Chiltern District Council Summary of Responses to the Consultation on the Residential Extensions and Householder Development Supplementary Planning Document - Public Consultation Document (March 2013) August 2013 Version 1.0 1 Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................... 3 Who was consulted about the SPD and how were they consulted? ........................... 3 Summary of main issues in the responses and addressing the main issues raised ... 4 Table 1: Summary of Responses to the SPD ........................................................ 5 Appendix 1 List of organisations consulted about the SPD ...................................... 10 2 Introduction 1. This document shows a summary of the main issues which were raised in the responses to the consultation on the Residential Extensions and Householder Development Supplementary Planning Document. – Public Consultation Document (March 2013). It also shows how the main issues have been considered, how the consultation was carried out and who was consulted. This document has been prepared following the Government’s regulations for producing SPDs1and in accordance with the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement. Who was consulted about the SPD and how were they consulted? 2. In total over 300 organisations and individuals were sent a letter / email about the SPD which asked them to make comments. A response form for making comments was available on the Council’s website. The organisations consulted included Town and Parish Councils in the District, revitalisation groups, local groups, organisations and individuals on the Council’s Local Development Framