals for the application have been considered and I write to inform you that Crossrail Ltd do not wish to make any comments on this application as submitted.
Network Rail:
Comments but raises no objections.
Environment Agency:
Having reviewed the information submitted we have no objection to the proposal, nor any conditions to request.
National Grid:
National Grid has no objection to the proposal which is in close proximity to our high voltage transmission underground cable. This is sent on the proviso that protection is installed over the underground cable in order to protect it from the weight of the traffic passing over it.
Transport for London:
TfL has a direct interest due to recent improvement works at Iver station in connection with the Crossrail project, leading up to the introduction of Elizabeth Line services.
Iver station is currently served by Great Western rail services. From December 2019 it will benefit from Elizabeth Line services which will be operated by TfL and provide new connections through central London. The station has no car parking at present. TfL understands that any rail passengers arriving by car, park on surrounding streets where there are no restrictions. The Crossrail project did not include car parking as part of the station improvements and nor does TfL have any commitment to provide car parking at the present time.
During Crossrail construction works, the application site was acquired by TfL from the applicant for use as a temporary works site. This work has now been completed and under the terms of the Crossrail Act, the land is due to be reinstated and handed back. Although TfL officers have had previous contact with the applicant, TfL has no involvement in the development proposals which have been submitted and is not in a position to provide support for this or any other proposals for station car parking at the present time.
The land in question lies within the green belt and TfL understands that there are no proposals to release this land for development as part of the ongoing Local Plan review. As a result of the green belt designation, the planning authorities will need to be satisfied that the proposal constitutes appropriate development in the green belt as set out in paragraph 90 of National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG). This states that provided development proposals preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt this can include 'local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a green belt location.'
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 15 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
Further issues to consider are whether the provision of a car park for rail commuters is appropriate in strategic terms and whether this site provides the best location. The proposed car park is designed to attract commuters who would otherwise park on street but it is likely that provision of a formal car park will increase the total number of commuters travelling to Iver station by car. These commuters may, in the absence of a car park at Iver, have used other nearby stations (either travelling by car or using public transport) or (in the absence of a suitable bus service) they could have walked or cycled to Iver station. Any adverse impacts resulting from additional car trips attracted to Iver, leading to additional car mileage or transfer from more sustainable modes, will need to be balanced against the potential benefits of reducing on street parking.
TfL understands that land to the north of Iver station is proposed for release from the green belt as part of the Local Plan review and that this area could provide an alternative site for car parking that would be available to station users. The potential prospect of this site being released from the green belt and coming forward for future development as part of the Local Plan process, will need to be taken into account when considering whether the use of the application site for car parking meets the test for 'local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a green belt location'.
TfL is reported as favouring the alternative site for a car park to the north of the station in the Iver Feasibility Study - Traffic and Transport Study published by Buckinghamshire County Council in September 2016 cited in the submission documents. Although there have been meetings with the developer's agents, TfL has not indicated any positive support for these alternative proposals, and has no involvement in proposals to release land north of the station from the green belt as part of the Local Plan review, or any development that may come forward for this land in the future. TfL wishes to reserve its formal position until development proposals for the site emerge in more detail.
In its response to the Local Plan Green Belt review consultation, TfL noted that there is an interface between the site north of the station and the future construction of the Western Access to Heathrow - a project currently being developed by Network Rail (although this is not through the site itself, just adjacent to it). The Local Plan consultation document suggested that development of this site could be held back until after any construction works have been concluded in 2025 - a position that TfL supported.
Notwithstanding the above strategic transport and planning issues, TfL requests that the following detailed issues are taken into account if the application were to be considered for approval:
Although TfL has no detailed knowledge of traffic conditions or speeds in the area, the requirement for car park users to cross Thorney Lane South to reach the station is potentially a serious concern. Any change to speed limits will need to take account of actual vehicle speeds, the potential for speed reduction and enforcement of the new limits. Pedestrian crossing facilities will need to be designed and located so that they are on pedestrian desire lines while maintaining road safety, taking into account sight lines, gradients and the proximity of the rail bridge. A more formal signalised crossing may be required, rather than the proposed zebra crossing.
TfL understands that the pedestrian route leading from Thorney Lane South to the station is not a public right of way and therefore cannot be guaranteed in perpetuity. The pedestrian path is enclosed by fencing and undergrowth and is not directly overlooked which may pose security concerns for car park users, particularly at night. The applicant will need to work with landowners and the highway authority to ensure that the whole route from the car park to the station entrance is of sufficient quality, taking into account issues of personal security. Access
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 16 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
to the route at all times will also need to be safeguarded. Any costs in upgrading the pedestrian route and improving safety and security should be met by the applicant. If the car park is to be successful in the stated aim of reducing on street parking, it will be essential that parking restrictions are introduced to coincide with the opening of the car park. This will require consultation with residents and their agreement to controls being introduced on all surrounding streets where there is potential for station users to park. The applicant should provide funding towards the consultation process with residents, work with the local highway authority to agree a comprehensive set of parking restrictions and facilitate their introduction.
Paragraph 4.5 states that a management company would be appointed to manage the car park. A number of safeguards will need to be provided as part of any planning permission. These should be formalised through a Car Park Management Plan which will need to be submitted for approval. Issues covered by the Plan will need to include issues such as lighting, surfacing, maintenance, CCTV coverage and monitoring. Good practice in the provision of station car parking should be followed. As well as suitably located and well-designed Blue Badge parking, consideration should also be given to provision of electric vehicle charging, priority spaces for car club users or registered car sharers. Additional secure cycle parking should also be provided as part of the proposals, although this may be more conveniently located close to the station entrance. In all publicity it will need to be made clear that the car park is managed privately and that there is no connection with the rail operators.
In paragraph 4.6 it is suggested that the car park is capable of future enlargement. However, the proposed layout does not seem to lend itself to subsequent enlargement. Unless land is removed from the green belt this would require any future extension to be assessed afresh as to whether it constituted appropriate development in the green belt.
Paragraph 9.3 notes that the site does not drain very well and slopes east and towards the railway. Safeguards will need to be put in place as part of any planning permission to ensure that the railway is protected from any flooding that may result from development of the site as a car park. Appropriate surfacing materials and drainage will need to be used to eliminate any risk.
In summary, although TfL recognises the opportunity that may exist to provide station car parking at Iver, there is no commitment by either Crossrail or TfL to provide parking in the near future. TfL has had contact with the applicant for this site and also with the agents for the alternative site to the north referred to in the submission. However, TfL has not expressed support for either of these proposals and is not involved in the design work. If the current application were to be recommended for approval, a number of detailed points as set out above would need to be taken into account.
BCC Highways:
Need for the Development: It has been demonstrated that there would be a need for 124 spaces to accommodate the morning commuters up to 10am, based on the existing modal split and accounting for future demand as detailed in the 'Iver Feasibility Study, Traffic and Transport Study' published in September 2016. It is accepted that there would be a need for additional parking above that required during the morning commuter peak to accommodate later commuter arrivals, however the level of requirement has not been quantified and evidenced through parking surveys. The Highway Authority would have expected parking surveys undertaken at comparable stations to be used to estimate the demand for parking throughout the day, and to justify the need for a further 126 spaces.
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 17 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
Additional parking provision above the existing level would be considered to go against the sustainability agenda of NPPF. By introducing a car park at Iver Station, there is the risk that some commuters may begin to travel by car when previously they have undertaken the journey by sustainable modes of transport.
To mitigate the impact of the development, and reduce the potential for additional car borne trips as a result, secure cycle parking should be provided within the site. As the Local Planning Authority, I understand you will assess whether the required level of cycle parking is acceptable. Notwithstanding this, Buckinghamshire Countywide Parking Guidance which was adopted on September 2015 provides up-to-date guidance relating to recommended parking provision. There is no set guidance for cycle parking for this type of development, and therefore it should be assessed on a case by case basis. The BCC parking guidance does however state that "Safe and secure cycle parking is an important component in encouraging cycling. For new developments, BCC aims to ensure that developers make efficient use of land and promote sustainable travel choices." As a minimum, I would recommend that 10 cycle spaces are provided within the car park site.
As previously noted, it is acknowledged that there would be additional demand for parking throughout the day, although this has not been quantified through evidence. The 'Iver Feasibility Study, Traffic and Transport Study' Issue P6 & R2 of the Study states that not having a station car park at Iver "causes significant on street parking within Richings Park as there are limited restrictions and controls. This leads to congestion and obstruction to the free flow of traffic". The Study recognises that this issue was raised in public consultations and is a serious issue for Richings Park residents. It also recognises the issue is likely to get worse following the introduction of Crossrail. Therefore, it is accepted that by providing a dedicated car park, the safety of the highway on the surrounding roads would be improved.
In order to ensure that commuters would use the proposed car park instead of continuing to park on nearby local roads, some form of parking restrictions would need to be put in place to control this. I am aware that there is a local desire for a parking scheme to reduce commuter parking on the residential roads surrounding the station. The Highway Authority therefore requires that the applicant enters into a S106 Agreement to provide a financial contribution towards the consultation and implementation of parking restrictions.
In view of the above, whilst not ideal, on balance, the Highway Authority could no longer justify this as a reason for refusal of the application in the event of an Appeal.
Traffic Generation: It has been assumed that as a result of the Crossrail station improvements; there would be 420 entrances to the station during the 3 hour morning peak between 07:00-10:00. Based on existing modal split surveys of Iver Station, 29.4% of these passengers would travel by car, resulting in 124 vehicle arrivals. This would be the baseline situation without the proposed car park development.
Based on surveys of other comparable car parks, by 10:00 at the end of the 3 hour morning peak, there is a 69% occupancy, which would equate to 173 vehicle arrivals in Iver of the proposed 250 spaces. Based on surveys at Iver station, of these vehicle movements 31% would arrive during the morning peak hour of 08:00-09:00, equating to 53 vehicle arrivals. This figure has been reversed for the evening peak hour. For ease, the proposed car park traffic generation has been repeated below.
It is accepted that the above figures include baseline traffic, which includes existing vehicle commuter trips (currently parking on the residential roads surrounding the station), and future growth in commuter trips as a result of the Crossrail development. Therefore, the anticipated
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 18 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
traffic generation as a result of the proposed development alone would be immaterial.
Traffic Flows: It was previously noted that baseline traffic surveys of some key junctions were not undertaken. Furthermore, that no traffic growth uplift had been applied to the future baseline traffic scenario, and committed developments in the area had not been accounted for. However, in view of the immaterial increase in traffic generation as a result of the proposed development, it is accepted that this is not required.
Traffic Impact: An operational assessment of the site access has been undertaken using PICADY, and shows that the junction would operate within capacity with minimal queues and delay. The threshold for when junctions would normally be assessed, is when the development traffic impact is around the 5% mark. This is the threshold commonly used by BCC and other Authorities and is regarded as good practice. It has been demonstrated that the proposed development would only have a 1% impact on key local junctions, and therefore further junction assessments are not required.
Proposed Access: A new zebra crossing is proposed across Thorney Lane South to link the development to a pedestrian footway which serves the train station. It was previously noted that the Highway Authority would expect the speed limit in the vicinity of the proposed site to be reduced to 30mph to improve pedestrian, cyclist and vehicular safety.
The County Council's Road Safety team have advised me that the 30mph limit would need to be extended further north of Bathurst walk to protect the proposed zebra crossing, and so the speed limit terminals would need to located in advance of the railway bridge. There are concerns regarding the visibility of the crossing due to the elevation and curvature of the road in this location. As a result, a full assessment would need to be undertaken in order to determine if any proposed northern extension of the 30mph limit meets DfT criteria.
In order to provide a safe pedestrian crossing facility without a change in speed limit, the crossing point in this location would need to be a signalised crossing as oppose to a zebra crossing as currently proposed. Given that further assessment needs to be carried out before determining the suitability of a change in speed limit to accommodate a zebra crossing, it is recommended that details of the proposed crossing point are secured by way of condition on any planning consent granted.
It is noted that there is limited pedestrian footway provision on the east side of Thorney Lane South and therefore consideration will need to be given to ensuring that the pedestrian crossing can adequately serve all of the car park, with associated pedestrian links. These footway provisions could either be provided within the site to link the southern parking area with the pedestrian crossing, or within the public highway. I am satisfied that this can be secured by way of condition requiring a revised site layout plan to include additional pedestrian footways.
Concerns were also raised that the pedestrian route proposed between the development and the station is not a formal public footpath or within the land ownership of the applicant, and therefore, this route could not be relied upon as a pedestrian route to the station.
Having sought advice from the County Council's Strategic Access Officer, he is satisfied that although the route is not a recorded public footpath, as the footway has been used in excess of 20 years by the public it would undoubtedly carry public rights. In view of this, although not guaranteed, he advised it was unlikely that the route would be closed off, and so from a
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 19 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
planning perspective it can be relied upon as a walking route between the proposed development and the train station.
Furthermore, having visited the site, it is accepted that there is not a material difference in the journey time or convenience between this route and walking along Bathurst Walk/Wellesley Avenue to/from the station.
Conclusion: Mindful of the above, this application is acceptable in Highway terms subject to the following S106 Obligation and Conditions:
S106 Obligation: The payment of a £25,000 developer contribution to fund the public consultation and implementation of parking restrictions.
BCC Lead Local Flood Authority:
No objections subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
BCC Ecology:
'The nature of the proposed works is such that they are not likely to impact on ecology features provided the recommendations in section 5 of the ecology report are adhered to in full. We therefore have no objection to the proposed development.' Recommends imposition of informative regarding proposed lighting and impact on wildlife.
BCC Archaeology:
We conclude that the proposed development is likely to affect a heritage asset of archaeological interest because it is located in an area of known prehistoric sites. There is a Bronze Age ring ditch in the adjacent field to the south, which is a scheduled monument, and aerial photographs have indicated the presence of further ring ditches and enclosures in the vicinity, including at Richings Park and Thorney Park Golf Course. Accordingly we recommend that the area is subject to a geophysical survey and subsequent mitigation in the form of a watching brief/excavation where necessary. Given the nature of the proposed development, this fieldwork could be carried out as a condition of planning permission, if granted.
Environmental Health:
'I have reviewed the plans and supporting documentation submitted in support of this application, and can confirm that I would not be objecting to any considerations to grant consent.' Recommends the imposition of a condition and informative regarding the proposed lighting of the car park.
Strategic Environment Team:
'The site is located on the site of "Richings Park Landfill" from 1962-1969. The site report 15780/GIR suggests negligible risk to the future use of the site as a car park. The report has not completed any gas monitoring however there are no enclosed spaces which could allow for build-up of ground gas. The absence of such buildings removes this risk.'
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 20 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
Planning Policy:
'I have no objections to this application in policy terms. The need for a car park was identified in the Iver Traffic and Transport Study 2016 subject to the imposition of a CPZ in Richings Park. There is no alternative location to provide off-street parking except within the Green Belt and therefore it complies with para. 90 of the NPPF for local transport infrastructure in the Green Belt.'
ISSUES AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
RELEVANT POLICY:
National Policy:
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Section 1 - Building a strong, competitive economy, Section 4 - Promoting sustainable transport and Section 9 - Protecting Green Belt land. National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)
Development Plan:
South Bucks Development Framework Core Strategy (adopted Feb 2011) - Core Policy 6 - Local infrastructure needs, Core Policy 7 - Accessibility and transport, Core Policy 8 - Built and historic environment, Core Policy 9 - Natural environment and Core Policy 16 - South of Iver (opportunity area).
South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) (Saved policies) - GB1 - Green Belt boundaries and control over development in the Green Belt, GB4 - Employment generating and commercial development in the Green Belt, EP3 - The use, design and layout of development, EP4 - Landscaping, EP6 - Designing to reduce crime, TR5 - Accesses, highway works and traffic generation and Policy TR7 - Parking provision.
1.0 KEY POLICY ASSESSMENT:
1.1 The NPPF was published on the 27th March 2012 and whilst this replaced the previous Planning Policy Statements and Guidance Notes, it does not replace existing local policies that form part of the development plan. It does state however, that the weight that should be given to these existing local policies and plans will be dependent on their degree of consistency with the NPPF. Therefore, the closer the policies in the development plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given to them. With regard to this specific application, it is considered that the relevant local policies, as highlighted above, are generally in accordance with the NPPF, and as such, they will be afforded the appropriate weight in the assessment of this application.
1.2 By way of an introduction to this section, as stated above, there is currently no existing or proposed provision for additional parking at or in the vicinity of Iver Station in connection with the Crossrail project or otherwise. It is also recognised that commuters currently parking in the vicinity of the station, where there are currently limited restrictions and controls, do cause congestion in the roads of Richings Park and that there will undoubtedly be an increased demand for commuter parking when Crossrail services commence in December 2019. As part of this application, wider controlled parking and waiting restrictions within the whole of Richings Park are also proposed, to ensure the option of free long-stay parking is removed. The implementation of a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) within Richings Park is considered the best option in achieving this. Core Policy 7 of the Core Strategy seeks, inter-alia, to rebalance the transport system in favour of more sustainable modes of transport and seeks to promote this by supporting the greater use of rail services, including improvements to
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 21 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
parking at train stations. In light of the foregoing, officers support the principle of the provision of a car park at Iver Station.
1.3 The primary consideration in the assessment of this application is its acceptability or otherwise with regard to its location in the Green Belt. Section 9 of the NPPF at paragraphs 87 and 88 makes it clear that, as with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt and 'Very special circumstances' will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
1.4 Paragraph 89 of the NPPF describes the types of new buildings which might amount to an exception to inappropriate development in the Green Belt; however, this proposal does not amount to the construction of a new building. Paragraph 90 then goes on to state that certain other forms of development are also not inappropriate in Green Belt provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. These comprise, amongst other things, local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location.
1.5 It must first be assessed therefore whether the proposed development comprises appropriate development in the Green Belt and, if not, whether any 'Very special circumstances' exist that would outweigh the potential harm to the Green Belt and any other harm.
1.6 In their supporting statement the applicant's agents state the following in this regard: -
1.7 'It is considered that the proposed scheme meets the tests of paragraph 90 of the NPPF in that it comprises local transport infrastructure which has to be located in the Green Belt as there are no non-green belt alternatives available. It can be demonstrated that there will be significant benefits for rail users and for local areas in providing car park facilities in this location. The proposal is therefore not considered to be an inappropriate development in the Green Belt, but rather one that can be allowed provided the openness of the Green Belt is preserved and the purposes of including land within the Green Belt are not conflicted'.
1.8 With regard to this proposed development, paragraph 90 of the NPPF effectively sets three tests or requirements. First, the local transport infrastructure must demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location, secondly, it must preserve the openness of the Green Belt, and thirdly, it must not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belts.
1.9 The Green Belt boundary is drawn tightly around the developed area of Richings Park such that without redeveloping an existing site, no space exists outside of the Green Belt for the construction of a car park within a convenient distance of the station. It is unlikely that it would be economically viable to redevelop an existing site in the developed area as a car park, notwithstanding any other issues that this might involve. Consequently, if a car park is to be provided in association with the station it is clear that it would require a Green Belt location.
1.10 With regard to the second and third tests, paragraph 79 of the NPPF is relevant. It states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Notwithstanding the fact that the proposed development does not entail the construction of new buildings, the construction of a sizeable area of hard-surfacing together with the presence of a significant number of parked vehicles would be bound to physically reduce the openness of the Green Belt by virtue of introducing a built form where one does not currently exist and by visually reducing openness through the existence of the parked vehicles and associated vehicular movements.
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 22 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
1.11 Consequently, in your officer's view, the proposal would impact on openness and would conflict with two out of the five purposes of Green Belts; to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. As such, it is concluded that the proposal amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
1.12 In accordance with paragraph 88 of the NPPF it must now be established whether any 'Very special circumstances' exist that would clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm such that the proposal can be considered acceptable. Substantial weight must be given to any harm to the Green Belt.
1.13 Any 'Very special circumstances' must be firmly centred upon the need for the provision of a car park to serve Iver Station in light of future demand for car parking to provide spaces for commuters utilising Crossrail, taking account of any under-provision of car parking to serve the present station. Material to this assessment is whether or not any other more acceptable solutions that might resolve this lack of parking provision are already planned and at what stage these alternative proposals are at.
1.14 Bucks CC Highways has confirmed that they have no objections to the proposal, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions and a S.106 contribution for parking restrictions to be implemented within Richings Park. It is recognised that there is a clear need for parking to serve the existing Iver Station, as established through the on-street parking which currently takes place within Richings Park by users of the station. Furthermore, and as the Highway Authority have pointed out, it has been established that there will be a significant demand for additional parking provision after the Crossrail services commence in December 2019.
1.15 Dealing with the matter of alternative sites, the land to the north of Iver Station, known as the Thorney Lane Business Park, is one of the Council's Green Belt Preferred Options sites for a mixed use scheme. The preferred option states that the proposal 'may include a new car park for Iver Cross Rail station'. It is clear from representations received from the professional agents acting on behalf of the current owners of this land objecting to this current application that they are promoting this site as a preferred location for a car park to serve Iver Station with a potential new station entrance to the north, with access over the railway lines to the station. However, whilst they state in their correspondence that their client is currently liaising with the rail authorities on the provision of a car park, Transport for London have made it clear in their consultation response that whilst there have been meetings with the land owners agents, TfL has not indicated any positive support for these alternative proposals, and has no involvement in proposals to release land north of the station from the Green Belt as part of the Local Plan review, or any development that may come forward for this land in the future. TfL states that it wishes to reserve its formal position until development proposals for the site emerge in more detail.
1.16 It is clear that some weight must be attached to this potential alternative site for a car park as a material consideration in the assessment of this application. However, the Joint Local Plan is at an early stage and no decision has yet been made to release the land to the north of Iver station from the Green Belt. This is subject to a further Regulation 19 consultation (relating to tests of soundness and legal compliance) and scrutiny from the Planning Inspectorate at the examination stage. Whilst the developer is proposing that a car park is provided on this land, until a planning application is submitted it cannot be apportioned much weight in any decision on this current application, which must be assessed on its own merits. Furthermore, if the developer awaits the release of the land from the Green Belt before submitting an application, this will not be before December 2019 when Crossrail services are due to start. If an application is submitted prior to any proposed release of the land from the Green Belt then it too would be considered as inappropriate development in the Green Belt in principle.
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 23 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
1.17 I am satisfied that, subject to the additional considerations outlined below, the established need and demand for a car park to serve Iver Station, the lack of any existing provision and the lack of any readily deliverable alternative in the short to medium term, that 'Very special circumstances' exist in this case sufficient to outweigh the identified harm to the Green Belt and any other harm.
2.0 THE USE OF THE SITE
2.1 The use of this site as a car park would only directly affect the occupants of the existing dwellinghouses which face the site on the opposite side of Thorney Lane South. Whilst the car park would be visible from these properties, it is not considered that its use, across a busy main road, would be detrimental to the character or amenities of these properties by reason of noise, pollution, light pollution, disturbance or impact from traffic to a sufficient degree that would warrant the refusal of this application. Indeed, the Council's Environmental Health Section has confirmed that they have no objection to this application subject to a condition regarding the lighting of the car park. There would be an impact on the character and appearance of this part of the Green Belt from the unavoidable urban appearance of the proposed car park, but this harm would be outweighed by the need for the car park as described above. Consequently, it is considered that this proposal is in accordance with policy EP3 of the adopted Local Plan.
3.0 LANDSCAPE/ECOLOGY
3.1 It will be noted that the BCC Ecologist has raised no objection to this application subject to compliance with the recommendations of the submitted ecology report and, consequently, it is considered that this proposal is in accordance with the requirements of Core Policy CP9 of the adopted Core Strategy.
3.2 As described above, the site was previously occupied as a compound in association with Crossrail works in the vicinity and is subject to a requirement to be reinstated back to its previous appearance. This requirement notwithstanding, there are no particular landscape features on site that are worthy of retention and, should permission be forthcoming, it can be made subject to conditions requiring the submission and implementation of an appropriate landscaping scheme. Consequently, it is considered that the proposal is in accordance with policy EP4 of the adopted Local Plan.
4.0 SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT, HIGHWAYS AND ACCESS
4.1 Core Policy 7 of the adopted Core Strategy seeks to improve accessibility to services and ensure a safe and sustainable transport network by supporting the rebalancing of the transport system in favour of more sustainable modes of transport. It states that this rebalancing will be achieved by, inter-alia, supporting the greater use of rail services, including improvements to parking at train stations where viable. It also makes reference to supporting public transport schemes, including Crossrail, as long as there are strong environmental safeguards in place. It is therefore considered that this proposal is in accordance with this policy. Furthermore, the Highway Authority is satisfied that this proposed development would be acceptable, both in terms of the safety of the proposed access into the site and with regard to the capacity of the local highway network to accommodate the additional traffic that would be generated by the development, all in accord with policy TR5 of the adopted Local Plan. Moreover, the proposal is intended to reduce the level of non- residential on-street parking in residential areas, in accordance with the spirit of policy TR7 of the adopted Local Plan.
4.2 Members will note that BCC Highways are satisfied that an appropriate and safe pedestrian crossing can be provided across Thorney Lane South but that the specific type of crossing will be dependent on the speed limit applied in the locality. Consequently BCC Highways have confirmed that this detail can be made subject to an appropriate condition should permission be forthcoming. BCC Highways also consider that pedestrian access to all parts of the car park on the east side of Thorney
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 24 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
Lane South can also be assured by virtue of an appropriate condition should permission be forthcoming.
4.3 Concerns were also raised that the pedestrian route proposed between the development and the station is not a formal public footpath or within the land ownership of the applicant, and therefore, this route could not be relied upon as a pedestrian route to the station.
4.4 BCC Highways sought advice from the County Council's Strategic Access Officer, who is satisfied that although the route is not a recorded public footpath, as the footway has been used in excess of 20 years by the public it would undoubtedly carry public rights. In view of this, although not guaranteed, he has advised that it is unlikely that the route would be closed off, and so from a planning perspective it can be relied upon as a walking route between the proposed development and the train station.
5.0 DRAINAGE/FLOODING
5.1 The Environment Agency has confirmed that they have no objection to this application and the Local Lead Flood Authority (BCC) are now satisfied that the proposed development would not lead to any future flooding issues, subject to the imposition of an appropriately worded condition.
6.0 WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT
6.1 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 focussed on seeking solutions to the issues arising from the development proposal. South Bucks 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.
CONCLUSION:
The Green Belt case for this development is as detailed above and officers have concluded that the established need and demand for a car park to serve Iver Station, the lack of any existing parking provision and the lack of any readily deliverable alternative in the short to medium term, that 'Very special circumstances' exist in this case sufficient to outweigh the identified harm to the Green Belt and any other harm in order to justify this proposed development.
Furthermore, officers are satisfied that this proposal is in accord with relevant transport policies in the development plan and, that it would promote sustainable transport, in accord with section 4 of the NPPF by, inter-alia, supporting the ability to maximise access to a sustainable mode of transport.
It is considered that a fair and reasonable balance would be struck between the interests of the community and the human rights of the individuals concerned if planning permission were to be granted in this instance.
Given the level of interest in this proposal it is considered that value would be added to the decision making process if MEMBERS were to undertake a SITE VISIT prior to their determination of this application.
RECOMMENDATION
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 25 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
Full Planning Permission APPLICATION 17/00428/FUL BE DELEGATED TO THE HEAD OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE COMPLETION OF A LEGAL AGREEMENT WITH BUCKS COUNTY COUNCIL TO PROVIDE A FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS THE CONSULTATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PARKING RESTRICTIONS WITHIN RICHINGS PARK. ANY APPROVAL TO BE SUBJECT TO SUCH CONDITIONS AS THE HEAD OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERS APPROPRIATE, OR IF AGREEMENT CANNOT BE REACHED ON THE CONTENT OF ANY AGREEMENT, REFUSED FOR SUCH REASONS AS CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE.
Conditions & Reasons:
1. NS01 Standard Time Limit - Full Application 2. NT01 Landscaping Scheme to be Submitted 3. NT02 First Planting Season 4. NT08 Walls & Fencing details - car park 5. NM02 Surface Materials
6. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted a Car Park Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall include details of the proposed car parking control system, lighting, maintenance and CCTV coverage (including monitoring) of the car park, details of suitably located Blue Badge parking, provision of electric vehicle charging points and secure cycle parking. The approved details shall be completed on site prior to the first operation of the car park and thereafter maintained entirely in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure the proper long-term management of the car park and to preserve its use for commuter parking in connection with Iver Station. (Core Policy 7 of the South Bucks District Core Strategy (adopted February 2011) refers).
7. Notwithstanding any details submitted with the application and prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details of off-site works to include a pedestrian crossing point across Thorney Lane South and associated improvements to the existing pedestrian footway links to the east of Thorney Lane South, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved crossing and footway link shall be completed prior to the first operation of the car park and thereafter maintained entirely in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure that the design and visibility of the crossing is commensurate with vehicle speeds in order to provide a safe pedestrian crossing and walking route between the development and the train station. (Policy TR5 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refers).
8. No other part of the development shall be occupied until the existing means of access onto Thorney Lane South has been altered in accordance with the approved drawing 'Proposed Site Plan' and constructed in accordance with Buckinghamshire County Council's guide note "Commercial Vehicular Access Within Highway Limits" 2013.
Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the development. (Policy TR5 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refers).
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 26 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
9. Within one month of the altered accesses being brought into use all other existing access points not incorporated in the development hereby permitted shall be stopped up by raising the existing dropped kerb or removing the existing bellmouth and reinstating the footway and highway boundary to the same line, level and detail as the adjoining footway and highway boundary.
Reason: To limit the number of access points along the site boundary for the safety and convenience of the highway user. (Policy TR5 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refers).
10. No other part of the development shall be occupied until visibility splays have been provided on both sides of the access between a point 2.4 metres along the centre line of the access measured from the edge of the carriageway and a point 79 metres along the edge of the carriageway measured from the intersection of the centre line of the access. The area contained within the splays shall 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. (Policy TR5 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refers).
11. The car park as hereby permitted shall be laid out in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter retained in accordance the approved layout. The car park shall only be used for the parking of vehicles in accordance with the Management Plan required by Condition 6 of this permission.
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. (Policy TR7 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refers).
12. Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted a Construction Traffic Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall include details of:
- Construction phasing, including timescales; - Public notices to be displayed in advance of works; - Construction access; - Management and timing of deliveries; - Routing of construction traffic; - Vehicle parking for site operatives and visitors; - Loading/off-loading and turning areas; - Site compound; - Storage of materials; - Precautions to prevent the deposit of mud and debris on the adjacent highway.
The development shall thereafter be carried out entirely in accordance with the approved Construction Traffic Management Plan.
Reason: To minimise danger and inconvenience to highway users. (Policy TR5 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refers).
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 27 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
13. No development shall take place within the location of the existing surface water overland flow route as shown in the Flood Risk Assessment (Paul Airey Planning Associates Ltd, dated April 2017) within the blue line boundary as shown on the Site Location Plan (Vision Architects, drawing no. 16018-A-PL-010July 2016 Rev. A).
Reason: To ensure that the existing surface water overland flow route is maintained so as not to cause obstructions to the flow route and increase flood risk downstream which is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework. (Core Policy 13 of the South Bucks District Core Strategy (adopted February 2011) refers).
14. No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, have secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. Thereafter the development shall be implemented entirely in accordance with the approved scheme.
Reason: To ensure the continued protection of this area of archaeological importance. (Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework refers).
Informatives:-
1. The applicant is advised that the off-site works will need to be constructed under a section 278 of the Highways Act legal agreement. This 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 8 weeks is required to draw up the agreement following the receipt by the Highway Authority of a completed Section 278 application form. Please contact Highways Development Management at the following address for information: -
Development Management 6th Floor, County Hall Walton Street, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire HP20 1UY Telephone 0845 230 2882
2. 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.
3. The permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to obstruct the public highway by the erection of scaffolding, hoarding, skip or any other device or apparatus for which a licence must be sought from the Highway Authority. A period of 10 days must be allowed for the issuing of the licence, please contact the Streetworks team at the following address for information.
Streetworks 10th Floor, New County Offices Walton Street, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire HP20 1UY Telephone 0845 2302882 https://www.buckscc.gov.uk/services/transport-and-roads/licences-and-permits/
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 28 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
4. It is recommended that the proposed development be carried out in accordance with the recommendations contained within Section 5 of the approved Preliminary Ecological Report submitted as part of the planning application.
5. IN02 Details Required Pursuant to Conditions - 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 14
6. Attention is drawn to the contents of the attached copy e-mail and enclosures dated 27th April 2017 issued by National Grid.
7. A legal agreement has been entered into with the Buckinghamshire County Council in conjunction with this grant of planning permission to require A scheme of parking restrictions in Richings Park. (IN11)
8. IN35 Considerate Constructor
LIST OF APPROVED PLANS
Plan number/name Date received by District Planning Authority
Site Location Plan 13.03.2017 Proposed Site Plan 13.03.2017
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 29 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
PART A
South Bucks District Council Planning Committee
Date of Meeting: 10 January 2018 Town Council: Beaconsfield Town Council
Reference No: 17/00668/FUL Full Application Proposal: Detached building comprising 5 apartments incorporating basement served by vehicular access ramp, refuse/recycling area and entrance gates.
Location: Curzon House, 48 Penn Road, Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire, HP9 2LT Applicant: Halamar Developments Ltd Agent: Mr Robert Clarke Date Valid Appl Recd: 7th September 2017 Recommendation: PER
LOCATION PLAN – This plan is supplied only to identify the location of the site and for no other purpose whatsoever.
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission South Bucks District Council of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Crown Licence Number LA 100025874 Copying. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or Civil proceedings. SCALE : NOT TO SCALE
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 31 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
THE PROPOSAL:
This application proposes the erection of a 2 storey detached building incorporating dormer windows with the roof space in the front side and rear elevations to provide 5 apartments with a basement to provide parking. The building replaces an existing detached single dwelling. The application proposes four 2-bedroom apartments on ground and first floors and one three bedroom apartment to be provided within the roof space of the building.
The external appearance of the building as proposed is identical to a replacement dwelling granted planning permission under application number 16/00744/FUL last year, save for some very minor changes to the fenestration/door detailing generally making some of the window openings slightly smaller.
The basement would provide 10 car parking spaces (including 2 disabled spaces), a plant room and associated storage. Two visitor car parking spaces are also proposed at surface level to the front of the site, resulting in a total provision of 12 spaces; two spaces more than the Council’s required standard for this type of development (two and three bedroom dwellings requiring 2 spaces per dwelling).
The proposal also involves the relocation of the existing vehicular access which has already been approved under the previous permission.
Other changes between this application and that approved under application 16/00744/FUL include the replacement of a large detached garage located forward of the dwelling with a detached bin store structure. The bin store is a flat roof pergola structure, with vertical timber cladding similarly located adjacent to the front boundary. .
The entrance piers at a height of 2.2 m and metal gates at a height of 2m are as approved under application 16/00744/FUL.
LOCATION & DESCRIPTION OF SITE:
The application site consists of a two storey detached dwelling that is located on the eastern side of Penn Road on a corner plot which is bounded by Curzon Avenue to the north. The plot is substantial in size, and is generally flat, with mature vegetation along the sites boundaries providing various levels of screening. The site is located within the developed area of Beaconsfield and an area designated as a 'Residential Area of Exception al Character', and an 'Area of Special Character' and a having the topology of a 'Woodland Road', as set out in the Townscape Character Study.
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:
16/00744/FUL: Replacement dwelling with detached garage and entrance gates. Conditional Permission.
REPRESENTATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS:
TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS:
No objection.
CORRESPONDENCE:
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 32 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
Letters of objection have been received from 13 households. Concerns raised include:
- Adverse impact on character and appearance of area including its designations as set out in the Townscape Character study and as a RAEC; - Overbearing and intrusive; - Environmentally irresponsible; - Scale and massing out of keeping; - Overdevelopment; - Claimed precedent invalid; - Existing access onto Curzon Ave not in use; - Introduction of apartments would be inappropriate; - Loss of attractive dwelling; - Inappropriate size and design of proposed building; - Increased pressure on local infrastructure; - Loss of trees/hedges; - Adverse highway implications; - Insufficient amenity space; - Adversely impacts upon amenities of neighbouring properties including loss of privacy and over- dominance; - Traffic congestion; - Poor design/appearance.
SPECIALIST ADVICE:
Building Control:
No objections.
Transport for Buckinghamshire:
No objections.
Arboriculturalist:
No objection.
Environmental Health:
No objections.
SBDC Waste:
No objections.
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 33 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
ISSUES & POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
RELEVANT POLICY:
National Policy National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG)
Development Plan:
South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) (Saved policies): EP3, EP4, EP5, H9, H10, L10, TR5, and TR7
South Bucks Local Development Framework Core Strategy (adopted February 2011): CP8, CP9, CP12, and CP13
Other material considerations:-
Residential Design Guide SPD Interim Guidance on Residential Parking Standards South Bucks Townscape Character Study 2015
1.0 KEY POLICY ASSESSMENT
1.1 The NPPF was published on the 27th March 2012 and whilst this replaced the previous Planning Policy Statements and Guidance Notes, it does not replace existing local policies that form part of the development plan. It does state however, that the weight that should be given to these existing local policies and plans will be dependent on their degree of consistency with the NPPF. Therefore, the closer the policies in the development plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given to them. With regard to this specific application, it is considered that all of the relevant local policies, as highlighted above, are in accordance with the NPPF, and as such, it is considered that they should be afforded significant weight and that is it considered appropriate to still assess this current application against the relevant local policies set out above.
2.0 AFFORDABLE HOUSING:
2.1 The NPPG sets out guidance and thresholds for when planning obligations relating to affordable housing can be sought on planning applications. This application exceeds the thresholds for when such obligations should be sought, therefore the Council’s own affordable housing policy can be applied to the application.
2.2 Policy CP3 of the Core Strategy sets out the Council’s affordable housing requirements. It requires that schemes of 5 or more units must provide 40% of the proposed units as affordable housing. If this cannot be achieved, then it would be for the applicant to demonstrate and justify this, providing a viability assessment setting out what they consider to be a more appropriate amount or justifying zero provision.
2.3 The applicant has, submitted a viability report as they consider that it is unviable for the scheme to provide 40% affordable housing. An independent viability assessment has also been undertaken by the DVS. The outcome of this process has established that whilst the scheme cannot provide a 40% provision, it can provide a reduced contribution towards affordable housing provision whilst remaining viable. The applicants have agreed to pay this reduced level of contribution, which will be secured by way of a legal agreement.
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 34 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
2.4 It is considered therefore that this current application meets the requirements of policy CP3 in that it has successfully demonstrated that it is not viable to provide a 40% provision of affordable housing, but that a reduced financial contribution is possible.
3.0 VISUAL IMPACT/IMPACT ON LOCALITY:
3.1 The physical appearance and siting of the proposed building remain almost identical to the building approved by Members under application number 16/00744/FUL, save for minor alterations to the size and location of some windows and doors. As such, it has already been considered that a building of this design, size, height, scale, bulk and massing is acceptable and appropriate for this site and locality in general. It is important to note that this also includes the provision of the access ramp down to the basement parking, which also formed part of that previous scheme, and which is now only being modified very slightly. As such, it is considered that there are no reasonable grounds upon which to object to the proposal in terms of its size, siting, design or appearance.
3.2 It is however necessary to consider the acceptability of the use of the proposed building and site for 5 apartments or flats rather than as a single family dwelling as previously approved.
3.3 The application site lies within a RAEC which is characterised by large, individual architecturally designed houses of varied architectural styles set well back in spacious plots with mature vegetation and woodland landscapes.
3.4 Saved Local Plan Policy H9 provides the framework for guiding and controlling the design and layout of residential development. However there are residential areas which have exceptional character and which merit especially sensitive planning control and saved policy H10 'Residential Areas of Exceptional Character', which is in conformity with the NPPF, provides a clear and strong framework for the consideration of proposals in these areas of exceptional character. Policy H10 states that 'the Council will not normally permit proposals involving the development of sites which do not reflect the prevailing density of the area, the conversion of single dwellings into flats or the introduction of backland development .'. A number of principle common characteristics are present in all the RAECs including low density, being between 3 and 7 dwellings per hectare, spacious layout characterised by generous plot sizes, wide frontages and wide spaces between dwellings and largely detached houses of an individual design. The Council is concerned to ensure that due to their low density these areas of exceptional character do not attract proposals which would erode their character.
3.5 The proposed built form has been purpose designed, in order to appear as a high quality single dwelling house. The impact of the built form has been assessed as passing the tests of policy H10, as the dwelling including basement parking, has already been approved (and granted planning permission) by the Council. The current proposal materially differs from a scheme of conversion to an existing house, which would be associated with extra parking in the front garden, bin stores and possible multiple entrances that would all give visual clues to the residential conversion and have an impact on the character and appearance of the area.
3.6 The current proposal accommodates its parking in the basement. The ramp to the parking area is not considered to be visibly prominent, and it is again important to note that the approved scheme had a basement parking area, accessed in the same manner. The provision of basement parking ensures that parking for the flats would not be visible in the street scene.
3.7 With regard to vehicular movements, whilst there would be extra vehicle movements associated with 5 apartments compared to 1 large house, the number of vehicle movements arising would not be significant and would be unlikely to have any perceptible impact on the character and appearance of the area, taking account of possible visual and audible effects. This view is based on the fact that there are a relatively small number of apartments being proposed and the fact that access is taken to a relatively busy road.
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 35 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
3.8 The proposed basement car park would provide sufficient parking for each apartment, ensuring that there would not be overspill parking. The proposed building would maintain the appearance of a single dwelling, preserving and maintaining the character and appearance of the area.
3.9 Where the double garage was previously approved a waste / recycling store is proposed. The store is screened by boundary fencing and would have less impact than the approved garage.
3.10 The applicants have made reference to an appeal decision at 96 Gregories Road (Application ref 15/01316/FUL), which involved the provision of a block of 6 apartments within the RAEC and whereby the built form was identical to that of an extant scheme for a replacement dwelling on the site and as such has similarities to the development the subject of this application. It is considered that given the similarities between that site and this current application site, this appeal decision does form a material consideration in the assessment of this current application. In determining the appeal relating to 96 Gregories Road the Inspector stated that policy H10 does not preclude higher density schemes but is a sensible safeguard given the effects that could result from insensitively designed proposals. The Inspector also concluding that the number of vehicle movements arising from six apartments would not be significant and adversely impact on the character and appearance of the area.
3.11 In the case of this current application, the building would be identical in its size, design, and positioning on the plot to the replacement dwelling granted via 16/00744/FUL with the primary difference being alterations to the internal layout for the creation of five flats and minor changes to fenestration. Thus it would resemble a single dwelling in keeping with the appearance of surrounding development, with the existing mature screening being retained and enhanced. Given that there would not be a material increase in vehicular movements on the site, with parking confined to the basement, and no changes to the hard standing to the front of the building as compared to the previously approved permission; and in light of the Inspectors decision at No.96 Gregories Road, it is considered that on balance, it would be difficult to sustain a refusal based on its impact on the character and appearance of the site and locality in general, including its designation as a RAEC.
4.0 NEIGHBOUR IMPACT:
4.1 It was previously considered and accepted that the proposed building would not appear overdominant or obtrusive when viewed from neighbouring properties, nor would it have led to a loss of light to any property. Given that the proposed building is identical to that previously approved building in terms of its siting, height, size and bulk, it is considered that this remains the case. Whilst there will clearly be additional accommodation within the building, given the distances between this building and adjacent development, and it would be unreasonable to raise objections on such grounds. In terms of privacy, whilst the proposal does propose minor alterations to the siting and size of some windows and doors mostly to reduce the size, when compared to the approved scheme, no additional windows would be added to the building that would introduce any new overlooking opportunities. On these grounds, it is considered that the alterations would not lead to result in any unacceptable loss of privacy to neighbouring properties.
4.2 It is not considered that any increase in vehicle movements generated by the proposal would result in an unacceptable level of noise and disturbance to the neighbouring properties.
5.0 PARKING/ACCESS/HIGHWAY IMPLICATIONS:
5.1 Sufficient off street parking would be provided on site, in accordance with the Council’s car parking standards. 10 spaces would meet the Council’s standards and this is provided within the basement with a further 2 visitor spaces in front of the building which would not appear out of keeping with the character of the area as discussed above.
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 36 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
5.2 The County Highway’s Authority raises no objections to the proposal from a highway safety point of view. However, they have raised an issue with regard to the length of the parallel parking spaces proposed in the basement. These spaces need to be increased in length by reducing the size of the adjacent storage cupboards and this is a matter which can be overcome through the submission of satisfactorily amended plans. Consequently, the recommendation has been made subject to the receipt of such plans.
5.3 As such, it is considered that the proposal adheres to policies TR5 and TR7.
6.0 TREES/LANDSCAPING:
6.1 The Arboriculturalist again raises no objections to the proposal. Most of the existing vegetation would be retained. In light of this, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable from a tree and landscaping point of view.
7.0 OTHER ISSUES:
7.1 As per the previous application, the Applicants' have submitted a report relating to basement and drainage works. The report includes a Geotechnical soil survey. The Council's Building Control Department have reviewed the submitted information and have advised that the construction of a basement on this site would be achievable without creating adverse impacts on the existing ground conditions of the site and adjacent land, including its drainage. They also note that other basements have been successfully constructed in this locality. As such, Building Control raises no objections to the proposals. 7.2 The Council’s Waste Team raises no objections.
7.3 Thames Water raises no objections from a surface water drainage and sewerage infrastructure point of view.
8.0 WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT:
8.1 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. South Bucks 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.
8.2 In this case, South Bucks District Council has received amended plans and these were considered to be acceptable.
CONCLUSION:
It is considered that a fair balance would be struck between the interests of the community and the human rights of the individuals in the event of planning permission being granted in this instance.
Due to the strong objections from local residents, it is considered that value would be added to the decision making process if MEMBERS were to undertake a SITE VISIT in this case.
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 37 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
RECOMMENDATION:
Full Planning Permission
APPLICATION 17/00668/FUL BE DELEGATED TO THE DIRECTOR OF SERVICES TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AND (i) THE SATISFACTORY PRIOR COMPLETION OF A SECTION 106 PLANNING OBLIGATION AGREEMENT RELATING TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND (ii) THE RECEIPT OF AMENDED PLANS SHOWING AN INCREASE IN THE LENGTH OF THE PROPOSED PARRALLEL PARKING SPACES IN THE BASEMENT. IF THE SECTION 106 AGREEMENT CANNOT BE COMPLETED OR SATISFACTORY AMENDED PLANS ARE NOT RECEIVED, THE APPLICATION BE REFUSED FOR SUCH REASONS AS CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE.
Conditions & Reasons:
1. NS01 Standard Time Limit - Full Application 2. NMS09A Development To Accord With Application Drawings 3. NM01 Schedule of Materials 4. NM02 Surface Materials 5. NT01 Landscaping Scheme to be Submitted 6. NT02 First Planting Season 7. NT17A Tree Constraints Plan and Method Statement
8. Development shall not begin until details of a suitable surface water drainage scheme for the site, incorporating Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is occupied, and thereafter the scheme shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, improve habitat and amenity, and ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system. (Policy CP13 of the South Bucks District Core Strategy (adopted February 2011) refer, and the National Planning Policy Framework.) )
9. No other part of the development shall begin until the existing means of access has been altered in accordance with the approved drawings and constructed in accordance with Buckinghamshire County Council's guide note "Private Vehicular Access within Highway Limits" 2013.
Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the development. (Policy TR5 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refers.)
10. Within one month of the altered access being brought into use all other existing access points not incorporated in the development hereby permitted shall be stopped up by raising the existing dropped kerb or removing the existing bell-mouth and reinstating the footway and highway boundary to the same line, level and detail as the adjoining footway and highway boundary.
Reason: To limit the number of access points along the site boundary for the safety and convenience of the highway user. (Policy TR5 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refers.)
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 38 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
11. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 2 of the Second Schedule to the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure other than those shown on the approved plan shall be erected along the site frontage within 5 metres of the edge of the carriageway.
Reason: To enable vehicles to draw off clear of the highway for the safety and convenience of the highway users. (Policy TR5 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refers.)
12. No other part of the development shall begin until visibility splays have been provided on both sides of the access between a point 2.4 metres along the centre line of the access measured from the edge of the carriageway and a point 79 metres along the edge of the carriageway measured from the intersection of the centre line of the access. The area contained within the splays shall 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. (Policy TR5 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refers.)
13. No part of the development shall be occupied until details of the proposed signage enforcing the one-way system for vehicles entering and exiting the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be occupied until the signage has been erected in accordance with the approved details. Thereafter, the signage shall be maintained on site in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the development. (Policy TR5 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refers.)
14. No part of the development hereby permitted shall commence until a Construction Traffic Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. Details to be submitted should include the following:
- Management and timing of deliveries; - Routing of construction traffic; - Vehicle parking for site operatives and visitors; - Loading/off-loading and turning areas; - Site compound; - Storage of materials; - Precautions to prevent the deposit of mud and debris on the adjacent highway.
The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved management plan.
Reason: To minimise danger and inconvenience to highway users. (Policy TR5 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refers.)
15. No piling shall take place until a piling method statement (detailing the depth and type of piling to be undertaken and the methodology by which such piling will be carried out, including measures to prevent and minimise the potential for damage to subsurface sewerage infrastructure, and the programme for the works) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. Any piling must be undertaken in accordance with the terms of the approved piling method statement.
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 39 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
Reason: The proposed works will be in close proximity to underground sewerage utility infrastructure. Piling has the potential to impact on local underground sewerage utility infrastructure. (Policies EP3 CP6 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) and the South Bucks District Core Strategy (adopted February 2011) refer.)
Informatives:-
1. IN02 Details Required Pursuant to Conditions - 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 14 2. IN35 Considerate Constructor 3. IH23 Mud on the Highway 4. IH24 Obstruction of the Highway
5. The applicant is advised that the access will have to be constructed under a Section 184 of the Highways Act legal agreement. This 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 8 weeks is required to draw up the agreement following the receipt by the Highway Authority of a completed Section 184 application form. Please contact Highways Development Management at the following address for information:
Development Management 6th Floor, County Hall Walton Street, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire HP20 1UY
6. A Groundwater Risk Management Permit from Thames Water will be required for discharging groundwater into a public sewer. Any discharge made without a permit is deemed illegal and may result in prosecution under the provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991. We would expect the developer to demonstrate what measures he will undertake to minimise groundwater discharges into the public sewer. Permit enquiries should be directed to Thames Water's Risk Management Team by telephoning 02035779483 or by emailing [email protected]. Application forms should be completed on line via www.thameswater.co.uk/wastewaterquality."
7. The applicant is advised to contact Thames Water Developer Services on 0800 009 3921 to discuss the details of the piling method statement as required by condition 16 of this permission.
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 40 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL LIST OF APPROVED PLANS
Plan number/name Date received by District Planning Authority
0316-Curzon-P-001 07.09.2017 0316-Curzon-P-005 Rev B 07.09.2017 0316-Curzon-P-004 Rev A 07.09.2017 0316-Curzon-P-006 Rev A 07.09.2017 0316-Curzon-P-003 Rev B 04.12.2017 0316-Curzon-P-002 Rev B 04.12.2017
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 41 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
PART A
South Bucks District Council Planning Committee
Date of Meeting: 10 January 2018 Town Council: Beaconsfield Town Council
Reference No: 17/02029/FUL Full Application Proposal: Construction of detached house with integral garage and construction of vehicular access from Sandelswood End. Location: Land Rear Of Dalehurst 11 Curzon Avenue And Cedar Cottage 15 Curzon Avenue, Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire, HP9 2NN Applicant: Palatine Homes Ltd Agent: Mr Paul Dickinson Date Valid Appl Recd: 31st October 2017 Recommendation: PER LOCATION PLAN – This plan is supplied only to identify the location of the site and for no other purpose whatsoever.
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the South Bucks District Council permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Licence Number LA 100025874 Crown Copying. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or Civil SCALE : NOT TO SCALE proceedings.
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 43 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
THE PROPOSAL:
The application seeks planning permission for a detached dwelling on land at the rear of 'Dalehurst' 11 Curzon Avenue and 'Cedar Cottage' 15 Curzon Avenue, Beaconsfield. The new dwelling would be located on a newly formed plot created by reducing the length of the rear gardens of 11 and 15 Curzon Avenue and providing access to the new property from Sandelswood End which the dwelling would front.
The application is a revised application of planning application 17/01482/FUL which was refused by the Council’s Planning Committee for the following reason:
1. The proposed development, by virtue of its size, height, scale, bulk, and accommodation within the roof space, would appear as an overdevelopment of the site, as well as appearing overbearing and dominant within the street scene. As such, the proposal would be out of keeping for the locality and detrimental to the visual amenities of the general character of the area, contrary to policies H9 and EP3 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) and Core Policy 8 of the Core Strategy (adopted February 2011).
To address this reason for refusal, the main changes to the application are:
1. A reduction of the ridge height from 8.7 metres to 7.6 metres 2. Removal of the accommodation within the roof space and the dormer windows
The proposal would provide parking for three vehicles on a proposed hardstanding forward of the dwelling and an integral garage, whilst private outdoor amenity space would be provided to the rear of the dwelling.
In order to accommodate the proposal the application includes the demolition of an existing outbuilding within the grounds of number 11 and the removal of several trees and some vegetation.
LOCATION & DESCRIPTION OF SITE:
The application site constitutes a mainly rectangular area of land formed from the rear most sections of the combined gardens of 'Dalehurst', 11 Curzon Avenue and 'Cedar Cottage', 15 Curzon Avenue. The resultant site would be accessed from Sandelswood End near to the junction with Curzon Avenue.
The southern boundary would form a side boundary of the proposed site and would be shared with the amended rear boundaries of 11 and 15 Curzon Avenue. The northern boundary would form a mutual side boundary with 25 Sandelswood End which forms the end property of a row of detached dwellings along this stretch of Sandelswood End. The eastern boundary would front Sandelswood End, forming the access to the property whilst the western, rear boundary, would adjoin the rear most section of a side boundary for 9 Curzon Avenue.
The application site is located within a developed area with a tree located in the grounds of 15 Curzon Avenue being the subject of a Tree Preservation Order (11/1997).
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:
17/20094/APPREF: Appeal lodged against refusal of planning permission 17/01482/FUL.
17/01482/FUL: Construction of detached house with integral garage and construction of vehicular access from Sandelswood End. Refused.
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 44 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
REPRESENTATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS:
TOWN / PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS :
Response received - The Committee wished to continue to object to this planning application. It was still considered to be an over-development of the plot and intrusive to neighbouring properties.
CORRESPONDENCE:
Letters of objection have been received from 12 sources. The objections are summarised as follows:
- Not in-keeping with character of the area/changing the street scene; Overdevelopment / Insufficient private amenity space / increase in density of area; - Overlooking of neighbouring properties on Sandelswood End and Curzon Avenue; - Loss of light to neighbouring property; - Insufficient amenity space / plot size retained for 11 and 15 Curzon Avenue; - Excessive fenestration leading to lack of privacy and nuisance from light; - Too prominent; - This proposed development is suggesting three storeys could be acceptable and this would not be compatible with the existing properties in area; - Insufficient parking / would add to existing on road parking problems; - Insufficient turning space on driveway / insufficient space to exit forwards onto road; - Access too close to existing road junction / poor visibility due to parking / access has negative impact on road safety; creation of new driveway -increases risk of accidents/; - Not in keeping with neighbouring properties (density/ plot size/front and rear building lines); - Impact on trees/ impact on trees protected by Tree Preservation Order; - Submitted plan showing 'indicative street scene' inaccurate with regard to existing trees; - Lack of screening and vegetation; - Fails to comply with recommendations given in South Bucks Townscape Character Study; - Fails to comply with garden size as set out in Residential Design Guide SPD; - Inappropriate design and appearance; - Need to avoid creating a precedent.
SPECIALIST ADVICE:
Arboricultural Officer:
No further comments to add to the comments submitted in response to previous application. The previous comments were as follows. ‘Beech tree shown as T2 in the submitted tree report with associated plans is subject to Tree Preservation Order no.11. 1997. It has been heavily crown reduced in the past so should not constrain development but obviously should be protected as outlined in the submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) by TMC Arboricultural Consultants (August 2017).
I agree with the overall assessment of trees within and adjacent to the site, proposed protection measures with 'no dig construction' as outlined in the AIA and Tree Protection Plan AIA3.
I have no objection in arboricultural terms and if planning permission is permitted I recommend condition NT18 (AIA & AIA3).’
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 45 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
Building Control:
‘Further to your letter dated 9th November 2017 concerning the above application having studied the documentation I am able to confirm that the proposed design appears satisfactory with regard to the requirements for Fire Brigade Access. Disabled access & facilities appear acceptable.’
Transport for Bucks:-
No comments subject to conditions. The officer states that the application is identical in highway terms to that of application 17/01482/FUL to which the Highway Authority had no objections subject to conditions. Comments made by colleague to the previous application re-iterated and no additional comments received.
Waste Management:
No new comments received at time of drafting the report. The comments on the previous application were as follows: ‘Residents to present their refuse & recycling at the property boundary on Sandelswood End.’
ISSUES AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
National Policy National Planning Policy Framework (published March 2012) National Planning Practice Guidance
Development Plan:
South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) Policies: EP3, EP4, EP5, H9, TR5 and TR7. Appendices 6 and 8.
South Bucks Local Development Framework Core Strategy (adopted February 2011) Policies: CP1, CP2, CP8 and CP12.
Other Material Considerations:
Interim Guidance on Residential Parking Standards. South Bucks District Residential Design Guide SPD (published October 2008). Chiltern and South Bucks Townscape Character Study (published 2017)
1.0 KEY POLICY ASSESSMENT:
1.1 VISUAL IMPACT / IMPACT ON LOCALITY:
1.2 Following the refusal of planning application 17/01482/FUL, the main issue to consider is whether the changes made are sufficient to overcome the reason for refusal as set out under the Proposal section of this report.
1.3 Concerns were previously raised that by virtue of its size, height, scale, bulk, and accommodation within the roof space, the new dwelling would appear overbearing and dominant within the street scene. The applicant has now reduced the height of the dwelling by 1.1m and omitted accommodation within the roof space, such that the development is similar to 25 Sandelswood End. Upon approach the proposed dwelling would be partially screened from the street
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 46 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
scene by vegetation bounding 15 Curzon Avenue when travelling north from the direction of Curzon Avenue. Part of the side elevation would remain visible upon approach in a similar manner to the existing street scene featuring the side elevation of 25 Sandelswood End.
1.4 When passing the dwelling along Sandelswood End it would have a similar front elevation appearance to other dwellings in the locality with first floor windows set into a gable end. Dormer windows in the roof space are no longer proposed in this revised application. Upon approach from the north the proposed dwelling would be largely obscured or outside of primary vision until nearing the site.
1.5 The proposed dwellinghouse would maintain a minimum distance of 1m from neighbouring boundaries and with particular consideration to its relationship with neighbouring properties would retain a sufficient level of spaciousness with neighbouring buildings particularly at first floor level. Conditions are recommended to withdraw permitted development rights for extensions to the dwelling, including additions to the roof of the dwelling which would enable the Council to retain control should any future changes be proposed.
1.6 The proposed development follows the general layout of surrounding development by providing a new dwelling running on an east-west axis, fronting Sandelswood End. The spacing between the proposed dwelling and its neighbour at 25 Sandelswood End would remain consistent with dwellings set along this section of Sandelswood End. The proposed distance between the dwelling and the public highway would also remain consistent with neighbouring properties along this stretch of Sandelswood End. Therefore the general approach to the siting of the dwelling is not considered to appear incongruous or out of keeping and no specific objections were raised to this aspect of the development under the previous application.
1.7 The NPPF states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development (para 49) and having regard to the previous reason for refusal for a dwelling on this site, there was no objection in principle to the development it was the specific size and scale of the development which has now been reduced and can be controlled by safe-guarding conditions The site would make appropriate use of land already designated within the same use class and given that this site is located within a developed area of Beaconsfield and adjacent to existing residential properties, it is considered that the principle of the introduction of a dwelling is acceptable and would result in an efficient utilisation of land, in accord with the NPPF.
1.8 The resultant density of the scheme still forms an important part of the overall consideration of the proposal. The proposal would result in a density of approx. 15 dwellings per hectare when taking into account the resultant three plots. This is not considered to be a high density and whilst some other properties along Sandelswood End and Curzon Avenue have longer narrow gardens, the density is not entirely uncommon within the locality including other similar sized properties within the immediate area of the site.
1.9 The resultant plots are therefore considered to not appear significantly out of place and consequently would not adversely affect the character of the area or street scene. It is considered that overall, the development would not appear cramped or out of place, nor would it represent an overdevelopment of the site. It promotes sustainable and efficient use of land whilst maintaining the character of the area which is in line with guidance set out within the NPPF.
1.10 Overall, it is considered that the proposed dwelling would be of a size and scale that would not be excessive or inappropriate for this area, and therefore would not appear overdominant or obtrusive within the locality or the existing street scene. The scale and siting of the development is therefore considered to be acceptable against policies EP3, H9 and H11 of the council's Local Plan and the standard of design would be sufficiently high to comply with Core Policy 8 of the council's Core Strategy.
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 47 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
2.0 NEIGHBOUR IMPACT:
2.1 The front elevation of the dwelling and the main face of the rear elevation would not breach the 45 degree rule when considering light loss to neighbouring habitable rooms; similarly the proposed conservatory would not breach the 60 degree rule.
2.2 Concern has been raised with regard to overlooking of neighbouring properties from side and rear facing windows within the proposed dwelling. All side elevation windows serve either a non- habitable room or a room also benefitting from other windows. Consequently, in the event of planning permission being granted, it would be considered to be reasonable and necessary to condition these windows to be obscurely glazed and non-opening below 1.7 metres to protect neighbouring privacy and in line with Permitted Development requirements.
2.3 It is considered that any additional overlooking of neighbouring properties from proposed rear or front facing windows would be comparable to existing or potential overlooking from other neighbouring properties on Sandelswood End or Curzon Avenue and is not considered to afford any significant additional overlooking which would be detrimental or warrant refusal of the application.
2.4 Concern has also been raised with regard to potential overlooking from the proposed conservatory across the private amenity space immediately to the rear of 25 Sandelswood End or into ground floor windows within this neighbours rear elevation. However, the proposed flank wall of the conservatory facing this neighbour is shown to be brick faced and so would not afford a view in this neighbour's direction. In any event it is considered that sufficient boundary treatment can be erected to protect neighbouring amenity from ground level views using Permitted Development rights should this be felt necessary.
2.5 The first floor of the proposed dwelling would maintain a reasonable distance from neighbouring dwellings and together with its position and angle it is considered that the dwelling would not result in significant overshadowing or appear overbearing / over dominant when viewed from neighbouring properties.
2.6 It is therefore considered that the proposed dwelling would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties in terms of amenity considerations such as privacy, dominance, shadowing or being overbearing and that it complies with policies EP3 and H11 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999).
3.0 PARKING / ACCESS / HIGHWAY IMPLICATIONS:
3.1 The application allows for sufficient parking, in the form of one space in the integral garage and two external parking spaces, to comply with policy TR7 and Appendix 6 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999). Buckinghamshire Highways have raised no objection to the proposed access subject to conditions. Consequently it is considered that the application is acceptable in terms of highways and parking matters.
3.2 Further to the above, although concerns raised regarding perceived dangers arising from existing on-street parking and cars driving along Sandleswood End are noted, these matters are law enforcement considerations and do not amount to material considerations in the assessment of this application.
4.0 TREES AND LANDSCAPING:
4.1 Objections have been raised on the basis of insufficient natural boundary screening shown to be retained and on the potential impact of the development on a tree protected by a Tree Preservation Order located within the existing grounds of 15 Curzon Avenue. The council's
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 48 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
Arboricultural Officer has assessed the application and has raised no objection subject to a specified condition which would be reasonable and necessary in the event that planning permission is granted.
4.2 Additionally, in the event that planning permission is granted it would also be reasonable and necessary to include a condition requiring agreement of proposed landscaping to ensure that the garden layout and any additional proposed planting are appropriate to the application site.
5.0 FIRE ACCESS AND DISABILTY PROVISION
5.1 The councils' Building Control team have been consulted and have assessed the application and consider it to be acceptable with regard to the above considerations.
6.0 WASTE
6.1 No new comments have been received from the councils' Waste team and their comments made on the previous application still apply as the situation for waste collection has not changed. The application remains acceptable with regard to the above considerations.
7.0 OTHER ISSUES:
7.1 Would set a future precedent: Each application is determined on its individual planning merits and considerations and would vary according to site circumstances and juxtaposition with neighbouring properties. As such it is not considered that a precedent would be set by the outcome of this application in relation to similar applications within the locality.
7.2 A site visit has been undertaken and regard has been had to the positioning of neighbouring dwellings/buildings as seen on site.
8.0 WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT:
8.1 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. South Bucks 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.
8.2 In this case, South Bucks District Council has assessed the submitted details and these were considered to be acceptable.
CONCLUSION:
It is considered that a fair and reasonable balance would be struck between the interests of the community and the human rights of the individuals concerned in the event of planning permission being granted in this instance.
Due to the number of representations received it is considered that value would be added to the decision-making process if MEMBERS were to carry out a SITE VISIT prior to their determination of this application.
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 49 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
RECOMMENDATION:
Full Planning Permission.
Conditions & Reasons:
1. NS01 Standard Time Limit - Full Application 2. NMS09A Development To Accord With Application Drawings 3. NM01 Schedule of Materials 4. NM02 Surface Materials 5. NT01 Landscaping Scheme to be Submitted 6. NT02 First Planting Season
7. The first floor windows in the north and south side elevations of the dwelling hereby permitted, shall be of a fixed, non-opening design below a high level opener which shall have a minimum cill height of 1.7 metres above the internal floor level and shall be fitted and permanently maintained with obscure glass.
Reason: To prevent overlooking and loss of privacy in the interests of the amenities of the adjoining properties. (Policy EP3 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refers.)
8. ND17 No Further First Floor Windows - north and south – dwelling – properties 9. ND12 Exclusion of PD Part 1 Density of layout -the 10. NT18 Completion in accordance with Method Statement
11. Prior to the commencement of the development the new access to Sandelswood End road shall be designed and laid out in accordance with the approved plans. The access shall be constructed in accordance with; 'Buckinghamshire County Council's Guidance note, "Private Vehicular Access within Highway Limits" 2013.
Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the development. (Policy TR5 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refers.).
12. Prior to occupation of the development, space shall be laid out within the site for parking for cars, loading and manoeuvring in accordance with the approved plans. This area shall be permanently maintained for this 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. (Policies TR5 and TR7 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refer.)
13. ND02 Garage Or Carport for Parking Only - integral garage - dwellinghouse
Informatives:-
1. IN02 Details Required Pursuant to Conditions - 3, 4, 5 and 11 2. IN39 Permeable Hard-Surfacing 3. IN35 Considerate Constructor
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 50 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
4. The applicant is advised that a license must be obtained from the Highway Authority before any works are carried out on any footway, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the highway. A period of 28 days must be allowed for the issuing of the license, please contact the Area Manager at the following address for information.
Transport for Buckinghamshire (Streetworks) 10th Floor, New County Offices Walton Street, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire HP20 1UY
5. IH23 Mud on the Highway 6. IH24 Obstruction of the Highway 7. IN41 Building Regulations
8. 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.
9. The applicant is advised that if it is intended to use soakaways as the method of dealing with the disposal of surface water then the permission of the appropriate Water Authority may be necessary.
LIST OF APPROVED PLANS
Plan number/name Date received by District Planning Authority
P01-200 Location Plan 31.10.2017 P01-201 Lay out 31.10.2017 P01/210 GF & FF plans 31.10.2017 P01/211 Roof Plan 31.10.2017 P01/220 Elevations 31.10.2017 P01/221 Elevations 31.10.2017 P01/230 Street Scene 31.10.2017 TMC-17006-AIA2 Tree survey 31.10.2017 TMC-17006-AIA3 Tree Protection 31.10.2017
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 51 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
PART A
South Bucks District Council Planning Committee
Date of Meeting: 10 January 2018 Town Council: Beaconsfield Town Council
Reference No: 17/02031/FUL Full Application Proposal: Replacement dwelling and associated vehicular access. Location: 22 Seeleys Road, Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire, HP9 1SZ Applicant: Mr & Mrs Stephen Bleakley Agent: Mr David King Date Valid Appl Recd: 31st October 2017 Recommendation: PER
LOCATION PLAN – This plan is supplied only to identify the location of the site and for no other purpose whatsoever.
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with South Bucks District Council the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Licence Number LA 100025874 Stationery Office Crown Copying. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead SCALE : NOT TO SCALE to prosecution or Civil proceedings.
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 53 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
THE PROPOSAL:
Planning permission is sought to erect a replacement two storey, 5 bed detached dwelling on the Seeleys estate. It is also proposed to widen the existing vehicular access and provide off street parking for 3-4 cars. A single storey garage/store is also proposed.
This application follows 3 previous refusals to erect a replacement dwelling on this site and seeks to address the previous reasons for refusal. By comparison to the last application, further changes have been made to the proposed dwelling as follows:
- A further reduction in the overall height of the proposed dwelling from 7.5m to 7.26m; - A slight reduction in the width of the dwelling from 10.62m to 10.5m; - A reduction in the depth of the porch projection from 1.68m to 0.72m and an increase in width from 4.74m to 5.1m; - The omission of the proposed render (off white) at ground floor level with red multi facing bricks.
The siting of the proposed dwelling remains unchanged from the previously submitted scheme and as before the basement has been omitted.
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE:
The application site lies on the northern side of Seeleys Road within the developed area. The site lies within the Seeleys Road 'Area of Special Character' and 'Open Plan Suburban' area as designated in the South Bucks Townscape Character Study Part 2 (February 2014).
The site comprises a two storey detached dwelling with a low asymmetrical pitched roof and attached double garage and is set at a right angle to Seeleys Road. The front of the property has a large area of open grass and some landscaping which is characteristic of the 'Open Plan Suburban' typology of the estate.
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:
15/01093/FUL: Replacement detached dwelling and construction of vehicular access. Refused.
16/00295/FUL: Replacement detached dwelling and construction of vehicular access. Refused.
17/00380/FUL: Replacement dwelling and associated access. Refused for the following reason (the reason being the same as the 2015 and 2016 applications):.
1. The proposed development, by virtue of its scale, height and materials would appear out of scale and unduly obtrusive in the street scene and would be out of keeping with the spacious and open plan character of the estate. As such the proposal would detract from the character and appearance of the street scene and the locality in general, contrary to saved Local Plan policies EP3 and H9 set out in the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999), Core Policy 8 of the South Bucks Core Strategy (adopted February 2011) and the 'Seeleys Road Special Character' and the 'Open Plan Suburban' character as set out in the South Bucks Townscape Character Study (February 2014).
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 54 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
REPRESENTATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS:
PARISH / TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS:
The Committee wished to object to this revised application. It was still considered to be inappropriate and out of character with the open plan design of the Seeleys Estate.
CORRESPONDENCE:
Letters of objection have been received from 27 separate sources. The objections are summarised as follows:
- Overall height would still be taller than surrounding buildings; - New layout is at an angle on the plot which breaks from the uniform layout; - Boundary/fencing position needs to be made clearer; - Will set precedent for other houses to be demolished which could alter the open plan suburban character; - Parking and highway/pedestrian safety issues during building process; - House is wider, longer and taller than all the other houses on the estate; - Contrary to the Seeleys Road Special Character and the Open Plan suburban character; - Still out of scale and obtrusive in the streetscene; - House too big for plot; - Design out of keeping with estate; - Set an undesirable precedent; - Larger footprint; - No material change from previous refused scheme; - Much larger in height and footprint than the existing dwelling; - Incongruous and unneighbourly development; - Contrary to Local Plan and core policies; - Loss of sunlight and privacy to number 20 Seeleys Road; - Loss of garage will mean all cars will park on driveway; - Materials will not blend in with the surrounding properties; - Noise and disruption to local community; - Area has suffered numerous sink holes; - No.22 is in a prominent position and would appear noticeably larger; - Dwelling will come closer to neighbouring properties; - Existing trees should be protected in order to preserve screening and prevent overlooking; - Increase in overlooking; - Houses in the estate have been extended and remodelled but not demolished and replaced; - Need to preserve the original style and layout of the estate.
SPECIALIST ADVICE:
Tree Officer:
No objection subject to a condition.
Building Control:
Design appears satisfactory with regard to the requirements of Fire Brigade Access and Disabled access & facilities.
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 55 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
Transport for Bucks:
No objection subject to a condition and informative.
Waste Efficiency Officer:
Previously no objection.
ISSUES AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
RELEVANT POLICIES:
National Policy:-
National Planning Policy Framework National Planning Policy Guidance
Development Plan
South Bucks Local Development Framework Core Strategy (adopted February 2011) - CP8.
South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) (Saved Policies) - EP3, EP4, EP5, H9, TR5 and TR7
Other Material considerations:
South Bucks Townscape Character Study Part 2 Residential Design Guide SPG (October 2008).
1.0 KEY POLICY ASSESSMENT
1.1 The application has been accompanied by a Planning Statement. The application follows three previous refusals for a replacement dwelling on this site. Following the refusal of the 2015 application, the scheme submitted under application 16/00295/FUL amended the design, reduced the footprint and set the dwelling further back from the Seeleys Road frontage. By comparison to the last application, the proposed dwelling is similarly sited but further amendments have been made to reduce to the width and height with changes to some of the design details and materials.
1.2 VISUAL IMPACT/IMPACT ON LOCALITY:
1.3 The application site lies within the Seeleys estate, a 1960's 'Open Plan Suburban' housing estate and within an 'Area of Special Character' as designated in the South Bucks Townscape Character Study (February 2014). The Seeleys Road 'Area of Special Character' is a good example of an 'Open Plan Suburban' typology and is particularly well preserved and maintained. There is a consistent absence of boundary treatments between the buildings and the streets which creates a sense of openness that is heightened by the 'green carpet of lawn' that runs from the edge of each home to the edge of the road integrating footpaths and verges. The landscape is generally very well maintained. The dwellings either front onto the highway or are sited at right angles. There is a distinctive architectural approach characterised by 1 and 2 storey, detached, simple buildings with low pitched roofs approximately 6.5m in height. There is a consistent material palette of red and yellow brick and white timber cladding. There is a distinctive use of ornamental planting and topiary. Shrubs and small trees are grouped together in small clusters. These groups are well maintained and are an important part of the landscape character. This 'Area of Special character' is considered to be sensitive to new development as a result of its uniform townscape character and consistent architectural
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 56 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
approach, associated with consistent public realm, boundary and landscape treatment.
1.4 The replacement dwelling was previously pushed back further into the plot 16/00295/FUL and re-aligned to bring it more in line with the siting of the existing dwelling and this remains unchanged in the current submission. The overall height of the dwelling has been further reduced to 7.26m to bring it more in line with the shallow, low pitch roofs (approximately 6.5m) which are characteristic of the estate. The materials have been revised to omit the ground floor render (off white) and replaced with a red multi brick to help reduce the visual prominence of the proposed dwelling. Timber weatherboard (stained natural colour) at first floor level, used elsewhere on the estate, and concrete clay tiles are also proposed. The width of the existing dwelling facing Seeleys Road currently measures 9.4m and the revised width would measure 10.5m, a resulting overall increase of 1.1m. The porch projection has been reduced in depth from 1.68m to 0.72m and increased in width from 4.74m to 5.1m. The overall design of the proposed dwelling remains unchanged and it has been designed to be symmetrical rather replicate the existing asymmetrical design.
1.5 It is acknowledged that the overall size, height and footprint of the proposed dwelling would be larger than the dwelling it replaces and would project further back into the plot. However the dwelling would be sited in a very similar position to the existing dwelling and has been designed to be in general keeping with the overall simple architectural style of the dwellings on the estate. In addition the revised material palette would generally reflect the other dwellings on the estate and the overall height of the dwelling would now only be marginally higher than the surrounding properties. The existing fence line would be retained thus preserving the sense of openness and maintaining the lawned area at the front of the site. The open plan typology of the estate would therefore be maintained. On balance it is considered that the revised proposal would sufficiently reflect the original style and layout of the estate and would not detract from the character and appearance of the streetscene or the locality in general. As such it is considered that the previous reason for refusal has been sufficiently overcome.
2.0 NEIGHBOUR IMPACT:
2.1 It is necessary to consider the proposals impact on the living conditions of the surrounding properties. The northern and western boundaries of the site are fairly well screened by tall conifer trees which provide reasonable boundary screening and these are proposed to be retained as part of the proposal.
2.2 The proposed dwelling has been sited in a similar position to the existing dwelling house. However it would project further back into the plot and thus reduce the gap between the dwelling and the neighbouring properties. Number 20 Seeleys Road has a single storey garage set up to the boundary and the dwelling is sited approximately 7.4 metres from the flank boundary. It is considered that a sufficient distance would be maintained and the proposal would not result in an unacceptable loss of light or outlook to number 20. In addition it is not considered that the windows in the east (flank) elevation or the windows in the north (rear) elevation would introduce an unacceptable level of overlooking or loss of privacy to number 20 Seeleys Road.
2.3 The western boundary of the site is quite well screened by tall conifers. A distance of between 10.2 and 12.4 metres would be maintained between the dwelling and the western boundary of the site and an overall distance of approximately 23 metres would be maintained between the proposed dwelling and number 24 Seeleys Road. Given this distance it is not considered that the proposal would result in any adverse impact on the living conditions of number 24 in terms of light and outlook. Given also the level of screening, which is shown to be retained, and the distance which would be maintained it is not considered that the proposal would result in an unacceptable level of overlooking or loss of privacy to number 24 Seeleys Road.
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 57 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
2.4 The proposed dwelling would come closer to the rear (northern) boundary of the site and the distance between the proposed dwelling and the northern boundary would be between 7.6m and 9m. The site backs onto number 8 Seeleys Close. There are two first floor bedroom windows and one bathroom window proposed in the northern elevation of the proposed dwelling which would be sited approximately 8.4m and 9m from the northern boundary. In light of the tall evergreen screening which is proposed to be retained it is considered, on balance, that this resulting relationship would not result in an unacceptable loss of light, outlook or privacy to number 8 Seeleys Road or to any other neighbouring property, including number 1 Wooster Road.
3.0 TREES/LANDSCAPING:
3.1 The trees are confined to the periphery of the site and are set a reasonable distance from the proposed replacement dwelling and are shown to be retained. A row of conifers to the front/side of the existing dwelling along the existing fence line are proposed to be removed. The tree officer has raised no objection to the proposal in arboricultural terms subject to an appropriate condition being imposed. In addition it will be important to add a condition to ensure that the tree screening is retained in the future.
3.2 The overall landscape characteristics of the estate will be maintained.
4.0 HIGHWAYS/PARKING:
4.1 The proposal involves the widening of the existing vehicular access across the grass verge and the widening/ alterations of the existing driveway along the flank (eastern) boundary of the site. The existing detached garage is to be demolished, but a smaller garage/store is proposed to be provided. Driveway parking is shown to be provided for 3 to 4 cars.
4.2 Seeleys Road is an unclassified road. The Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposal in terms of highway safety and the proposal meets the adopted parking standard of three off street parking spaces. No objection is therefore raised to the proposal on highway safety or parking grounds.
4.3 Many of the objectors have raised concern about the issues of highway obstruction/safety during the construction phase of the development. Any obstruction on the public highway in association with building operations would be an offence under S137 of the Highway Act 1980 and an appropriate Informative can be added to any planning permission.
5.0 OTHER MATTERS:
5.1 It is noted that some concern has been raised from residents about the proposal setting a precedent for other replacement dwellings on the estate which could erode the character of the estate. However each application must be considered on its own merits and in this case it is considered that the proposal has been suitably designed to minimise its impact on the visual amenity of the estate.
5.2 Some of the objectors have referred to the potential for sink holes opening up. Any issues relating to ground stability, structural risk and sink holes would need to be addressed under the Building Regulations.
5.3 The applicant would be expected to undertake the works in relation to the Council's 'Considerate Constructor' guidelines and any issues relating to unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance arising from the development would need to be dealt with under Environmental Health legislation.
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 58 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
6.0 WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT:
6.1 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. South Bucks 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.
CONCLUSION:
It is considered that a fair and reasonable balance would be struck between the interests of the community and the human rights of the individuals concerned if planning permission were to be granted in this instance.
Given the level of interest in this proposal it is considered that value would be added to the decision making process if MEMBERS were to undertake a SITE VISIT prior to determination of this application.
RECOMMENDATION
Full Planning Permission.
Conditions & Reasons:
1. S01 Standard time limit full application 2. NMS09A Development To Accord With Application Drawings 3. NM01 Schedule Of Materials 4. NM02 Surface Materials 5. NT06 Retention of Existing Landscaping Features -22/PLA/002/H 6. NT14A Tree Protective Fencing Details 7. NH27 Priv Acc Altered Prior To Occupation - 22/PLA/002/H 8. ND12 Exclusion of PD Part 1 Density of layout –the 9. NH46 Parking Full
10. Prior to development commencing on site details of the garage/store shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority and thereafter carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality. (Policies EP3 and H9 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refer.)
11. ND15 Exclusion of PD Part 2 Class A -dwelling house - fronts
Informatives:-
1. IN02 Details Required Pursuant to Conditions - 3, 4, 6 and 10 2. IN35 Considerate Constructor 3. IH17 Highway Authority Licence Required 4. IH23 Mud on the Highway
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 59 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
5. IH24 Obstruction of the Highway
6. 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 (as amended). (IH24)
LIST OF APPROVED PLANS
Plan number/name Date received by District Planning Authority
Site Plan 31.10.2017 22/PLA/002/H 31.10.2017 22/PLA/003/D 31.10.2017
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 60 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
PART A
South Bucks District Council Planning Committee
Date of Meeting: 10 January 2018 Parish: Farnham Royal Parish Council
Reference No: 17/02081/FUL Full Application Proposal: Redevelopment of site to include the provision of 3 detached dwellings with carport and surface parking. Location: Dippingwell, Beaconsfield Road, Farnham Common, Buckinghamshire, SL2 3PU Applicant: Mr S Bowyer Agent: Mrs Amanda Walker Date Valid Appl Recd: 3rd November 2017 Recommendation: PER
LOCATION PLAN – This plan is supplied only to identify the location of the site and for no other purpose whatsoever.
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the South Bucks District Council permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Licence Number LA 100025874 Crown Copying. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or Civil SCALE : NOT TO SCALE proceedings.
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 61 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
THE PROPOSAL:
Planning permission is sought to erect 3 detached dwellings (2 x 3 bed and 1 x 4 bed) including integral garages, open car port and associated car parking within the grounds of Dippingwell and West Dippingwell, an Arts and Craft style house which has been divided into two units. It is proposed to retain the existing building and improve the site entrance from Beaconsfield Road.
Planning permission has already been granted for 3 detached dwellings at the front of the site (plots 4, 5 and 6) under application number 17/00974/FUL.
This application has been submitted in an attempt to overcome the previous reason for refusal under application number 17/00971/FUL and relates to the proposed 3 units at the rear of the site. The revisions include:
Plot 1 - Reduced from a 4 bed to a 3 bed dwelling by omitting accommodation over the garage. The floor space has been reduced by 47.5sq.m. There is also a slight adjustment in the footprint to improve the spacing with Dippingwell.
Plot 2 - Remains relatively unchanged with the exception of a slight reduction in the length of the garage. There is an overall reduction in floor space of 15sq.m.
Plot 3 - Reduced from a 4 bed to a 3 bed dwelling and an overall reduction in floor space of 35sq.m. Reduction in the projection of the front gable, the rear catslide has been removed and an open sided car port has been added and all parking has been moved to the west side of the dwelling.
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE:
The application site lies on the eastern side of Beaconsfield Road close to the commercial centre of Farnham Common. The site lies within the developed area and lies 355m from Burnham Beeches, a SAC/SSSI and within the Withy Stream Catchment and a Biodiversity Opportunity Area. Some of the trees on the neighbouring sites are covered by Tree Preservation Orders.
The site measures 0.18 ha and comprises part of the grounds of Dippingwell, a large dwelling which is subdivided into two units. The site has already been cleared of most vegetation. The boundaries of the site are reasonably well screened by trees. There is a narrow unmade access track which runs to the south and east of the site which serves the adjacent property to the east known as Well End. To the south lie detached dwellings in Rosewood Way and two newly completed detached dwellings which front onto Beaconsfield Road. To the north of the site lie terraced houses and garages in Dell Close and detached dwellings in Orchard Gate.
The site is located within an area with 'particular potential for change' and a 'Green Suburban Road' as identified in the South Bucks Townscape Character Study Part 2 Rev A July 2015.
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:
17/00256/FUL: Redevelopment of site to include the erection of 6 detached dwellings with associated parking for the existing and proposed dwellings. Refused
17/00971/FUL: Redevelopment of site to include the provision of 6 detached dwellings with associated parking for existing and proposed dwellings. Refused and appeal lodged.
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 62 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
The reason for refusal reads:
1. The proposed development by virtue of its density, layout, siting and scale would appear as a cramped overdevelopment which would be out of keeping with the spacious character of the locality in general, detrimental to the visual amenities of the site itself and the general character of the locality, contrary to policies H9 and EP3 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) and Core Policy 8 of the Core Strategy (adopted February 2011) and would threaten the characteristics of the 'Green Suburban Road' as identified in the South Bucks Townscape Character Study Part 2.
17/00974/FUL: Redevelopment of site to include the provision of 3 detached dwellings with associated parking for existing and proposed dwellings. Permitted.
REPRESENTATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS:
PARISH / TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS:
We remain very concerned about the original well and natural water sources around this site; it may well affect the surrounding properties, particularly the neighbouring bungalow to the rear. The ground water is the biggest issue with this site. This has not been catered for and will cause issues to the surrounding housing and roads.
The site is still over developed.
In addition the Parish Council has added standard comments which are summarised below:
- Council should protect significant trees and make sure that proposal does not place undue pressure on surrounding trees; - Proposal should not result in additional parking pressures and adequate parking should be provided; - Hydrological matters to be fully considered; - Ensure that the development is of an appropriate design quality and in scale with surrounding street scene and will not dominate neighbours; - Ensure that the proposal will not harm the amenities of the adjoining properties in terms of light.
Conditions should include that works are not carried out outside of the considerate contractors hours and that parking arrangements for contractors vehicles are agreed prior to commencement. The applicant should agree to a Construction Traffic Management Plan.
The Planning Authority should seek appropriate contributions by way of S106 contributions and CIL.
CORRESPONDENCE:
Letters of objection have been received from 9 separate sources. The objections are summarised as follows:
- Construction lorries and workers cars will cause hazard to A355; - Footings will interfere with roots of protected Oak Tree; - Development is excessive and should be refused; - Development is too dense for the site; - Dwellings will appear overbearing and affect the trees;
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 63 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
- Surface water and hydrological impact has not been given sufficient attention. There are already surface and subterranean water issues in the area; - Accuracy of wildlife report is questionable as there are bats on site; - Ecological damage has already occurred ahead of development. Badgers and deer are no longer using the site; - No visible or material changes made to original application; - Area of development is liable to flooding. Soakaway will not address the flooding issue; - Proposed development will exacerbate the existing drainage and sewerage issues; - Any natural habitat has already been destroyed; - Report does not address displacement of animals or fragmentation of their natural habitat; - Not enough car parking provided which will exacerbate existing parking problems; - Proposal does not provide for affordable housing or education contribution; - Obtrusive to number 15 Rosewood Way; - Loss of privacy to dwellings in Rosewood Way; - Permanent access to Well End needs to be ensured; - Existing hedges and fences should not be removed or replaced; - Overdevelopment; - Concern that building work will damage roots of surrounding trees; - Out of character with existing development in the vicinity; - Development will create significant traffic disruption; - Two dwellings would sit more comfortably within the site; - Boundary with Well End drive has been altered where it adjoins Dippingwell Drive.
SPECIALIST ADVICE:
Transport for Bucks: (Comments provided under application number 17/00971/FUL):
No objection subject to conditions and informatives.
Building Control Officer:
No comments received to date.
Arboricultural Officer:
No objection subject to the imposition of a condition.
Waste Efficiency Officer (comments provided under application number 17/00256/FUL):
No objection.
City Of London:
Object.
Natural England: (comments provided under 17/00971/FUL)
No objection subject to appropriate mitigation being secured.
Ecology officer: (comments provided under 17/00971/FUL):
No objection subject to conditions.
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 64 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
Environmental Health: (comments provided under 17/00971/FUL):
No objection - support the use of SUDs, permeable paving and landscaping.
National Grid: (comments provided under 17/00256/FUL):
National Grid has identified that a gas mains pipe is located on the site.
Thames Water:
Thames Water has identified an inability of the existing waste water infrastructure to accommodate the needs of the application and has requested a condition requiring details of a drainage strategy detailing any on/off site drainage works to be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority prior to any development commencing. A drainage strategy has already been agreed in principle between the developer and Thames Water and once the design has been finalised Thames Water would welcome further consultation.
With regards to surface water drainage it is the responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses or a suitable sewer. It is recommended that the applicant ensures that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required. It is expected that the developer will demonstrate what measures he will undertake to minimise groundwater discharged into the public sewer. Appropriate informatives will need to be added to any planning permission.
ISSUES AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
RELEVANT POLICIES:
National Policy National Planning Policy Framework National Planning Policy Guidance
Development Plan
South Bucks Local Development Framework Core Strategy (adopted February 2011) - CP3, CP8, CP9 and CP13.
South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) (Saved Policies) - EP3, EP4, EP5, H9, TR5 and TR7.
Other Material considerations:
Residential Design Guide SPD. Interim Guidance on Residential Parking Standards. South Bucks Townscape Character Study (February 2014).
1.0 KEY POLICY ASSESSMENT
1.1 The application has been accompanied by a covering letter, a revised Design & Access Statement, an ecological assessment, hydrological assessment, a tree report and tree protection plan and foul drainage assessment. A flood risk assessment was previously supplied under application number 17/00971/FUL.
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 65 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
2.0 VISUAL IMPACT/IMPACT ON LOCALITY:
2.1 The existing building sits within large grounds and is set well back into the site. The 3 proposed detached dwellings at the rear of the site have been revised in an attempt to address the previous reason for refusal. The amendments include an overall reduction in floor area and a reduction in the number of bedrooms on plots 1 & 3 from 4 to 3. The omission of the first floor accommodation above the garage on plot 1 has helped reduce the size of the dwelling and the spacing between the dwelling on plot 1 and Dippingwell has also been improved. The reduction in the projection of the front gable on plot 3 and the removal of the rear catslide has also helped to improve the overall layout. It is considered that the revisions set out above have helped to improve the overall layout of the development and each dwelling would sit reasonably comfortably within its plot and adequate spacing between the dwellings would be maintained.
2.2 The proposed dwellings would be sited to the rear of the site and would not be readily visible from Beaconsfield Road. The dwellings would also be reasonably well screened from the surrounding residential properties. The site is fairly self- contained and the revised dwellings would sit reasonably comfortably within the site. As such it is not considered that the proposal would detract from the visual amenity of the site itself or the surrounding residential area, which comprises a mix of housing types and styles. On balance, therefore it is considered that the revised scheme is now acceptable in terms of density, layout, siting and scale and the previous reason for refusal has been satisfactorily addressed.
3.0 NEIGHBOUR IMPACT:
3.1 No objection was raised to the previous scheme in terms of its impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring properties. The eastern and southern boundaries of the site are reasonably well screened by tall trees and an access track serving 'Well End' to the east of the site separates the application site from the properties in Rosewood Way which benefit from fairly long rear gardens. The distance between the dwelling on plot 1 and the eastern boundary of the site has been slightly increased to a minimum of 8m. As before it is considered that given the distances which would be maintained and the existing boundary screening the proposed dwellings would not introduce an unacceptable level of overlooking, loss of privacy, light or outlook to any of the neighbouring properties.
3.3 In addition it is not considered that the proposed access road serving the development and the associated traffic would introduce an unacceptable level of noise and disturbance to the neighbouring properties.
3.4 On this basis it is considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of any neighbouring properties.
4.0 HIGHWAY ISSUES AND PARKING:
4.1 The proposal involves alterations to an existing access off Beaconsfield Road, the A355. In accordance with guidance contained within the Manual for Streets, visibility splays of 2.4 x 43m are required in both directions. The Highway Authority is satisfied that these visibility splays can be achieved. A swept path analysis was previously provided to show a 9.59m refuse vehicle entering, turning and egressing satisfactorily from the site. Therefore, subject to the imposition of conditions and informatives the Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposal.
4.2 The adopted parking standard requires 2 parking spaces to be provided for 3 bed dwellings and 3 car parking spaces to be provided for 4 bed dwellings. Three car parking spaces are shown to be provided for each of the proposed dwellings and therefore the proposal more than meets the minimum parking requirement.
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 66 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
4.3 On this basis no objection is raised to the proposal in terms of parking and highway safety.
5.0 TREES/LANDSCAPING:
5.1 There are no tree constraints on the site, however there are a number of protected trees in the neighbouring properties to the south and east of the site. As before the dwellings have been sited to provide adequate useable amenity space and provide a satisfactory relationship with the surrounding trees. It was previously ascertained that fairly good levels of sunlight and daylight would be available for each plot and on balance, it was concluded that the proposal was acceptable in arboricultural terms. This revised proposal has no further implications for the surrounding trees and the tree officer has raised no objection in arboricultural terms.
5.3 In addition, a landscape condition will be imposed to ensure that a satisfactory landscape scheme is provided.
6.0 ECOLOGICAL ISSUES:
6.1 The site lies within Farnham Common and although part of the built up landscape, the site lies between Burnham Beeches, an SAC/NNR/SSSI and Farnham Common which is in part ancient woodland. The site also lies within a Biodiversity Opportunity Area and close to an additional SSSI and four Local Wildlife Sites and within the Withy Stream Catchment area. The application has been accompanied by a hydrological assessment report and an ecological survey.
6.2 As landowners of Burnham Beeches the City of London has raised objection to the proposal. The City of London is concerned about the effect of the proposal on Burnham Beeches in terms of increased density of housing, increased numbers of visitors to Burnham Beeches, adverse impact on the integrity of the SAC, increase in light, noise and air pollution and reducing refugees for rare and protected species. The Council produced a Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) screening statement for the Core Strategy which concluded that there would be no adverse impacts in relation to the Burnham Beeches Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The current proposal to build additional dwellings in the developed area accords with the Core Strategy and the related screening statement. Natural England has consistently confirmed that this size of proposal will not adversely affect the SAC, in isolation or in combination with other developments. This is because there is no evidence that such developments adversely impact on the special features that have resulted in the SAC being designated, those being the acid beech forest, its shrub layer and the habitat for invertebrates and epiphytes that it provides. In these circumstances the Council does not consider there will be any likely significant effect on the SAC. As there is no likely effect on the SAC, no further Appropriate Assessment under the Habitat Regulations needs to be undertaken and Natural England do not currently consider an analysis under the Habitats Regulations necessary with respect to this size of development. Therefore, despite the objection from the City of London it is not considered that an objection could be sustained on the basis of the proposal's impact on this important natural asset.
6.3 Natural England has raised no objection to the application subject to appropriate mitigation measures being secured by condition. The mitigation measures would include all runoff to be collected and discharged via on-site soakaways and the soakaways to be installed and maintained with enough capacity to avoid surface flooding; all new surfacing to be permeable with excess runoff directed towards soakaways; during construction felled vegetation should be removed from site as soon as possible and during construction dewatering should be disposed of via temporary soakaways with suitable filtration devices to remove contaminants.
6.4 The proposed development is within the groundwater and surface water catchment area for the Withy Stream and as such a sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) is required to maintain the quality and quantity of water reaching the Burnham Beeches.
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 67 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
6.5 An ecological survey was undertaken to determine the existence and location of any ecological valuable areas and to record evidence of protected species and a walk-over survey undertaken. The survey concludes that there are no habitats of international, national, county or local importance that would be affected by the proposal. No evidence of protected species has been recorded. The ecology officer previously raised no objection to the proposal subject to an ecology and management plan being submitted which can be secured by condition to include methods to protect slow worms (and any other reptile), birds and hedgehogs during demolition and construction and the creation of suitable habitat and movement corridors for reptiles and a suitable lighting strategy. In addition, a brief analysis of net biodiversity gain, using a suitable metric will need to be undertaken to show adequate enhancement and maintenance of wildlife corridors.
7.0 OTHER ISSUES:
7.1 Some of the local representations have referred to existing flooding and drainage issues in and around the site.
7.2 The site lies within Flood zone 1 which has a low risk of fluvial flooding from Main Rivers. The Flood Risk Assessment concludes that the proposed development, which would incorporate SuDs, would ensure that there would be no increase in run-off, no increased flood risk, a decrease in the overall site's run-off rate and volume and betterment would be provided.
7.3 It is understood that the proposed development is situated within an area that has suffered repeated historical sewer flooding and Thames Water has identified an inability of the existing waste water infrastructure to accommodate the need of this application. Thames Water has confirmed that a drainage strategy has been agreed in principle with the applicant but has requested the imposition of a condition requiring further details of a drainage strategy, to be agreed in writing prior to development commencing on site.
7.4 No education contribution is required in this case since the proposal involves less than 10 dwellings.
7.5 Affordable Housing contributions cannot be sought for development of 10 units or less, and which have a maximum combined gross floor area of no more than 1,000 sq.m in accordance with the Government's PPG published 29th Nov 2016. The gross revised internal floor areas of all the proposed dwellings on the whole of the site (including the 3 dwellings at the front of the site permitted consideration under 17/00974/FUL) would now amount to 865.5 sq.m. Even taking into account the open sided car ports which would have a GIA of 70 sq.m the total GIA would still be well below 1000 sq.m and no affordable housing can therefore be required in this case.
7.6 Any legal right of way to Well End must be maintained and this is a civil/legal matter.
8.0 WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT:
8.1 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. South Bucks 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.
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 68 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
CONCLUSION:
It is considered that a fair and reasonable balance would be struck between the interests of the community and the human rights of the individuals concerned if planning permission were to be granted in this instance.
Given that Members refused the previous scheme under application number 17/00971/FUL it is considered appropriate in this case that this revised application be considered again by Members. Value would also be added to the decision making process if MEMBERS were to undertake SITE VISIT prior to the determination of this application.
RECOMMENDATION:
Full Planning Permission
Conditions & Reasons:
1. NS01 Standard Time Limit - Full Application 2. NMS09A Development To Accord With Application Drawings 3. NM01 Schedule of Materials 4. NM02 Surface Materials 5. NT01 Landscaping Scheme to be Submitted 6. NT02 First Planting Season 7. NT06 Retention of Existing Landscaping Features -16 DWD SP03 Rev C 8. NT08 Walls & Fencing details - dwellinghouses 9. NT17A Tree Constraints Plan and Method Statement
10. The first floor window in the south west elevation of the dwelling house on plot 3 hereby permitted shall be fitted and permanently maintained with obscure glass.
Reason: To prevent overlooking and loss of privacy in the interests of the amenities of the adjoining properties. (Policy EP3 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refers.)
11. No further first floor window shall be inserted at or above first floor level in the south west elevation of the dwelling house on plot 3 hereby permitted.
Reason: To prevent overlooking and loss of privacy in the interests of the amenities of the adjoining properties. (Policy EP3 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refers.)
12. ND12 Exclusion of PD Part 1 Density of layout -any 13. NH19 Private Access Constructed Prior to Occupation Full - 16 DWD SP03 Rev C
14. Prior to the occupation of the development minimum vehicular visibility splays of 43m from 2.4m back from the edge of the carriageway from both sides of the existing access onto Beaconsfield road shall be provided in accordance with the approved plans and the visibility splays shall be kept clear from any obstruction between 0.6m and 2.0m above ground level.
Reason: To provide adequate visibility between the access and the existing public highway for the safety and convenience of users of the highway and of the access. (Policy TR5 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refers.)
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 69 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
15. NH46 Parking Full
16. No development shall commence until details of the following mitigation measures have been submitted and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The mitigation measures shall include:
- All runoff to be collected and discharged via on-site soakaways. The soakaway shall have sufficient capacity (including an allowance for climate change predictions) to receive all water from roof areas of the proposed dwellings in line with Master Drain SW 16.06 SA2 Plots 1-3 – 1:30 yr storm + 40% CCF. The soakaways will be installed and maintained with enough capacity to avoid surface flooding. - Driveways shall be surfaced in unbonded gravel with a filtration layer for pollutant removal and all new surfacing shall be permeable with excess runoff directed towards soakaways. - During construction felled vegetation should be removed from the site as soon as possible. - During construction dewatering should be disposed of via temporary soakaways with suitable filtration devices to remove contaminants.
Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and maintained to the satisfaction of the District Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to mitigate the effects of the development on the integrity of Burnham Beeches Special Area of Conservation. (Core Policy 13 of the South Bucks Core Strategy (adopted February 2011) refers.)
17. The proposed development shall be carried out in accordance with the drawing entitled ‘site drainage 214:03 Rev B, the mitigation measures set out in the Hydrology report (November 2016) and as stipulated in the Design and Access Statement and shall include the use of a Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) and permeable surfacing.
Reason: In order to maintain the quality and quantity of water reaching the Burnham Beeches. (Core Policy 13 of the South Bucks Core Strategy (adopted February 2011) refers.)
18. Prior to any further demolition/construction work (including ground clearance) an ecology and management plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority and shall include:
i) Methods to protect slow worms (and any other reptile) which may be present on the site during the development stage. This may include vegetation management to reduce the risk of species being present and a watching brief and method statement to ensure reptiles are protected during demolition and construction; ii) Measures to mitigate protect and retain and create suitable habitat and movement corridors for reptiles in the long term; iii) Clarification regarding tree felling in terms of bats; iv A suitable lighting strategy for bats; v) Measures to protect other species such as birds and hedgehogs; vi) An analysis of net biodiversity gain, using a suitable metric (or other means) to be undertaken to show that enhancements within the site are adequate and also that wildlife corridors are maintained.
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 70 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with approved Ecology and Management Plan and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the District Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard the conservation, enhancement and net gain in local biodiversity resources. (Core Policy 9 of the South Bucks Core Strategy (adopted February 2011) refers.)
19. No development shall commence on site until an appropriate drainage strategy detailing any on and/or off site drainage works, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority in consultation with the sewerage undertaker. No discharge of foul or surface water from the site shall be accepted into the public system until the drainage works referred to in the strategy have been completed.
Reason: To ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to cope with the new development and in order to avoid adverse environmental impact upon the community. (Core Policy 13 of the South Bucks Core Strategy (adopted February 2011).
Informatives:-
1. IN02 Details Required Pursuant to Conditions - 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 16, 18 and 19 2. IN03 Thames Water Utilities Ltd 3. IN35 Considerate Constructor
4. The applicant is advised that the National Grid has identified a gas mains pipe located on the site and is advised to contact National grid before any works are carried out to ensure that the apparatus is not affected by any of the proposed works.
5. The applicant is advised that the off-site works will need to be constructed under a Section 184 of the Highways Act legal agreement. This 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 8 weeks is required to draw up the agreement following the receipt by the Highway Authority of a completed Section 184 application form. Please contact Highway Development Management at the following address for information:
Development Management 6th Floor, County Hall Walton Street, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire HP20 1UY.
6. IH11 Surface Water Drainage 7. IH12 Use of soakaways 8. IH23 Mud on the Highway
LIST OF APPROVED PLANS
Plan number/name Date received by District 9. IH24 Obstruction of the Highway
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 71 Appendix Classification: OFFICIAL
Planning Authority
17 DWD SL03 Rev A 03.11.2017 DBC 214 01 Rev A 03.11.2017 Site Survey 03.11.2017 16 DWD SP03 Rev C 03.11.2017 16 DWD PE03 Rev F 03.11.2017 16 DWD PE02 Rev D 03.11.2017 16 DWD PE01 Rev F 03.11.2017 Site Drainage 214:03 Rev B 20.12.2017
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Head of Sustainable Development 29th December 2017
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 72 Classification: OFFICIAL SOUTH BUCKS DISTRICT COUNCIL PART D SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY PLANNING COMMITTEE 10 JANUARY 2018 Applicant / Date of App'n No Parish Site Proposal Decision Agent decision
17/01151/RVC Beaconsfield David Howells Greenacres Variation of Conditions 2, 5, 15 and 18 of Application 15.12.17 Town 119 Station Road planning permission 12/01707/FUL to amend Permitted Council Beaconsfield parking arrangements with the provision of Buckinghamshire garages in addition to approved car ports, re- HP9 1LG position of the cycle and bin stores, revised landscaping and boundary treatments.
17/01236/FUL Beaconsfield Dr A Jaisinghani 2 Burnham Avenue Replacement dwelling. Application 30.11.17 Town C/o Mr S Ali Beaconsfield Permitted Council Buckinghamshire HP9 2JA
Page 73 Page 17/01702/FUL Beaconsfield Mr & Mrs A Hay 1 Rolfe Close Front porch canopy. Conversion of the existing Application 01.12.17 Town C/o Mr Paul Lugard Beaconsfield integral garage to habitable accommodation. Permitted Council Buckinghamshire Part single storey/part two storey rear extension HP9 1RU with juliette balcony. Alterations to existing basement and creation of raised decking. Fenestration alterations, rendering and painting of resultant dwelling
17/01675/FUL Beaconsfield Ms Aset Vatsueva 3 Maplewood Gardens Single storey infill extensions, first floor rear Application 24.11.17 Town C/o Mr Svetoslav Savov Beaconsfield terrace incorporating glass balustrade, increase Permitted Council Buckinghamshire in height of rear gable projection and alterations HP9 1BU to cladding and fenestration.
17/01722/FUL Beaconsfield Jan Grzyb 10 Shepherds Lane Mixed Use Scheme for 1 office and 2 x 2 bedroom Application 08.12.17 Town Beaconsfield flats with rear parking. Permitted Council Buckinghamshire HP9 2DT Appendix
1 Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL SOUTH BUCKS DISTRICT COUNCIL PART D SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY PLANNING COMMITTEE 10 JANUARY 2018 Applicant / Date of App'n No Parish Site Proposal Decision Agent decision
17/01835/TPO Beaconsfield Mr James Sebastian 6 Grove Road (T1) & (T2) Copper Beech - Reduce canopy by up Part 23.11.17 Town Beaconsfield to 1-2m and thin by up to 20% (SBDC TPO No. 22, Consent/Part Council Buckinghamshire 1995). Refusal (See HP9 1UP decision)
17/01831/FUL Beaconsfield Mr Mwatsama & Mrs 3 The Crest Part single/part two storey front/side/rear Application 01.12.17 Town Torri Beaconsfield extension incorporating integral garage. Permitted Council C/o Michael Dales Buckinghamshire Partnership Limited HP9 1BL
17/01856/FUL Beaconsfield Mr & Mrs Fraser and The Coach House Front porch and bay, side porch, single storey Application 01.12.17
Page 74 Page Town Ruth Handcock Gregories Farm Lane rear extension with terrace and glass balustrade. Permitted Council C/o Miss Katie Jackson Beaconsfield First floor side extension incorporating front Buckinghamshire dormers, roof extension with side dormer. HP9 1HJ Pergola linking to proposed garage, detached outbuilding.
17/01868/TPO Beaconsfield Mr Philip Maxwell Oak Lye T2 - Oak - Crown reduce by 2 metres all round. Application 27.11.17 Town C/o Mr Jack Prynn 22 Furzefield Road (SBDC TPO No. 5, 1982) Permitted Council Beaconsfield Buckinghamshire HP9 1PG
17/01816/TPO Beaconsfield Mr J Schrire The Grove (G10) 1x Horse Chestnut, 1 x Sycamore and 3 x Application 28.11.17 Town 21A Grove Road Limes and (G11) 2 x Limes - Pollard (SBDC TPO Permitted Council Beaconsfield No. 55, 2002). Buckinghamshire
HP9 1UR Appendix
2 Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL SOUTH BUCKS DISTRICT COUNCIL PART D SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY PLANNING COMMITTEE 10 JANUARY 2018 Applicant / Date of App'n No Parish Site Proposal Decision Agent decision
17/01873/FUL Beaconsfield Mr David Lazenby Beaconsfield Garden Alterations to car park and vehicular access to Application 30.11.17 Town Centre provide 68 car parking spaces, including erection Permitted Council London Road of new boundary treatment. Beaconsfield Buckinghamshire HP9 1SH
17/01857/CLOP Beaconsfield Mr Nirmal Virdee 7 Burgess Wood Road Application for a Certificate of Lawfulness for Certificate 01.12.17 ED Town C/o Mr Kamal Panesar South proposed: Outbuilding of Lawful Council Beaconsfield Use granted Buckinghamshire HP9 1EU Page 75 Page 17/01876/TPO Beaconsfield Mr John Jones Klinten T1 Field Maple & T2 Field Maple -Fell to ground Application 28.11.17 Town C/o John Jones 19 Stratton Road level. (SBDC TPO 1995,14) Permitted Council Beaconsfield Buckinghamshire HP9 1HR
17/01877/CLOP Beaconsfield Mr & Mrs C Hubbard 73 Holtspur Top Lane Application for a Certificate of Lawfulness for Certificate 05.12.17 ED Town C/o Mr Matthew Trotter Holtspur proposed: Insertion of door and window in open of Lawful Council Beaconsfield sided porch. Use granted Buckinghamshire HP9 1DR
17/01890/ADV Beaconsfield Mr Stuart Tucker The Royal Saracens 3 x externally illuminated sets of letters, 1 x Application 04.12.17 Town C/o Mr Chris Dyer Head externally illuminated hanging sign, 1 x non Permitted Council 6-8 London End illuminated A board sign, 2 x non illuminated Appendix Beaconsfield menu cases and 1 x non illuminated panel sign. Buckinghamshire HP9 2JH
3 Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL SOUTH BUCKS DISTRICT COUNCIL PART D SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY PLANNING COMMITTEE 10 JANUARY 2018 Applicant / Date of App'n No Parish Site Proposal Decision Agent decision
17/01892/LBC Beaconsfield Mr Stuart Tucker The Royal Saracens Listed Building Application for: 3 x externally Application 04.12.17 Town C/o Mr Chris Dyer Head illuminated sets of letters, 1 x externally Permitted Council London End illuminated hanging sign, 1 x non illuminated A Beaconsfield board sign, 2 x non illuminated menu cases, 1 x Buckinghamshire non illuminated panel sign, 9 x frosted vinyl HP9 2JH decals and 5 x aluminium panels.
17/01896/FUL Beaconsfield Mr & Mrs M Ricci Beechwood House First floor front extension forming gable, two Application 05.12.17 Town C/o Mr Philip Alexander 21 Beechwood Road storey side/rear extension, first floor rear infill Permitted Council Beaconsfield extension incorporating juliette balconies, re- Buckinghamshire roofing of existing single storey rear section HP9 1HP incorporating a roof lantern and removal of an existing single storey extension to be replaced by Page 76 Page hardstanding as an increase to the rear patio area.
17/01837/FUL Beaconsfield Mr Nick Morrison 33A Meadow Lane Single storey rear extension. Application 11.12.17 Town C/o Bill Macleod Beaconsfield Permitted Council Buckinghamshire HP9 1AL
17/01897/FUL Beaconsfield Mr & Mrs R Walker 6 The Spinney Part two-storey, part single storey side / front Application 05.12.17 Town C/o Mr Simon Davis Beaconsfield extension. Permitted Council Buckinghamshire HP9 1SB
17/01912/TPO Beaconsfield Mr Steve Lynch 17 Chiltern Hills Road T1 Blue Cedar - reduce top growth by 15% (3m) & Application 01.12.17
Town C/o Mr Paul Morris Beaconsfield torn stumps from storm damage. (SBDC TPO No. Permitted Appendix Council Buckinghamshire 19, 1995). HP9 1PL
4 Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL SOUTH BUCKS DISTRICT COUNCIL PART D SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY PLANNING COMMITTEE 10 JANUARY 2018 Applicant / Date of App'n No Parish Site Proposal Decision Agent decision
17/01917/TPO Beaconsfield Mr C Car Burkes Cottage T2 lime - crown lift 6 metres from ground level Part 01.12.17 Town C/o Mr Glen Harding Burkes Crescent branches touching building to create 2-3 metre Consent/Part Council Beaconsfield clearance from roof. Refusal (See Buckinghamshire T2 lime - fell. T3 lime - fell. (SBDC TPO No. 21, decision) HP9 1PD 1995).
17/01903/FUL Beaconsfield Kissing Tree House Replacement dwelling with detached garage. Application 07.12.17 Town C/o Mr S Dodd Curzon Avenue Permitted Council Beaconsfield Buckinghamshire HP9 2NN
Page 77 Page 17/01910/FUL Beaconsfield Socious Projects 2 Station Parade Part retrospective single storey rear extension Application 07.12.17 Town C/o WS Planning & Penn Road and fencing. Permitted Council Architecture Beaconsfield Buckinghamshire HP9 2PB
17/01904/FUL Beaconsfield Mr & Mrs Guy Kinnell 111B Wattleton Road Garage conversion and single storey rear Application 14.12.17 Town C/o Mr Jonathan Beaconsfield extension. Permitted Council Heighway Buckinghamshire HP9 1RW
17/01928/TPO Beaconsfield Mr Paul Fletcher 34 Butlers Court Road T1 spanish chestnut - re-pollard to previous Application 01.12.17 Town Beaconsfield height. T2 beech - Crown thinning is not to Permitted Council Buckinghamshire exceed 30%. (BE TPO No. 00, 1961). HP9 1SG Appendix
5 Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL SOUTH BUCKS DISTRICT COUNCIL PART D SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY PLANNING COMMITTEE 10 JANUARY 2018 Applicant / Date of App'n No Parish Site Proposal Decision Agent decision
17/01932/TPO Beaconsfield Ms Nikki Vail 39 Candlemas Lane T1 bay - Crown reduction consisting of up to 3 Application 01.12.17 Town C/o Mr Stuart Wells Beaconsfield metres in height and 2 metres in spread, shape Permitted Council Buckinghamshire epicormic growth and crown lift over pavement 3 HP9 1AF metres from ground level. (SBDC TPO No 27, 1999).
17/01907/FUL Beaconsfield Mrs Sue Gilbert 3 Butlers Court Road Single storey side/rear extension, construction of Application 11.12.17 Town C/o Mr David Beaconsfield part pitched/part flat roof over existing garage Permitted Council Featherstone Buckinghamshire incorporating front canopy, alterations to HP9 1SF fenestration.
17/01950/FUL Beaconsfield Mr Jonathan Douglas Foxies Cottage Single storey side/rear extension. Application 27.11.17
Page 78 Page Town C/o Mr Carlos Ruiz 38 Aylesbury End Permitted Council Beaconsfield Buckinghamshire HP9 1LW
17/01863/CLOP Beaconsfield Mr Francis Quiers 82 Cherry Tree Road Application for a Certificate of Lawfulness for Application 15.12.17 ED Town Beaconsfield proposed: Construction of vehicular access. Permitted Council Buckinghamshire HP9 1BH
17/01957/FUL Beaconsfield Mrs J Smart 9 Bell Close Detached outbuilding. Application 15.12.17 Town C/o Mr G Hepburn Beaconsfield Permitted Council Buckinghamshire HP9 1AT Appendix
6 Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL SOUTH BUCKS DISTRICT COUNCIL PART D SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY PLANNING COMMITTEE 10 JANUARY 2018 Applicant / Date of App'n No Parish Site Proposal Decision Agent decision
17/02033/CLOP Beaconsfield Ms D Thomas 73 Cherry Tree Road Application for a Certificate of Lawfulness for Certificate 13.12.17 ED Town C/o Mr N Walford Beaconsfield proposed: Construction of vehicular access and of Lawful Council Buckinghamshire associated hardstanding. Use granted HP9 1BG
17/01980/FUL Beaconsfield Mr & Mrs Hanford 61 Holtspur Top Lane Front porch and single storey side/rear extension Application 15.12.17 Town C/o Mrs Susanne Holtspur incorporating increase in ridge height of existing Permitted Council Hardvendel Beaconsfield garage and conversion to habitable Buckinghamshire accommodation. Alteration to existing vehicular HP9 1DR access.
17/02014/CAN Beaconsfield Mr Michael Raven Land Opposite 16-18 Lime x 2 and Sycamore x 1 - Re-pollard No TPO is to 01.12.17 Page 79 Page Town C/o Mrs Jill Macbeth Shepherds Lane (Beaconsfield Conservation Area). be made Council Beaconsfield Buckinghamshire HP9 2DT
17/02004/FUL Beaconsfield Mr Birkett 28 The Spinney Part single/part two storey front/side extension Application 15.12.17 Town C/o Mr Freddy Hedberg Beaconsfield incorporating front porch and single storey rear Permitted Council Buckinghamshire extension. HP9 1SB
17/02058/CAN Beaconsfield Andrew Cantelo Bradbury House Norway Maple - Fell, Cherry - Fell (Beaconsfield No TPO is to 13.12.17 Town Windsor End Conservation Area). be made Council Beaconsfield Buckinghamshire
HP9 2JW Appendix
7 Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL SOUTH BUCKS DISTRICT COUNCIL PART D SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY PLANNING COMMITTEE 10 JANUARY 2018 Applicant / Date of App'n No Parish Site Proposal Decision Agent decision
17/01828/FUL Burnham Mrs Amita Singh 719 Bath Road Front porch and conversion of chalet style Application 01.12.17 Parish C/o Mr Korban Ali Burnham bungalow into two storey dwelling with Permitted Council Buckinghamshire accommodation in roof incorporating rear SL6 0PB dormer and front facing roof lights (Amendment to planning permission 15/00480/FUL).
17/01832/FUL Burnham Mr Gurpernam Dhariwal 108 The Fairway Part single / part two storey side extension and Application 24.11.17 Parish C/o Mr Ehsan UL-HAQ Burnham garage to front. Permitted Council Buckinghamshire SL1 8DY
17/01742/FUL Burnham Loiuse Hibbert and Rob Land Adjoining 51 Detached dwelling with associated vehicular Application 24.11.17
Page 80 Page Parish Vince Lent Rise Road access. refused Council C/o Terrence Hodgkins Burnham Buckinghamshire
17/01900/FUL Burnham Mr Nicholas Herbert 1 Hazelhurst Road Detached dwellinghouse Application 01.12.17 Parish Burnham refused Council Buckinghamshire SL1 8ED
17/01869/JNOT Burnham Ms Trudi Usher Woodend Notification under The Town and Country Approval is 07.12.17 Parish Horseshoe Hill Planning (General Permitted Development) Order granted Council Littleworth Common 2015, Part 3 of Schedule 2 Class O for: Change of Burnham Use from office (Class B1) to residential for a Buckinghamshire three bedroom house (Class C3).
SL1 8QE Appendix
8 Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL SOUTH BUCKS DISTRICT COUNCIL PART D SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY PLANNING COMMITTEE 10 JANUARY 2018 Applicant / Date of App'n No Parish Site Proposal Decision Agent decision
17/01934/FUL Burnham Mr R Furstenheim 9 Hamilton Gardens Single storey rear extension, roof extension and Application 14.12.17 Parish C/o Stephen Varney Burnham front dormer (Amendment to planning permission Permitted Council Associates Buckinghamshire 17/00077/FUL). SL1 7AA
17/01849/FUL Burnham Mr & Mrs Braich 18 Wendover Road Widening of existing vehicular access. Application 15.12.17 Parish Burnham Permitted Council Buckinghamshire SL1 7ND
17/01924/RVC Burnham Mr Peter Manning 51 Gore Road Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission Application 15.12.17
Page 81 Page Parish C/o Mr Alex Afnan Burnham 17/00535/FUL (Demolition of an existing building refused Council Buckinghamshire and the erection of two buildings comprising 8 SL1 8AB residential units (Use Class C3), associated works including access, parking and landscaping.) to allow: alterations to fenestration and internal layout.
17/01984/GPDE Burnham Mrs C Ayres 18 Oxford Avenue Notification under The Town and Country Prior 01.12.17 Parish C/o HAPChartered Burnham Planning (General Permitted Development) Order approval is Council Architects Ltd Buckinghamshire 2015 Part 1 of Schedule 2 Class A 4 for single not required SL1 8HR storey rear extension (Dimensions D 3.32m, MH 3m, EH 2.95m).
17/02116/GPDE Burnham Mr Chana 29 Hag Hill Lane Notification under The Town and Country Prior 15.12.17 Parish C/o Mr H Minhas Burnham Planning (General Permitted Development) Order approval is Council Buckinghamshire 2015, Part 1 of Schedule 2 Class A 4 for a single not required SL6 0JW storey rear extension (Dimensions D 6m, MH 2.8m, EH 2.8m). Appendix
9 Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL SOUTH BUCKS DISTRICT COUNCIL PART D SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY PLANNING COMMITTEE 10 JANUARY 2018 Applicant / Date of App'n No Parish Site Proposal Decision Agent decision
17/02157/NMA Burnham Mr Harvinder Gill 18 Bredward Close Non material Amendment to planning permission Application 13.12.17 Parish Burnham 16/01356/FUL: to allow a reduction in ridge Permitted Council Buckinghamshire height and alterations to fenestration. SL1 7DL
17/01141/FUL Denham Mr Simrit Dhesi Land Rear Of 52A, 52B Detached dwelling with associated vehicular Application 13.12.17 Parish C/o Craig More And 52C access. Permitted Council Newtown Road New Denham Buckinghamshire Page 82 Page 17/01791/LBC Denham Mr J Martin Southlands Manor Retrospective Listed Building Application for a Application 24.11.17 Parish C/o Mrs Amanda Walker Denham Road single storey rear extension. Permitted Council Denham Buckinghamshire UB9 4GY
17/01790/FUL Denham Mr J Martin Southlands Manor Retrospective application for a single storey rear Application 24.11.17 Parish C/o Mrs Amanda Walker Denham Road extension. Permitted Council Denham Buckinghamshire UB9 4GY
17/01826/FUL Denham Mr Rakesh Sandhu Sunny Side First floor side/rear extension. Application 23.11.17 Parish Oxford Road Withdrawn Council Denham Appendix Buckinghamshire SL9 7AP
10 Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL SOUTH BUCKS DISTRICT COUNCIL PART D SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY PLANNING COMMITTEE 10 JANUARY 2018 Applicant / Date of App'n No Parish Site Proposal Decision Agent decision
17/01840/FUL Denham Mr & Mrs Londra Valhalla Front porch and single storey rear extension. Application 01.12.17 Parish C/o Mrs K Cowan Bakers Wood Permitted Council Denham Buckinghamshire UB9 4LF
17/01864/FUL Denham Mr & Mrs Bradfield 4 Willow Avenue Front porch and single storey side/rear Application 28.11.17 Parish C/o Mr S Dodd New Denham extension. Replacement roof with increased Permitted Council Buckinghamshire ridge height to facilitate first floor side/rear UB9 4AG extension incorporating side dormers and rooflights (Amendment to planning permission 17/01373/FUL). Page 83 Page 17/01888/FUL Denham Mr Tossell 25 Lime Walk Side and rear extensions incorporating Application 01.12.17 Parish C/o Mr T Daniel New Denham conversion of chalet style bungalow into two Permitted Council Buckinghamshire storey dwelling with front and rear dormers UB9 4AS (Amendment to planning permission 15/01965/FUL).
17/01954/FUL Denham Mr Lance Bradwell 64 Moorfield Road Front porch and part single storey/part two Application 13.12.17 Parish C/o Mr Surjeet Saddal Denham Green storey rear extension. Permitted Council Buckinghamshire UB9 5NF
17/01995/CAN Denham Edmonds White Cottage Horse Chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum) (T1) - No TPO is to 28.11.17 Parish C/o Mrs Kirstie Harvey Village Road crown reduce side branches overhanging into be made Council Denham clients garden to boundary by 2m, Horse Buckinghamshire Chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum) (T2) - crown
UB9 5BH reduce two major limbs which overhang into Appendix clients garden by 2m, Yew (Taxus baccatta) (T3) - Fell or prune back overhanging branches by 0.5m. (Denham Conservation Area)
11 Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL SOUTH BUCKS DISTRICT COUNCIL PART D SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY PLANNING COMMITTEE 10 JANUARY 2018 Applicant / Date of App'n No Parish Site Proposal Decision Agent decision
17/01411/FUL Farnham Mr & Mrs J A Carson Three Ways Part single/part two storey side/rear extension Application 01.12.17 Royal Parish C/o Mr Michael Jaquiss Green Lane and replacement roof incorporating front and Permitted Council Farnham Common rear dormers. Buckinghamshire SL2 3SP
17/01799/FUL Farnham Mrs Aisha Islam 5 Drew Meadow Part single/part two storey side/rear extension Application 12.12.17 Royal Parish C/o Ms Anj Johnson Farnham Common and pitched roof added to existing front bay Permitted Council Buckinghamshire window (Amendment to planning permission SL2 3JA 15/00677/FUL).
17/01427/CLOP Farnham Mr Terry Daniel Perrywood Application for a Certificate of Lawfulness for: Certificate 23.11.17 Page 84 Page ED Royal Parish C/o Mr Jonathan Dennis Blackpond Lane Single storey rear extension. Hip to gable of Lawful Council Farnham Royal extension. Use granted Buckinghamshire SL2 3EA
17/01850/FUL Farnham Mr Mark Watson Little Firs Widening of existing vehicular access. Application 24.11.17 Royal Parish Beeches Road Permitted Council Farnham Common Buckinghamshire SL2 3PR
17/01887/FUL Farnham Mrs Pam Kaur Silver Beeches Construction of vehicular access onto Application 27.11.17 Royal Parish C/o Gemma Williams Collinswood Road Collinswood Road and associated hardstanding. Withdrawn Council Farnham Common Buckinghamshire Appendix SL2 3LJ
12 Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL SOUTH BUCKS DISTRICT COUNCIL PART D SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY PLANNING COMMITTEE 10 JANUARY 2018 Applicant / Date of App'n No Parish Site Proposal Decision Agent decision
17/01931/TPO Farnham Mrs Marion Raeburn- Wells House T3 horse chestnut - Crown lift over road 5.4 Application 01.12.17 Royal Parish James Parsonage Lane metres from ground level and up to 25% crown Permitted Council Farnham Common reduction. G4 3 x cypress - Fell. T5 horse Buckinghamshire chestnut - Crown lift over road 5.4 metres from SL2 3PA ground level and up to 25% crown reduction. T6 horse chestnut - Reduce low verhanging branches over parking area up to 2-3 metres. T7 cypress - Fell. G8 cypress - Trim back overhanging branches to live growth. G9 oak - reduce overhanging low lateral branches up to 2-3 metres and is not to exceed 4 metres from ground level. (CC TPO No. 02, 1960).
Page 85 Page 17/01956/RVC Farnham Mr D Chidlow Fold Cottage & Land Variation of conditions 2 & 9 of planning Application 11.12.17 Royal Parish Rear Of Linden Lea permission 16/00276/FUL (Five dwellinghouses Permitted Council Victoria Road with associated garaging, parking and access.) to Farnham Common allow the addtion of a habitable room in the loft Buckinghamshire space of Plot 4 incorporating two rear rooflights. SL2 3NJ
17/01884/FUL Farnham Mr & Mrs Yogesh And Aksharbhavan Single storey front/side extension and conversion Application 13.12.17 Royal Parish Neepa Patel Cherry Tree Road of garage into habitable room. Permitted Council C/o Mr david rowe Farnham Royal Buckinghamshire SL2 3EF
17/01647/FUL Fulmer Mr & Mrs Rooney Pitch 1 Conversion of existing outbuilding into Application 27.11.17 Parish C/o Mr S Dodd Alderbourne Cottage residential annexe ancillary to Alderbourne refused Council Fulmer Lane Cottage. Appendix Fulmer Buckinghamshire SL9 7BL
13 Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL SOUTH BUCKS DISTRICT COUNCIL PART D SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY PLANNING COMMITTEE 10 JANUARY 2018 Applicant / Date of App'n No Parish Site Proposal Decision Agent decision
17/01970/FUL Fulmer Mr Clifford & Mrs Dunrobin Replacement dwelling with replacement Application 13.12.17 Parish Saunders Stoke Common Road entrance gates and fence. Permitted Council C/o Mr Robert Clarke Fulmer Buckinghamshire SL3 6HA
17/01147/FUL Gerrards Mr & Mrs P Malone Fairmount Replacement dwelling incorporating, front Application 01.12.17 Cross Town 6 Top Park boundary brick piers, electric gates with Permitted Council Gerrards Cross associated parking and landscaping. Buckinghamshire SL9 7PW
Page 86 Page 17/01198/FUL Gerrards Mr Paul Mulhearn Land To Rear Of Erection of one residential dwelling and provision Application 14.12.17 Cross Town C/o Mr William Marshall 34 - 36 Oak End Way of four communal parking spaces and refuse Permitted Council Gerrards Cross store below. Buckinghamshire
17/01436/FUL Gerrards Mr Paul Mulhearn 34-36 Oak End Way Redevelopment of site to provide four self Application 24.11.17 Cross Town C/o Mr William Marshall Gerrards Cross contained apartments. Permitted Council Buckinghamshire SL9 8BR
17/01851/TPO Gerrards Argyle Lodge Residents Argyll Lodge (T1) Oak - Remove dead ivy and deadwood and Application 27.11.17 Cross Town C/o Mr Paul Morris 15 Oak End Way (T2) Chestnut - Fell (SBDC TPO No. 15, 2003). Permitted Council Gerrards Cross Buckinghamshire Appendix SL9 8DA
14 Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL SOUTH BUCKS DISTRICT COUNCIL PART D SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY PLANNING COMMITTEE 10 JANUARY 2018 Applicant / Date of App'n No Parish Site Proposal Decision Agent decision
17/01858/TPO Gerrards Mr John Fairley Cooldara (T1) Purple plum - Fell (SBDC TPO No. 05, 2001). Application 27.11.17 Cross Town C/o Mr Paul Morris 9 Hill Waye Permitted Council Gerrards Cross Buckinghamshire SL9 8BJ
17/01862/FUL Gerrards Mr Trevor Kent Kent House Change of Use of ground floor from A2 Application 28.11.17 Cross Town C/o David Adams Oxford Road (Professional Services) to C3 (Residential). Permitted Council Gerrards Cross Removal of shop front and creation of covered Buckinghamshire porch and front bay window. SL9 7DP
Page 87 Page 17/01865/FUL Gerrards Mr Gill 35 Birchdale Part single storey/part two storey/part first floor Application 29.11.17 Cross Town C/o Declan Minoli Gerrards Cross front/side/rear extension. Permitted Council Buckinghamshire SL9 7JB
17/01866/FUL Gerrards Mr & Mrs Seth 21 The Uplands Single storey front extension. Application 28.11.17 Cross Town C/o Mr Gurprit Benning Gerrards Cross Permitted Council Buckinghamshire SL9 7JQ
17/01872/FUL Gerrards Mccorriston Hunters Gate Roof extension incorporating front and rear Application 30.11.17 Cross Town C/o Mr D Austin 1 Howards Wood Drive dormers and ground floor undercroft. Permitted Council Gerrards Cross Buckinghamshire
SL9 7HR Appendix
15 Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL SOUTH BUCKS DISTRICT COUNCIL PART D SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY PLANNING COMMITTEE 10 JANUARY 2018 Applicant / Date of App'n No Parish Site Proposal Decision Agent decision
17/01871/TPO Gerrards Mr Andy Ross Foxcote T1 Oak - Reduce back outer branches on low limb Application 28.11.17 Cross Town C/o Mr Brian Roffey 13 Woodlands growing over road and footpath by 2m; reduce Permitted Council Gerrards Cross back one branch at approx 6-7m by 1m; 15% Buckinghamshire crown thin including removal of epicormic SL9 8DE growth on trunk (SBDC TPO No 25, 2001)
17/01883/TPO Gerrards Mr Mark Codd 5 Woodbank Avenue T1 Oak: fell. (SBDC TPO No 1984,3) Application 28.11.17 Cross Town C/o Andrea Nias Gerrards Cross refused Council Buckinghamshire SL9 7PY
17/01899/TPO Gerrards Mrs Marina Aspros Land Between Group of lime, sycamore and oak (shaded area Application 28.11.17 Page 88 Page Cross Town Cosgrove And Bywood on application plan) - Up to 2metre clearance Permitted Council Windsor Road from adjacent buildings and 1 metre clearance Gerrards Cross from overhead telephone line. (SBDC TPO 1995 Buckinghamshire 30).
17/01908/TPO Gerrards Mrs Vasso Vikings T1 yew - fell. G2 hawthorn - removal of twin Application 01.12.17 Cross Town C/o Mr Paul Morris 24 Top Park stemmed tree. (SBDC TPO No 14, 2001). Permitted Council Gerrards Cross Buckinghamshire SL9 7PW
17/01909/TPO Gerrards Mrs Karin Stewart 71 Camp Road T1 beech - 10% crown reduction/reshape with Part 28.11.17 Cross Town C/o Mr Paul Morris Gerrards Cross 15% crown thin. T2 oak - 15% crown Consent/Part Council Buckinghamshire reduction/reshape. (SBDC TPO No 47, 2002 Refusal (See Appendix SL9 7PF (W1)). decision)
16 Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL SOUTH BUCKS DISTRICT COUNCIL PART D SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY PLANNING COMMITTEE 10 JANUARY 2018 Applicant / Date of App'n No Parish Site Proposal Decision Agent decision
17/01911/TPO Gerrards Mr Cox 74 Fulmer Drive T1 oak - crown reduction/reshape by 35%. (SBDC Application 28.11.17 Cross Town C/o Paul Morris Gerrards Cross TPO No. 48, 2002). Permitted Council Buckinghamshire SL9 7HL
17/01942/TPO Gerrards Mrs Kapusniak Woodmount T1 spruce - 0.5-1 metre reduction of side Application 01.12.17 Cross Town C/o Mrs Jill Macbeth 9 Hillcrest Waye branches on both sides of the tree is not to Permitted Council Gerrards Cross exceed 5 metres from ground level. Buckinghamshire T2 Yew - Crown reduction/shape is not to exceed SL9 8DN 0.5-1 metre. T3 Yew - Crown reduction/shape is not to exceed 1.5-2 metres. (SBDC TPO No. 05, 2001). Page 89 Page 17/01955/TPO Gerrards Malpas Drum House (T1) Oak - Fell. (SBDC TPO No. 05, 2001). Application 13.12.17 Cross Town C/o Mrs Kirstie Harvey 18 Beech Waye Permitted Council Gerrards Cross Buckinghamshire SL9 8BL
17/01963/FUL Gerrards Mr G Buckley 1 Woodbank Avenue Part two storey/part first floor side/rear Application 14.12.17 Cross Town C/o Mr John Wood Gerrards Cross extension. Permitted Council Buckinghamshire SL9 7PY
17/02060/CAN Gerrards Russets Ash (T10) - Fell, Acer (T13) - Fell, Cedar (T14) - No TPO is to 30.11.17 Cross Town C/o Mr G Harding 37 Orchehill Avenue Crown lift to give 4m clearance, Beech (T18) - be made Council Gerrards Cross Fell. (Gerrards Cross Centenary Conservation
Buckinghamshire Area) Appendix SL9 8QE
17 Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL SOUTH BUCKS DISTRICT COUNCIL PART D SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY PLANNING COMMITTEE 10 JANUARY 2018 Applicant / Date of App'n No Parish Site Proposal Decision Agent decision
17/01968/FUL Gerrards Mr Guy Fowler Land At Shirley Holms Construction of two detached dwellings and Application 15.12.17 Cross Town C/o Mr David Parker 4 South Park Drive garage with associated vehicular access. Permitted Council Gerrards Cross (Amendment to planning permission Buckinghamshire 16/00815/FUL) SL9 8JH
17/01969/CLOP Gerrards Mr K Irani Larch House Application for a Certificate of Lawfulness for Certificate 13.12.17 ED Cross Town C/o Paul Berry 9D Elmwood Park proposed: Single storey rear extension. of Lawful Council Gerrards Cross Use granted Buckinghamshire SL9 7EP
Page 90 Page 17/01987/RVC Gerrards Mentmore Homes Bramford House Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission Application 13.12.17 Cross Town C/o Gino Ferdenzi 51 Orchehill Avenue 16/00930/FUL (Two detached dwellinghouses.) Permitted Council Gerrards Cross to allow: alterations to site boundaries. Buckinghamshire SL9 8QG
17/01994/CAN Gerrards McDonnell Woodlands Various tree surgery works (Gerrards Cross No TPO is to 27.11.17 Cross Town C/o Mrs Kirstie Harvey Oxford Road Common Conservation Order) be made Council Gerrards Cross Buckinghamshire SL9 7DL
17/02042/CAN Gerrards Mrs Hobson 9 Miller Place (T1) Sycamore - Reshape to old cuts and remove No TPO is to 01.12.17 Cross Town C/o Mr Paul Morris Gerrards Cross lower branch over neighbour (Gerrards Cross be made Council Buckinghamshire Common Conservation Area). SL9 7QQ Appendix
18 Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL SOUTH BUCKS DISTRICT COUNCIL PART D SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY PLANNING COMMITTEE 10 JANUARY 2018 Applicant / Date of App'n No Parish Site Proposal Decision Agent decision
17/02084/CAN Gerrards Mrs P Edmond Merrydown Yew (T1) - Prune back to boundary, reduce and No TPO is to 15.12.17 Cross Town C/o Mr P Morris 51 Marsham Way reshape by 35% (Gerrards Cross Centenary Area) be made Council Gerrards Cross Buckinghamshire SL9 8AN
17/01993/FUL Gerrards Mr H Uppal Kylebrack Replacement boundary fence/wall. Application 08.12.17 Cross Town 1 Donnay Close Withdrawn Council Gerrards Cross Buckinghamshire SL9 7PZ
Page 91 Page 17/01343/RVC Hedgerley Mr Sandhu Bedford Cottage Variation of Condition 4 of Planning Permission Application 24.11.17 Parish C/o Mr Jas Sandhu Wapseys Lane 14/01177/FUL (Replacement dwelling) to allow Permitted Council Hedgerley enlargement of subterranean basement. Buckinghamshire SL2 3XG
17/01748/FUL Hedgerley Mr & Mrs Grundon Tara Stud Replacement dwellinghouse. Application 15.12.17 Parish C/o Mr Matt Taylor Colley Hill Lane refused Council Hedgerley Buckinghamshire SL2 4AT
17/01724/FUL Iver Parish Mr Michael John Dines 52 Pinewood Green Single storey rear extension Application 05.12.17 Council Iver Heath Permitted Buckinghamshire SL0 0QH Appendix
19 Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL SOUTH BUCKS DISTRICT COUNCIL PART D SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY PLANNING COMMITTEE 10 JANUARY 2018 Applicant / Date of App'n No Parish Site Proposal Decision Agent decision
17/01847/FUL Iver Parish Mr Jay Verma 30 North Park Two storey front extension and replacement roof Application 24.11.17 Council C/o Mr Harmeet Minhas Iver incorporating rear dormers. Permitted Buckinghamshire SL0 9DJ
17/01715/FUL Iver Parish Mr R S Bhachu Land Rear Of 37 To 45 Construction of building (B2) for valeting cars Application 08.12.17 Council High Street following service and repair. Permitted Iver Buckinghamshire
17/01889/FUL Iver Parish Mrs S Heer 57 Richings Way Two storey front extension, single storey Refusal of 13.12.17 Page 92 Page Council C/o Mr J Singh Iver side/rear extension. Construction of first floor Lawful Use Buckinghamshire incorporating side/rear dormers. SL0 9DB
17/01962/TPO Iver Parish Mr William Quick 1 The Old Orchard T1 - 1 x Cherry Tree - Fell to ground level, T2 - 1 Application 14.12.17 Council C/o Miss Fiona Findlater Iver x Acer - Fell to ground level, G1 - 3 x Conifers - Permitted Buckinghamshire Fell to ground level, SL0 0AG G2 - 2 x Oak - remove major deadwood and crown lift epicormic growth to 5m , T4 - 1 x Oak - remove major deadwood T3 - 1 x Cedar - remove major deadwood (SBDC TPO NO 12, 1989 _ TPO 24, 2001)
1 17/01818/FUL Stoke Poges Mr Salid Dad Nairdwood Retention of alterations to roof including rear Application 01.12.17
Parish C/o Mr Ehsan UL-HAQ Templewood Lane dormers and roof lights, together with changes Permitted Appendix Council Farnham Common to front balcony, and addition of roof lanterns to Buckinghamshire single storey rear elements of dwelling. SL2 3HJ
20 Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL SOUTH BUCKS DISTRICT COUNCIL PART D SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY PLANNING COMMITTEE 10 JANUARY 2018 Applicant / Date of App'n No Parish Site Proposal Decision Agent decision
17/01848/RVC Stoke Poges Mr & Mrs Sandhu The Grey House Removal of condition 7 of planning permission Application 24.11.17 Parish C/o Mr S Dodd 61 Plough Lane 16/02423/FUL (Replacement dwelling) to allow refused Council Stoke Poges permitted development rights to be reinstated. Buckinghamshire SL2 4JP
17/01861/CLUE Stoke Poges GBE Investments Ltd Firs Field Application for a Certificate of Lawfulness for: Application 29.11.17 D Parish C/o Mr Robert Clarke Duffield Lane Use of existing building for B8 storage. Permitted Council Stoke Poges Buckinghamshire
Page 93 Page 17/01893/TPO Stoke Poges Andrews 53 Vine Road T1 Oak -Crown reduction not to exceed 2-3m in Application 28.11.17 Parish C/o Mr Dan Pennington Stoke Poges height and 2m lateral branch reduction. (BD TPO Permitted Council Buckinghamshire No. 6, 1976 (A1)). SL2 4DW
17/01916/TPO Stoke Poges Mrt Gavin Vass 36 Freemans Close T2 pine - reduction of lateral branches by 1.5m is Part 01.12.17 Parish C/o Mr & Mrs M Jago Stoke Poges not to exceed 8 metres from ground level. Consent/Part Council Buckinghamshire T1 horse chestnut - crown height reduction by 3 Refusal (See SL2 4ER metres with lateral branch reduction by 1.5 decision) metres. (SBDC TPO NO 2003, 12)
17/01913/TPO Taplow Mr Michael Barnes Orkney Court T1 London Plane - 2 metre crown lift from Application 01.12.17 Parish C/o Mr Tom Hunnings Cliveden Road ground level with removal of low epicormic Permitted Council Taplow growth and reduction off 1 x limb outer canopy Buckinghamshire branches by 2 metres. (SBDC TPO NO.42, 1995).
SL6 0JB Appendix
21 Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL SOUTH BUCKS DISTRICT COUNCIL PART D SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY PLANNING COMMITTEE 10 JANUARY 2018 Applicant / Date of App'n No Parish Site Proposal Decision Agent decision
17/01921/TPO Taplow Mr Martin Sandford Folliotts T1 Thuja - Crown reduction is not to exceed 30%. Application 01.12.17 Parish River Road (SBDC TPO NO 2008, 19) Permitted Council Taplow Buckinghamshire SL6 0BG
17/01965/CAN Taplow Mrs Holder Open Space North Of (T6) Birch - Remove broken branches; (T14) No TPO is to 27.11.17 Parish C/o Andrea Nias Rectory Road Mulberry - Crown Lift; (T18) Sycamore - Fell; be made Council Taplow (T19) Sycamore - Re pollard; (T20) & (T21) Limes Buckinghamshire -Re pollard; (T22) London Plane - 20% Crown Thinning _ Crown Lift (Taplow Village Conservation Area). Page 94 Page 17/01966/TPO Taplow Mrs Holder Old Priory Gardens T3 Horse Chestnut: Reduce to 4m monolith. T5: Application 14.12.17 Parish C/o Andrea Nias Land West Side Of Rauli Beech: Reduce SW stem that overhangs Permitted Council Boundary Road the pathway to a height of 4m.T6 Horse Taplow Chestnut: Reduce to a monolith of 5m in height. Buckinghamshire T7 Liquid Amber; Reduce to 3m monolith T9 Norway Maple: Remove stem that is balanced on shed roof. T11 Thuja: Reduce to 4m monolith, also reduce smaller, younger adjacent Thuja to 4m monolith. (ERDC TPO No. 2, 1962)
17/02044/CAN Taplow Mr King Riverway (T1) Apple Tree - Reduce by 4-5ft and selective No TPO is to 01.12.17 Parish C/o Miss Helen Taylor Ellington Road removal of epicormic growth (Taplow Riverside be made Council Taplow Conservation Area). Buckinghamshire SL6 0BA Appendix 17/02112/GPDE Taplow Mr M Takhar 1 Stockwells Notification under The Town and Country Application 08.12.17 Parish C/o Keith Grace Taplow Planning (General Permitted Development) Order Withdrawn Council Buckinghamshire 2015, Part 1 of Schedule 2 Class A 4 for a single SL6 0DB storey rear extension (Dimensions D 6m, MH 3.28m, EH 3.28m)
22 Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL SOUTH BUCKS DISTRICT COUNCIL PART D SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY PLANNING COMMITTEE 10 JANUARY 2018 Applicant / Date of App'n No Parish Site Proposal Decision Agent decision Page 95 Page Appendix
23 Classification: OFFICIAL This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5 Classification: OFFICIAL
OUTSTANDING ENFORCEMENT NOTICES (AS AT 22nd DECEMBER 2017 FOR 10TH JANUARY 2018 PLANNING COMMITTEE)
SINCE JANUARY 1983 A TOTAL OF 877 ENFORCEMENT NOTICES HAVE BEEN AUTHORISED. THOSE INCLUDED IN THIS SCHEDULE ARE THOSE IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE CONTRAVENTION HAS NOT BEEN RESOLVED.
* THIS INFORMATION IS UP TO DATE AS AT PRINT AND IS UPDATED BY WAY OF REGULAR MEETINGS BETWEEN PLANNING, ENFORCEMENT AND LEGAL STAFF
PROPERTY ORCHARD HERBS, LAKE END ROAD BURNHAM (1098)
CONTRAVENTION AUTHORISED NOTICE SERVED DATE FOR COMPLIANCE
(1) PARKING COMMERCIAL 27.7.05 28.7.05 27.4.06 VEHICLES
(2) EXTENSION TO STORAGE BAY 23.5.07 6.6.07 27.8.08
23.5.07 6.6.07 16.7.10 (3) NON-AGRICULTURAL STORAGE
REMARKS
(1) PREVIOUS EN UPHELD ON APPEAL. COMPLIED INITIALLY. CURRENTLY – JUNE 2012 – BEING CLEARED.
[(2) & (3) APPEALS ]– (2) GROUND A & D (3) GROUND A, F & G. – PI – 17/18.6.08 – DECISION 27.6.08. EN’S UPHELD AS AMENDED AND PARTIAL AWARD OF COSTS.
(2) S.V. 4.11.08 MAJORITY REMOVED. PA – 10/01347/FUL – REFUSED 8.10.10. SV 18.7.11 – STORAGE BAYS DEMOLISHED. PA 11/00914/FUL – REPLACEMENT BUILDING AND FENCING RE COMPOUND AREA. REFUSED 29.7.11. APPEAL – WRITTEN REPS. APPEAL SITE VISIT 7.12.11. DISMISSED 18.1.12. PA 11/01426/FUL RE FENCING AND STORAGE BAY S – 9.9.11 – ALLOWED PLANNING COMMITTEE 26.10.11.
(3) DUE COMPLIANCE 27.9.08 – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL 24.7.08. SOS CONSENTED AND MATTER RE-MITTED BACK TO PINS FOR DETERMINATION. CONSENT ORDER 16.3.09 – FURTHER PI HELD 23/ 24.2.10. DECISION 16.4.10 – EN UPHELD AS AMENDED TO EXCLUDE AREA WHERE USE CONSIDERED LAWFUL. SV 17.8.10 – BREACHES OUTSIDE LAWFUL AREA. WARNING LETTER – FURTHER SV 1.10.10. LIAISING WITH NEW AGRICULTURAL TENANT. APPROACHED BY OWNERS AGENT TO RESOLVE – FEB 2011. OUTSIDE AREAS BEING MONITORED. STORAGE WITHIN COMPOUND AREA – LAWFUL. (NOTE: BCC ALSO SERVED EN RE. WASTE MATERIAL. APPEALED BUT WITHDRAWN). CLU APPLICATION 5.8.08 – 08/01316/EUC. REFUSED 25.9.08.
FURTHER ‘WORKS’ RE GRAVEL – PA – 12/00384/FUL – EXCAVATION OF GRAVEL/RESURFACING OF YARD – W/D 3.5.12. DETAILED SV 20.4.12 – BREACHES IN EVIDENCE AND FURTHER BREACHES RE CAR BREAKING – 14 DAYS TO CEASE/ 28 DAYS TO CLEAR – FURTHER SV 18.5.12. FURTHER BREACHES OUTSIDE COMPOUND – PROSECUTION THREATENED. COMPOUND FENCING IN THE COURSE OF BEING REDUCED. SV 20.6.12 – CAR BREAKERS CEASED AND GONE AND VEHICLES REDUCED O/S COMPOUND.
NEW OCCUPIER – 5 YEAR LEASE – PROPOSED ANIMAL SANCTUARY. SV 10.7.12- VEHICLES OUTSIDE COMPOUND REDUCED – AND OWNER NOW CLAIMS ALL EN COMPLIED WITH – AUGUST 2012 – ALL VEHICLES NOW IN COMPOUND – NFA. ANIMAL SANCTUARY IN OPERATION – NOT IN BREACH OF ENFORCEMENT NOTICE. PP PENDING (PRE APP MEETING HELD ON 21.12.12) – WHICH WILL SEEK TO REGULARISE ITS USE. SV UNDERTAKEN ON 12.10.12 – NO FORMAL ACTION RE ENFORCEMENT NOTICES
OTHER BREACHES BEING RESOLVED
PA REF 14/00520/FUL RECEIVED ON 18 MARCH 2014 FOR CHANGE OF USE TO ANIMAL SANCTUARY AND RETENTION OF OUTBUILDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH THIS USE. APPLICATION REFUSED 13TH MAY 2014. NEGOTIATIONS TAKING PLACE RE THE RELOCATING OF THE ANIMAL SANCTUARY – ON GOING. 7.8.15 – OFFICERS HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT CONFIDENTIAL NEGOTIATIONS ARE STILL ONGOING. 7.9.15 – RELOCATION OF THE ANIMAL SANCTUARY DUE TO TAKE PLACE BY JANUARY 2016. 13.1.16 – OFFICERS INFORMED THAT AGREEMENT NOW REACHED RE LAND ONTO WHICH THE SANCTUARY WILL BE RELOCATIONG. EXACT MOVE DATE TBC BY ENF TEAM. 8..6.16 – ENFORCEMENT OFFICER MEETING ON 9.6.2016 RE RE-LOCATION. 13.7.16 – OFFICERS ATTENDED MEETING AND PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE. SITE VISIT PENDING TO CONFIRM THE MOVING DATE. 18.8.16 – PROGRESS BEING MADE REGARDING RELOCATION. FURTHER SITE VISITS TO BE UNDERTAKEN TO MONITOR PROGRESS. 28.9.16 – PROGRESS CONTINUES TO BE MADE REGARDING THE RE-LOCATION
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 97 Agenda Item 5 Classification: OFFICIAL
OF THE ANIMAL SANCTUARY. 14.11.16 – ENFORCEMENT MANAGER TO REVIEW PROGRESS. 12.12.16 – OFFICERS HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT SANCTUARY IS NOT NOW RELOCATING. ENFORCEMENT MANAGER IS REVIEWING THE CURRENT POSITION AND LIAISING WITH OWNERS/INTERESTED PARTIES AS TO WAY FORWARD. 6.3.2017 – PLANNING CONTRAVENTION NOTICE ISSUED ON 20.2.2017. 5.6.2017 – ON-GOING MONITORING OF SITE BY ENF TEAM. 16.11.2017 – Officer SV confirmed Animal Sanctuary in process of moving off site and dismantling stable buildings. SV REQUIRED IN JAN 2018 TO CONFIRM CESSATION OF SANCTUARY USE
PROPERTY AREA 2, ALDERBOURNE COTTAGE, FULMER LANE FULMER (1219)
CONTRAVENTION AUTHORISED NOTICE SERVED DATE FOR COMPLIANCE
1. TSN – IMPORTATION AND MOVEMENT OF 28.7.11 29.7.11 29.7.11 EARTH/MATERIALS TO RE-PROFILE THE LAND. CON. BODY
2. DITTO BREACH AT 1. – EN AND SN 24.8.11 25.8.11 25.8.11 – SN CON. BODY 10.2.12 – EN 3. WITHOUT PLANNING PERMISSION, THE MATERIAL 27.5.15 1.6.15 6/8 MONTHS (REVISED CHANGE OF USE OF THE LAND FROM USE FOR FOLLOWING APPEAL TO 12/14 RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES ANCILLARY TO ALDERBOURNE MONTHS – MAY 2018) COTTAGE TO A MIXED USE OF THE LAND AS A GYPSY AND TRAVELLER SITE, THE STATIONING, PARKING AND/OR STORAGE OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND MACHINERY AND THE STORAGE OF MATERIALS ON THE LAND (“UNAUTHORISED USES”) TOGETHER WITH THE ASSOCIATED WORKS AND OPERATIONAL DEVELOPMENT UNDERTAKEN (INCLUDING THE IMPORTATION OF EARTH AND MATERIALS FOR THE PURPOSES OF RE-PROFILING THE LAND AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A VEHICULAR ACCESS) TO FACILITATE THESE UNAUTHORISED USES.
REMARKS
TEMP. STOP NOTICE ISSUED – CON. BODY APPROVAL. WARNING LETTER RE FURTHER BREACH RE RESIDENTIAL USE. PCN ISSUED DATED 5.8.11. CON. BODY AGREED TO ISSUE AN EN AND SN RE THE OP. DEVELOPMENT – SN TAKES IMMEDIATE EFFECT, NO RIGHT OF APPEAL. NO FURTHER WORKS UNDERTAKEN AREA 2– TSN/SN THEREFORE EFFECTIVE TO CURTAIL BREACH. EN APPEAL 4.10.11 – A, F AND G – WITHDRAWN 10.1.12 – EN TAKES IMMEDIATE EFFECT – ONE MONTH COMPLIANCE. FURTHER BREACHES UNDER INVESTIGATION. SV 14/15.12.11. PA – 31.1.12 RECEIVED 12/00162/FUL – RECEIVED 1.2.12 RE AREA 2 RE RETENTION OF PART OF THE HARDSTANDING, ERECTION OF FENCING AND TREE PLANTING – REFUSED 16.3.12 – APPEALED 16.4.12 BUT DECLARED INVALID BY PINS AS OUT OF TIME (26.7.12). SV - FURTHER BREACHES RE RESIDENTIAL USE AND FENCING AND BREACH OF EN. INFORMED PA PENDING – PCN ISSUED SEPT 2012. PCN RESPONSE RECEIVED NOV 2012.
PA REF 12/01990/FUL RECEIVED ON 14.12.12 FOR CHANGE OF USE OF LAND TO 1 GYPSY PITCH FOR STATIONING OF ONE MOBILE HOME AND CARAVANS FOR RESIDENTIAL USE, CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING FOR ANCILLARY USE AS UTILITY/DAYROOM AND THE FORMATION OF HARDSTANDING. PLANNING APPLICATION REFUSED 8.2.13. SV UNDERTAKEN 4.9.13. NO CHANGES ON SITE WHICH REQUIRED IMMEDIATE ACTION. ON GOING ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION. 16.3.15 – PCN ISSUED AND SERVED ON OWNERS AND OCCUPIERS. 1.6.15 – ENF NOTICE ISSUED AND SERVED. EFFECTIVE DATE 13.7.2015. 26.6.15 – APPEAL RECEIVED – GROUND – F – WRITTEN REPS REQUESTED. 10.7.15 – SECOND APPEAL RECEIVED – GROUNDS A, B, D, F AND G – INQUIRY REQUESTED. 20.8.15 – APPEALS TO BE DETERMINED AT A PUBLIC INQUIRY. DATE OF INQUIRY – 28th JUNE 2016 FOR 4 DAYS. 29.6.16 - INQUIRY ADJOURNED AFTER 2 DAYS TO 11TH OCTOBER 2016 FOR 3-4 DAYS. 17.10.16 – AWAIT APPEAL DECISION. 16.3.2017 – APPEALS DISMISSED AND ENFORCEMENT NOTICE UPHELD (AS VARIED). 8.5.2017 - COMPLIANCE WITH EN WILL BE MONITORED BY THE ENF TEAM.
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 98 Agenda Item 5 Classification: OFFICIAL
PROPERTY AREA 1, ALDERBOURNE COTTAGE, FULMER LANE FULMER (1229)
CONTRAVENTION AUTHORISED NOTICE SERVED DATE FOR COMPLIANCE
UNAUTHORISED MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE OF THE 28.4.15 29.4.15 6/8 MONTHS (REVISED LAND FROM A MIXED USE FOR RESIDENTIAL FOLLOWING APPEAL TO 12/14 PURPOSES AND USE OF OUTBUILDINGS AS A MONTHS – MAY 2018) WORKSHOP AND OFFICE AND FOR STORAGE AND RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES ANCILLARY TO ALDERBOURNE COTTAGE TO A MIXED USE COMPRISING GYPSY AND TRAVELLER SITE; USE OF OUTBUILDINGS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES ANCILARY TO USE AS A GYPSY & TRAVELLER SITE AND THE STATIONING, PARKING AND/OR STORAGE OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND MACHINERY TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED WORKS AND OPERATIONAL DEVELOPMENT.
REMARKS
NO ENFORCEMENT TO DATE BUT BREACHES – NOW A SEPARATE PLANNING UNIT TO AREA 2 ABOVE. PA – 31.1.12 RECEIVED 12/00153/FUL – RECEIVED 30.1.12 RE AREA 1 – 2 CARAVANS – COMMITTEE REFUSED 5.9.12 – REFUSAL NOTICE 19.9.12. – APPEAL RECEIVED ON 21.11.12, HEARING REQUESTED – NO DATE AS YET. FURTHER BREACHES BEING INVESTIGATED – SV 4.5.12 AND 18.5.12 – GATES/FENCING/BRICK PIERS, LANDSCAPING BUSINESS – EN WARNING AS PRECURSOR TO FURTHER EN. 4 DAY PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD FROM 16-19 JULY 2013 (INCL). DECISION EXPECTED TO BE RECEIVED ON 29.9.13, BUT RECENTLY CALLED-IN BY SOS. DECISION EXPECTED BY 28.01.14 AND STILL AWAITED AS AT 27.3.14. STILL AWAITED AS OF 20.5.14. SOS DECISION RECIVED; APPEAL DISMISSED 3rd JUNE 2014. ON GOING ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION. 16.3.15 – PCN ISSUED AND SERVED ON OWNERS AND OCCUPIERS. 29.4.15 – TWO ENFORCEMENT NOTICES ISSUED AND SERVED. EFFECTIVE DATE – 10.6.2015. 7.6.15 – APPEAL RECEIVED – GROUNDS RE CHANGE OF USE OF LAND AND BUILDINGS EN ARE A, F, AND G. GROUNDS RE USE OF BUILDING AS A SINGLE DWELLING EN ARE A, B, F– INQUIRY REQUESTED. 28.7.15 – PIN INDICATED APPEALS TO BE DETERMINED AT A HEARING BUT THIS WILL BE REVIEWED BY PIN. 20.8.15 - APPEALS TO BE DETERMINED AT A PUBLIC INQUIRY. DATE OF INQUIRY – 28TH JUNE 2016 FOR 4 DAYS. 29.6.16 - INQUIRY ADJOURNED AFTER 2 DAYS TO 11TH OCTOBER 2016 FOR 3-4 DAYS.. 17.10.16 – AWAIT APPEAL DECISION. 16.3.2017 – APPEALS DISMISSED. ENFORCEMENT NOTICE UPHELD (AS VARIED). 8.5.2017 - COMPLIANCE WITH EN WILL BE MONITORED BY THE ENF TEAM.
PROPERTY JASMINE COTTAGE, WOOD LANE IVER (1188)
CONTRAVENTION AUTHORISED NOTICE SERVED DATE FOR COMPLIANCE
UNAUTHORISED EXTENSIONS AND GARAGE 24.9.08 25.9.08 24.1.10
REMARKS
REFUSAL OF PP 7.7.08 – 08/00853/FUL. APPEAL GROUNDS A, C AND F. W.REPS. DECISION LETTER 24.7.09 – DISMISSED – 6 MONTHS TO COMPLY. HIGH COURT – SEEKING PERMISSION TO APPEAL PINS DECISION. HEARING 14.12.09 - ADJOURNED TO 24.3.10. REFUSED. EN NOW DUE FOR COMPLIANCE – ROLLED FORWARD COMPLIANCE PERIOD 6 MONTHS FOR WORKS – (SEPT 10). S.V. 29.9.10 CAUTIONED ON SITE – INTERVIEW UNDER CAUTION TO BE UNDERTAKEN 27.10.10. DELAYED TO 6.12.10 AT OWNERS AGENTS REQUEST FOR LEGAL ADVICE AND ALSO MEDICAL CERTIFICATE SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER. FURTHER MEDICAL CERTIFICATE SUBMITTED TO 3.2.11 – INTERVIEW 7.2.11. INSTRUCTIONS TO PROSECUTE SUBMITTED TO WYCOMBE DC. COURT HEARING 10.8.11 – DEFENDANT DID NOT ATTEND – ADJOURNED TO 6.9.11 AND THEN TO 21.9.11 – 11AM. FURTHER ADJOURNED TO 22.12.11 – 2PM - DUE TO DEFENDANTS DOCTORS NOTE. DEFENDANT DID NOT ATTEND – ADJOURNED TO 11.1.12 AT 2PM UNDER THREAT OF WARRANT FOR ARREST IF NOT ATTEND. NOT ATTEND – ARREST WARRANT ISSUED NOT BACKED BY BAIL – SURRENDERED TO COURT. WARRANT CANCELLED. HEARING 19.1.12 – PLEADED NOT GUILTY – CASE PROGRESSION HEARING ON 30.5.12 AND ANOTHER 24.7.12 - FULL TRIAL 25.7.12 – FOUND GUILTY IN ABSENCE – FINE £4000 PLUS £15 VICTIM SURCHARGE AND £4000 COSTS. INFORMED APPEAL PENDING – FORMS RE APPEAL OUT OF TIME
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 99 Agenda Item 5 Classification: OFFICIAL
PROVIDED BY COURT.
JUDICIAL REVIEW HIGH COURT APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION JULY 2012 TO PURSUE A CLAIM RE DECISION NOT TO WITHDRAW EN/PROSECUTION. 8.2.13 PERMISSION FOR JR REFUSED. RENEWAL APPLICATION MADE ON 15.2.13. MATTER LISTED FOR AN ORAL HEARING ON 10.5.13.
NEW CLAIM ON BEHALF OF MINORS – DEFENCE LODGED WITH LONDON COUNTY COURT NOVEMBER 2012. MATTER DEFERRED TO READING COUNTY COURT. CASE CONFERENCE 18. 02.2013. MATTER STAYED FOR 28 DAYS TO AGREE DIRECTIONS. DIRECTIONS TO BE FILED BY 2.4.13. COURT DIRECTIONS NOT ADHERED TOO BY CLAIMANT. MATTER STRUCK OUT 2.4.13.
CLUED APPLICATION REF 13/0082/CLUED RECEIVED ON 17.2.13. CLUED PART APPROVED ON 26.3.13 FOR USE OF LAWFUL PART OF APPLICATION BUILDING
JR RE DECISION NOT TO WITHDRAW EN/PROSECUTION STRUCK OUT ON 10.5.13 ON BASIS THAT CLAIM WITHOUT MERIT.
THE MORTGAGEE HAS TAKEN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF COMPLEX LEGAL ISSUES FOR THE MORTGAGEE TO CONSIDER IN RESPECT OF THE DUTIES IT OWES TO THE LEGAL OWNER. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE PROPERTY IS BEING AUCTIONED. SEVERAL ENQUIRIES FROM INTERESTED PARTIES HAVE BEEN MADE ABOUT THE NOTICE AND INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED. 7.8.15 – OFFICERS CONTINUE TO BE IN CONTACT WITH THE MORTGAGEES ABOUT PROGRESS REGARDING THE DISPOSAL OF THE PROPERTY. HOWEVER EXACT DETAILS OF THE POSITION STILL REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL. 18.8.15 – OFFICERS INFORMED PROPERTY SOLD AT AUCTION. ENQUIRIES BEING MADE RE NEW OWNERS AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE ENFORCEMENT NOTICE WILL THEN BE PURSUED. 1.10.15 – CONTACT MADE WITH NEW OWNER WHO WILL BE MEETING WITH OFFICERS IN ORDER TO PROGRESS COMPLIANCE WITH THE ENFORCEMENT NOTICE. 26.11.15 – OFFICERS HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT THE OWNER HAS NOW ENGAGED A PLANNING AGENT WHO WILL BE SEEKING PRE-APP ADVICE FROM THE COUNCIL. 27.1.16 – CURRENT OWNER NOW SEEKING PRE-APP ADVICE. OFFICERS INFORMED THAT PROPERTY UNDER OFFER VIA AUCTION. 29.3.16 – PROPERTY SOLD AGAIN – ENQUIRIES BEING MADE RE NEW OWNERS. 27.5.16 – NEW OWNERS BEING CONTACTED BY ENF TEAM RE COMPLIANCE WITH ENF NOTICE. 8.6.16 – LETTERS NOW SENT TO NEW OWNERS RE COMPLIANCE WITH ENF NOTICE. AWAIT A REPLY. 12.7.16 – ENF OFFICERS HAD MEETING WITH NEW OWNERS – PROPOSALS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL. 14.11.16 – ENFORCEMENT MANAGER TO REVIEW AND LETTERS TO BE SENT TO CURRENT OWNERS REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT NOTICE. 6.2.2017 – LETTER SENT TO OWNERS TO ARRANGE AN ENFORCEMENT NOTICE COMPLIANCE SITE VISIT. 2.3.2017 – SITE VISIT UNDERTAKEN TO CHECK CURRENT POSITION ON SITE. 3.7.2017 – PROGRESS NOW BEING MADE WITH THE NEW OWNERS RE COMPLIANCE WITH THE EN. MEETING SCHEDULED WITH OWNERS WEEK COMMENCING 14TH AUGUST 2017. GARAGE DEMOLISHED IN DECEMBER 2017 COMMENCING COMPLIANCE WITH NOTICE – ONGOING COMPLIANCE BEING MONITORED
PROPERTY SOUTH END COTTAGE, MIDDLE GREEN, WEXHAM, BUCKS WEXHAM (1333) SL3 6BS – 14/00004/APPENF.
CONTRAVENTION AUTHORISED NOTICE SERVED DATE FOR COMPLIANCE
WITHOUT PLANNING PERMISSION THE ERECTION OF 7.5.14 9.5.14 19.9.14 A TWO STOREY OUTBUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED CONCRETE SUPPORTS (REVISED FOLLOWING APPEAL TO 28.7.15) REMARKS
LONG STANDING HISTORY ON SITE. PLANNING BREACHES CONTINUING. ENFORCEMENT NOTICE ISSUED 9.5.14. APPEAL SUBMITTED TO PINS 19.06.14 . WRITTEN REPRESENTATION PROCEDURE REQUESTED BY APPELLANT. PLANNING INSPECTORS SITE VISIT SCHEDULED FOR 21.4.15. 28.4.15 – APPEAL DISMISSED – EN VARIED RE CONCRETE BASE AMENDED TO CONCRETE SUPPORTS. REVISED DATE FOR COMPLIANCE 28.7.15. 10.6.15 – PCN ISSUED AND SERVED IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED UNAUTHORISED USES AND DEVELOPMENT. 3.8.15 – SITE VISIT – EN NOT COMPLIED WITH. PCN REPLIES NOT RECEIVED – TWO CHASER LETTERS SENT. OFFICERS CASE CONFERENCE BEING HELD TO REVIEW FURTHER APPROPRIATE ACTION. 7.9.15 – ON GOING NEGOTIATIONS WITH OWNER OF THE PROPERTY RE COMPLIANCE WITH THE ENFORCEMENT NOTICE. 26.11.15 – OWNER IS UNDERTAKING WORKS TO REMEDY BREACHES AND OFFICERS ARE REGULARLY MONITORING PROGRESS. 1.2.16 – ON GOING MONITORING TAKING PLACE. 27.6.16 – PROSECUTION PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED AGAINST OWNERS RE NON-COMPLIANCE WITH 2014 ENFORCEMENT NOTICE. HEARING DATE – 20TH JULY 2016. PROSECUTION SUCCESSFUL WITH FULL COSTS BEING AWARDED. FINE OF £210.00 MADE AGAINST EACH DEFENDANT ALONG WITH £25 VICTIM SURCHARGE FINE FOR EACH DEFENDANT. DEFENDANT HAS DEMOLISHED THE UNAUTHORISED BUILDING WITH ONLY A SMALL AMOUNT REMANING. 18.8.16 – FIRST INSTALEMENT OF PROSECUTION COSTS RECEIVED FROM DEFENDANTS. ON-GOING SITE MONITORING AND INVESTIGATION BY ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. 24.8.16 – WARRANT FOR SV ISSUED BY MAGS COURT. SV ON 16th SSEPTEMBER 2016. 16.9. .2016 – OFFICERS REVIEWING EVIDENCE FOLLOWING SV IN ORDER TO RECOMMEND APPROPRIATE ENF ACTION. 26.10.2016- DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO THE HEAD OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT/HEAD OF LEGAL AND DEMOCRATIC SERVICES REGARDING THE ISSUE OF FURTHER ENFORCEMENT NOTICE/S AND A S215 NOTICE. 12.12.16 – ENFORCEMENT MANAGER REVIEWING EVIDENCE AND DRAFTING APPROPRIATE NOTICES. 16.12.2016 – S215 NOTICE ISSUED TO TAKE EFFECT ON 17.1.2017 IF NO APPEAL LODGED. 6.2.2017 – NO S215 NOTICE APPEAL LODGED AND S215 NOTICE BEING COMPLIED WITH. ON-GOING MONITORING. 3.4.2017 – SUBSTANTIAL PROGRESS MADE RE COMPLIANCE WITH S215 NOTICE – ON-GOING MONITORING OF SITE BY ENF TEAM. 27.11.2017 SOME OF THE UNAUTHORISED
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 100 Agenda Item 5 Classification: OFFICIAL
OUTBUILDINGS ON SITE NOW DEMOLISHED, PLANNING APPLICATION 17/01846/RVC CURRENTLY UNDER CONSIDERATION.
PROPERTY DORNEY (1337) REAR OF THE LAURELS, LAKE END ROAD, DORNEY 11/10117/ENBEOP CONTRAVENTION AUTHORISED NOTICE SERVED DATE FOR COMPLIANCE THE UNAUTHORISED MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE OF 6.6.15 14.8.15 25.5.16 (REVISED FOLLOWING THE LAND FROM AGRICULTURAL TO A USE FOR THE APPEAL TO 3.10.2017). STORAGE OF BUILDER’S MATERIALS TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED OPERATIONAL DEVELOPMENT UNDERTAKEN TO FACILITATE THE UNAUTHORISED USE COMPRISING THE ERECTION OF A TIMBER SHED; THE CREATION OF AN EARTH BUND; THE CREATION OF AN AREA OF PARKING AND AN ACCESS TRACK BOTH SURFACED WITH SCALPINGS
6.6.15 14.8.15 25.5.16 (REVISED FOLLOWING THE UNAUTHORISED ERECTION OF A RESIDENTIAL APPEAL TO 3.10.2017) UNIT; A TIMBER SHED WITH A CANOPY ROOF; A TIMBER SHED; THE CREATION OF AN EARTH BUND; THE CREATION OF AN AREA OF PARKING AND ACCESS TRACK BOTH SURFACED WITH SCALPINGS
REMARKS
14.8.15 – TWO ENFORCEMENT NOTICES ISSUED AND SERVED. EFFECTIVE DATE – 25.9.2015. 25.9.15 – APPEALS LODGED – GROUNDS –C, D, F AND G – PIN TO CONFIRM WHETHER APPEALS WILL BE DETERMINED BY WRITTEN REPS OR HEARINGS PROCEDURE. 28.10.15 – PIN DECIDED APPEALS TO BE DETERMINED AT AN INQUIRY ON 5th JULY 2016 - FOR ONE DAY. 5.7.16 – AWAITING APPEAL DECISION. 3.8.16 – APPEALS DISMISSED AND ENFORCEMENT NOTICES UPHELD (AS VARIED). PARTIAL COSTS AWARDED TO THE COUNCIL. 17.10.16 – COMPLIANCE WITH NOTICES TO BE MONITORED BY ENFORCEMENT TEAM. 23.10.17 – SITE VISIT TO BE UNDERTAKEN BY ENFORCEMENT TEAM TO CHECK COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT NOTICES.
PROPERTY BEACONSFIELD 14 WOOBURN GREEN LANE, HOLTSPUR, BEACONSFIELD, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE HP9 1XE SB000216
CONTRAVENTION AUTHORISED NOTICE SERVED DATE FOR COMPLIANCE WITHOUT PLANNING PERMISSION, THE ERECTION OF 21.4.16 27.4.16 8.12.16 (AMENDED AT APPEAL TO A FRONT PORCH, TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION AND 12.12.2017) – SUBJECT TO HIGH PART TWO STOREY/PART SINGLE STOREY REAR COURT CHALLENGES. AMENDED EXTENSION. TO 1.11.2018. REMARKS
27.4.16 – ENFORCEMENT NOTICE ISSUED AND SERVED. EFFECTIVE DATE – 8 JUNE 2016. 23.6.16 - APPEAL FORM RECEIVED - GROUNDS A, C, F & G LISTED. AWAIT CONFIRMATION FROM PIN THAT APPEAL IS ACCEPTED ON THE GROUNDS STATED. 13.7.16 - AWAITING CONFIRMATION OF PROPOSED DATE FOR HEARING. 19..8.16 – HEARING LISTED FOR 1 DAY ON 15.11.16 AT 10AM. 12.12.16 – AWAIT APPEAL DECISION. 12.12.2016 – PLANNING AND ENFORCEMENT NOTICE APPEALS DISMISSED AND ENFORCMENT NOTICE UPHELD (AS VARIED RE COMPLIANCE PERIOD. APPELLANT’S COSTS APPLICATION REFUSED. COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE TO BE MONITORED BY ENFORCEMENT TEAM. 21.1.2017 – HIGH COURT CHALLENGES LODGED BY OWNER AGAINST SEC OF STATE APPEAL DECISIONS. PERMISSION HEARING DATE – APRIL 2017 - TBC. 6.3.2017 – PERMISSION HEARINGS IN THE HIGH COURT LISTED ON 12.4.2017. 12.4.2017 – PERMISSION GRANTED FOR S289 CHALLENGE RE TIME TO COMPLY WITH ENF NOTICE. FULL HEARING DATE TBC. PERMISSION REFUSED RE S288 AND JR CHALLENGES. HIGH COURT HEARING LISTED FOR 2ND NOVEMBER 2017. 2.11.2017 – APPLICATION DISMISSED BY HIGH COURT. ENF NOTICE COMPLIANCE DATE – BY 1.11.2018..
PROPERTY DENHAM APEX WORKS, WILLOW AVENUE, NEW DENHAM, BUCKS UB9 4AF SB000371
CONTRAVENTION AUTHORISED NOTICE SERVED DATE FOR COMPLIANCE
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 101 Agenda Item 5 Classification: OFFICIAL
WITHOUT PLANNING PERMISSION, THE MATERIAL 3.8.16 4.8.16 15.3.2017 (REVISED FOLLOWING CHANGE OF USE FROM TWO WORKSHOPS WITH APPEAL TO 18.11.17) ANCILLARY OFFICES WITHIN CLASS B1(C) TO A SUI GENERIS HOUSE IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION AND WORKSHOP.
REMARKS
4.8.16 - ENFORCEMENT NOTICE ISSUED AND SERVED. EFFECTIVE DATE – 15.9. 2016. 14.9.16 - APPEAL RECEIVED - GROUND A – WRITTEN REPS REQUESTED. AWAIT CONFIRMATION FROM PIN THAT APPEAL IS VALID. 17.10.16 – STIL AWAIT CONFIRMATION FROM PIN THAT APPEAL IS VALID. 14.11.16 – APPEAL VALIDATED BY PIN – APPEAL TO BE DETERMINED BY WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS. 18.5.2017 – APPEAL DISMISSED. EN UPHELD WITH NEW PLAN. 3.7.2017 - COMPLIANCE WITH NOTICE TO BE MONITORED BY ENFORCEMENT TEAM. OFFICER COMPLIANCE VISIT SCEDHULED FOR 15.11.2017. NON-COMPLIANCE WITH NOTICE CONFIRMED 22.12.17 – WARNING ISSUED
PROPERTY FULMER LAND AT MOSQUE AL MOHSIN, WINDMILL ROAD, FULMER, BUCKS SL3 6HF (ALSO KNOWN AS LAND ON THE EAST SIDE OF WINDMILL SB000423 ROAD, FULMER, SLOUGH) CONTRAVENTION AUTHORISED NOTICE SERVED DATE FOR COMPLIANCE WITHOUT PLANNING PERMISSION, THE 26.10.16 30.11.16 11.4.2017 EXTENDED TO CONSTRUCTION OF TWO BUILDINGS ONE WITH AN 11.06.2018 ASSOCIATED COVERED WALKWAY.
WITHOUT PLANNING PERMISSION, ENGINEERING 26.10.16 30.11.16 11.7.2017 EXTENDED TO OPERATIONS INCLUDING THE IMPORTATION OF 11.12.2018 MATERIAL AND THE RE-GRADING OF LAND, THE FORMATION OF A CONCRETE SUB-BASE, THE FORMATION OF A PLATFORM (FORMED OF METAL SUBFRAME AND SURFACE FLOORING) AND THE INSTALLATION OF PERMENANT UMBRELLAS TO FORM AN OUTDOOR PRAYER AREA AND THE INSTALLATION OF RETAINING WALLS, STEPS AND PAVING.
WITHOUT PLANNING PERMISSION, THE 26.10.16 30.11.16 11.4.2017 EXTENDED TO CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING AND THE 11.06.2018 INSTALLATION OF EXERCISE EQUIPMENT CONSISTING OF VERTICAL POSTS WITH METAL CROSSBARS.
REMARKS
30.11.16 - THREE ENFORCEMENT NOTICES ISSUED AND SERVED. EFFECTIVE DATE –11.1.2017 IF NO APPEALS LODGED. 21.12.2016 – ENFORCEMENT MANAGER TO MEET THE NEW MANAGER OF THE CENTRE RE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICES. 6.2.2017 – APPEALS LODGED – GROUNDS – A, F AND G – WRITTEN REPS REQUESTED. PIN TO CONFIRM WHETHER APPEALS ARE VALID. 5.8.2017 – PINS HAVE NOW VALIDATED APPEALS. TO BE DETERMINED BY WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS. AWAIT DECISION. 11.12.2017 - APPEALS DISMISSED – NOTICES UPHELD SUBJECT TO EXTENDED COMPLIANCE PERIOD
PROPERTY GERRARDS CROSS. LAND ADJ TO WAPSEYS WOOD CARAVAN PARK, OXFORD ROAD, GERRARDS CROSS, BUCKS SL9 8TD. SB000761
CONTRAVENTION AUTHORISED NOTICE SERVED DATE FOR COMPLIANCE WITHOUT PLANNING PERMISSION THE IMPORTATION 19.6.2017 – OFFICER 19.6.2017 IMMEDIATELY UPON SERVICE OF MATERIALS FOR RAISING LEVELS OF THE LAND IN DELEGATION IN (19.6.2017). ORDER TO FACILITATE A CHANGE OF USE TO A CON WITH PCB. CARAVAN PARK TOGETHER WITH ANY ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT AS PART OF THAT ACTIVITY OR ASSOCIATED WITH IT. REMARKS
19.6.2017 – TEMPORARY STOP NOTICE ISSUED AND SERVED. EXPIRES ON 16.7.2017. 23.6.2017 – PCN SERVED. 9.8.2017 – OFFICERS
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 102 Agenda Item 5 Classification: OFFICIAL
MEETING. 25.8.2017 - BCC SERVED TSN RE WASTE MATERIAL. 11.9.2017 – BCC SERVED TSN RE WASTE OPERATION. CTEE APPROVED AT DEC MEETING THE ISSUE OF NOTICE – CURRENTLY BEING PREPARED BY ENFORCEMENT TEAM
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 103 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6 Classification: OFFICIAL South Bucks District Council Planning Committee – 10 January 2018
SUBJECT: PLANNING APPEALS
REPORT OF: Head of Sustainable Development Prepared by - Development Management
Appeal Statistics for the period 1 April 2017 – 30 November 2017
Planning appeals allowed (incl enforcement)
37.8% (14 out of 37) against a target of 30%.
Total appeals allowed (Planning, enforcement trees and other appeals):
37.8% (14 out of 37). No target set.
Percentage of appeals allowed in accordance with officer recommendation, despite decision to refuse by Members:
60% (3 out of 5). No target set.
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 105 Classification: OFFICIAL South Bucks District Council Planning Committee – 10 January 2018
Appeals Lodged
Planning Appeals Lodged
Date Ref Appellant Proposal Site
06/12/2017 17/01482/FUL Mr Jon Construction of detached house with integral garage and Land rear Dalehurst 11 Curzon Avenue and (a) Furneax construction of vehicular access from Sandelswood End. Cedar Cottage 15 Curzon Avenue, Beaconsfield 10/12/2017 17/00619/OUT Mr P Lewis Detached dwellinghouse. 6 Common Wood Farnham Common (b) 11/12/2017 17/01118/FUL Mr S Henry Conversion of covered reservoir structure into a residential Land Adjacent Former Hedgerley Reservoir (c) dwelling, erection of detached garage and associated works. Hedgerley Hill Hedgerley Page 106 Page
15/12/2017 17/01801/RVC Mr & Mrs J Variation of condition 4 of planning permission 14/02065/FUL Halings Lodge, Halings Lane, Denham Green (d) Bradshaw (Extension, conversion and alteration of existing garage & cinema room into a detached dwellinghouse.) to remove reference to Class E relating to outbuildings.
15/12/2017 17/01848/RVC Mr & Mrs Removal of condition 7 of planning permission 16/02423/FUL 61 Plough Lane Stoke Poges (e) Sandhu (Replacement dwelling) to allow permitted development rights to be reinstated. Agenda Item 6
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL South Bucks District Council Planning Committee – 10 January 2018
Appeal Decisions
Planning Appeal Decisions
Date Ref Appellant Proposal Site Decision See key
29/11/2017 16/02193/OUT Mr C Lindsay Detached Dwelling Land adj to Cedar House, Appeal D (a) Main Drive, Iver Dismissed 30/11/2017 17/00716/FUL Mr & Mrs Front porch and car port, part single storey/ part 14 Thorney Lane South, Iver D (b) Clerkin two storey side/rear extension incorporating Appeal rooflights. Dismissed 01/12/2017 17/00272/FUL Mr T Detached dwellinghouse and provision of parking 19 Tockley Road Burnham CC (c) Whitehorn space. Appeal
Page 107 Page Dismissed 01/12/2017 17/00271/FUL RAP Buildings Pair of semi-detached dwellings. Construction of 35A Tockley Road, Burnham CC (d) and parking spaces. Appeal Developments Dismissed 04/12/2017 17/00352/FUL Mrs Bennett Front porch, two storey front extension and link, first Davel House, Keen's Acre D (e) floor terrace, external alterations to facades and to Stoke Poges roof incorporating rooflights. Appeal Dismissed 04/12/2017 16/02329/TPO Mr D Van Remove Silver Birch (SBDC TPO No 35, 1998) 26 Reynolds Road Appeal D (f) Welly Dismissed 04/12/2017 17/01020/FUL Mr M Detached Garage 6 Wood Lane, Iver Appeal D (g) Seagrove Allowed 05/12/2017 16/02356/FUL Ms G Part single/part two storey rear extension. Roseneath, Village Road Appeal D (h) Sanderson Denham Dismissed
05/12/2017 16/02357/LBC Ms G Part single/part two storey rear extension. Roseneath, Village Road Appeal D Agenda Item 6 (i) Sanderson Denham Dismissed 06/12/2017 17/00651/FUL Mr R Pannu Conversion and extension of existing dwelling to Baytrees Cottage, Sutton D (j) provide 4 self-contained flats incorporating off-street Lane Appeal parking and associated landscaping. Dismissed
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL South Bucks District Council Planning Committee – 10 January 2018
Planning Appeal Decisions (cont)
Date Ref Appellant Proposal Site Decision See key
15/12/2017 17/01021/FUL Mr P Caraco Detached Dwelling The Birches, Cherry Tree D (k) Lane, Fulmer SL3 6JE Appeal Dismissed 15/12/2017 16/02434/OUT Mr A Coombes Redevelopment of the site to provide two detached Holly House Christmas Lane D (l) dwellings, with associated vehicular access, Farnham Common landscaping and car parking. Appeal Dismissed 18/12/2017 16/02067/FUL Mr J Davies Detached chalet bungalow. 29 Decies Way, Stoke Poges Appeal D (m) Dismissed
Page 108 Page 18/12/2017 17/00298/FUL Mr J Davies Detached chalet bungalow. 29 Decies Way, Stoke Poges Appeal D (n) Dismissed
Note: The letter(s) shown after the decision in the following tables indicate:-
CO - Committee decision to refuse permission on officer recommendation CC - Committee decision to refuse permission contrary to officer recommendation D - Delegated officer decision to refuse permission ND - Appeal against non-determination of application CTD - Planning Committee to decide between various options Agenda Item 6
Classification: OFFICIAL Classification: OFFICIAL South Bucks District Council Planning Committee – 10 January 2018
Enforcement Appeal Decisions
(a) 11/12/2017 17/30001/ Mosque Al Appeal against Enforcement notice alleging: Without planning Mosque Al Mohsin, Appeal Dismissed and APPENF Mohsin permission, the construction of Building A and Building B Windmill Road, Enforcement Notice including the installation of an associated Covered Walkway Fulmer Upheld with variations between Building B and the Main Building
(b) 11/12/2017 17/30002/ Mosque Al Appeal against Enforcement notice alleging: Without planning Mosque Al Mohsin, Appeal Dismissed and APPENF Mohsin permission, engineering operations including the importation of Windmill Road, Enforcement Notice material and the re-grading of land; formation of a concrete sub- Fulmer Upheld with variations base and the formation of a platform (formed of metal subframe and surface flooring) and the installation of permanent umbrellas to form an outdoor prayer area; the installation of retaining walls and the installation of steps and paving Page 109 Page
(c) 11/12/2017 17/30003/ Mosque Al Appeal against Enforcement notice alleging: Without planning Mosque Al Mohsin, Appeal Dismissed and APPENF Mohsin permission, the construction of Building C and the installation of Windmill Road, Enforcement Notice exercise equipment consisting of vertical posts with metal Fulmer Upheld with variations crossbars
Officer Contacts: Jane Langston 01895 837285 [email protected] Agenda Item 6
Classification: OFFICIAL This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7 Planning Committee 10 January 2018
SUBJECT: Planning Enforcement Report to Planning Committee RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: Steve Bambrick – Director of Services REPORT AUTHOR: Ciaran Cleeve, 01895 837272, [email protected] WARD: Burnham Beeches SITE ADDRESS: Grenville Lodge, Hawthorn Lane, Burnham, Buckinghamshire, SL2 3TE. BREACH: Prolonged period of inactivity since the commencement of works and the continued residential occupation of ‘chalet’ despite no further works occurring.
1. Purpose of Report
For the Planning Committee to consider the harm caused by a breach of planning control identified at the above site, and determine whether to authorise the Head of Democratic and Legal Services in consultation with the Director of Services, to take appropriate enforcement action (which may include the issue of a Completion Notice by way of application to the Secretary of State (“SoS”)) in accordance with the recommendation in this report.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the Planning Committee authorise: The Head of Legal and Democratic Services, in consultation with the Director of Services, to take appropriate enforcement action, to include the issue and service of any Notices, the precise wording and period of compliance with the Notice(s) to be delegated to the Head of Legal and Democratic Services in consultation with the Director of Services.
2. In the event that any Notice or Notices issued are not complied with, that authority be delegated to the Head of Legal and Democratic Services in consultation with the Director of Services to take such legal proceedings as may be considered appropriate to secure compliance therewith.
3. Executive Summary
3.1 Reports have been made to the Council regarding the prolonged period of inactivity since the commencement and subsequent cessation of works (in approximately February 2014) in connection with PP ref: 08/00295/FUL for “Detached dwelling and garage”, 10/02043/XFUL for “Extension of time limit” and 16/00592/CLOPED for “Application for a Certificate of Lawfulness for proposed: Building operations to complete the redevelopment of site to provide a detached dwelling and garage in accordance with planning permission 10/02043/XFUL” at Grenville Lodge, Hawthorn Lane, Burnham, Buckinghamshire, SL2 3TE. Notwithstanding the cessation of the works there continues to be present on the site storage containers, site office, site hoarding and mobile home/chalet, which is residentially occupied.
3.2 The owners/occupiers of the site have not, when given the opportunity to, continued with the development allowed under the Planning Permission and there is no evidence that the development will be resumed and/or carried through to completion within a reasonable time period.
Page 111 Agenda Item 7 Planning Committee 10 January 2018
3.3 Schedule 2, Part 4, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 permits the provision on land of buildings, moveable structures, works, plant or machinery required temporarily in connection with and for the duration of works to implement a planning permission, such as the development which has been approved under 08/00295/FUL, 10/02043/XFUL, and which the Council has recognised as lawfully implemented by virtue of the Certificate of Lawfulness ref: 16/00592/CLOPED. As no building operations are occurring the temporary housing, site hoarding, storage containers and site office are not, therefore, considered to be reasonably required. As such, the Council would seek to consider the planning harm resulting from the continued presence of these buildings/structures on the site.
3.4 The erection of a site hoarding and the placement of several metal shipping storage containers around the site, the placement of a site office within the site and the residential occupation of two temporary structures ‘required’ for the duration of the build including a mobile home and a linked timber built chalet to the rear of the site represent a continued unplanned development which may remain on site for an unknown period, until such time the building operations have been carried out results in harm to the openness of the green belt, and harm to the visual amenity of the area as an incongruous addition to the street scene.
4. Reasons for Recommendations
4.1 An ongoing harm to the visual amenity of the area from the temporary development has been identified, that results in unacceptable planning harm. Enforcement action, which may include the issue of a Completion Notice is considered to be a proportionate response to seek to remedy the harm caused by the lack of progress towards completing the development granted planning permission, and the subsequent removal of the temporary buildings and structures. Lesser steps have not resulted in the situation being resolved.
5. Content of Report
5.1 The Lawful Fall-back Position
Planning permission was granted (ref: 08/00295/FUL) for the construction of a detached dwelling and garage. Planning permission 10/02043/XFUL granted an extension of time to implement planning permission 08/00295/FUL, following the grant of which footings for the permitted garage were dug, and the driveway was constructed, thereby implementing the planning permission. A subsequent application for a Certificate of Proposed Lawful Development (ref: 16/00592/CLOPED) confirmed that development had lawfully commenced to implement planning permission 08/00295/FUL and as such, the planning permission remains extant and no further planning permission would be required to develop the site in accordance with that planning permission .
Permitted development rights provided under Class A of Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 permit the provision on land of buildings, moveable structures, works, plant or machinery required temporarily in connection with works to implement a planning permission. The site owner is relying on this permitted development right to continue to provide a site hoarding, several metal storage
Page 112 Agenda Item 7 Planning Committee 10 January 2018 containers for storage, a site office and two ‘temporary’ linked residential structures on the site.
5.2 The Planning Harm
In the absence of any activity to progress the development since the initial commencement and with no identified prospect of the development resuming or being completed within a reasonable time period, the continued presence on the site of the hoarding, the storage containers, the site office and the continued residential occupation and presence of ‘temporary’ housing, is considered harmful to the openness of the Green Belt, incongruous in the street scene and harmful to the appearance of the locality. If the works to implement planning permission 08/00295/FUL and 10/02043/XFUL are not continuing, the Council should reasonably have the opportunity to consider taking further enforcement actions.
Where the site owner can rely upon permitted development rights under Schedule 2, Part 4, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, the Council cannot reasonably consider taking enforcement action against the temporary development in order to remedy the harm caused by that temporary development.
The main issues to be considered when weighing up the benefit of the development against the harm caused by the temporary development are:
a. Impact on the openness of the Green Belt and harm to visual amenity caused by the temporary development; and, b. Impact on amenity of neighbours due to the untidy and incongruous appearance of the site;
5.3 Human Rights and Equality
The taking of enforcement action would amount to an interference with the Human Rights of the owners and or occupiers of the site as set out in the Human Rights Act 1998 ("the HRA"). The Council must act compatibly with the rights of the owners and occupiers of the site and must take into account the impact that a decision to take enforcement action will have on those rights.
The relevant Articles of the HRA which need to be considered are:
Article 6: The right to a fair hearing. This is an absolute right. The owners and occupiers of the land are aware that the unauthorised development is a breach of planning control and that the Council is considering taking enforcement action in respect thereof and have been given the opportunity of making written representations, and to make an application for the Council to consider 'without prejudice' granting planning permission or lawfulness for the development. [Any applications made and the relevant decisions have been reported earlier in this report]. The availability of the statutory right of appeal following the issuing of any Enforcement Notice together with the further statutory right of appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government meets the requirements to ensure a fair hearing.
Page 113 Agenda Item 7 Planning Committee 10 January 2018 Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to respect for private/family life and the protection of property. This is a qualified right and the Council can only interfere with this right where this:-
(a) is in accordance with the law; (b) serves a legitimate aim; and (c) is necessary and proportionate in the particular circumstances of the case.
In respect of (a) above, as long as the decision to take enforcement action is taken pursuant to the provisions of Part VII of the 1990 Act, the action will be taken in accordance with the law.
In respect of (b), taking enforcement action against breaches of planning control serves a legitimate aim, namely the preservation of the environment in the wider public interest. This has been confirmed by decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Buckley v United Kingdom and Chapman v United Kingdom.
Thus the only issue left that requires consideration is (c), whether enforcement action is necessary and proportionate in the particular circumstance of the case. In this respect, the Council needs to consider whether the objective can be achieved by a means which is less interfering with an individual's rights and whether the measure has an excessive or disproportionate effect on the interests of the affected individual(s). The objective in this case is the proper enforcement of planning control in the interests of protecting the amenity of the area. It is not considered that there is any other means by which this objective can be secured which interferes less with the rights of the owner/occupant(s). Nor is it considered that the service of an Enforcement Notice or Completion Notice would have an excessive or disproportionate effect on their rights.
Consideration has also been given to the requirements of the Equality Act 2010 ("the EA") and is has been concluded that these requirements do not affect the recommendations in this report. Section 149 of the EA places a duty on the Council to have due regard to "promoting equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups". The policies that form the development plan, considered in their adoption the impact of those policies with regard to the principals set out in the EA or preceding law. As such, in making a decision giving due regard to the policies of the development plan, that decision is considered to have been made having had due regard to the Section 71 requirements of the EA.
5.4 Reasons to Take Formal Action
Allowing the situation to continue could result in the harm to amenity continuing for a further extended and unknown period.
5.5 Requirements for Remedy
i) Complete the development allowed under Planning Permission 08/00295/FUL, 10/02043/XFUL, and 16/00592/CLOPED within 12 months from the issue of the notice; ii) Remove from the site the temporary structures including the residential units, the site hoarding, the storage containers and the site office within 12 months from the issue of the notice;
Page 114 Agenda Item 7 Planning Committee 10 January 2018 iii) Remove from the site all machinery, equipment and materials required in connection to compliance with requirement i) and ii) above.
5.6 Proportionality and Expediency
The development of the site results in planning harm as set out in Section 3 of this report, and therefore amounts to an unacceptable form of development when considered against the development plan. It is therefore expedient to take enforcement action in order to require either the completion of the development or the reversion of the site to undeveloped Green Belt land to remedy the harm.
6. Corporate Implications
6.1 Financial
Completion Notices are subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State (SoS) for the Department for Communities and Local Government in accordance with Section 95 of the Act. The confirmation of a completion notice by the SoS is also subject to challenge to the High Court under Section 284. The cost of defending enforcement appeals forms a normal part of the Sustainable Development service budget.
6.2 Legal
The Head of Legal and Democratic Services has been consulted on this report.
7 Links to Council Policy Objectives
7.1 The recommendations contained in this report are directly linked to the Corporate Service Strategy of upholding the policies in the Development Plan.
8 Next Step
8.1 In the event the recommendation set out in this report is agreed, the Head of Legal and Democratic Services will, in consultation with the Director of Services, take appropriate enforcement action which may include the issue of a Completion Notice which will be subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State for the Department of Communities and Local Government.
Background Papers: Enforcement Case File
Page 115 This page is intentionally left blank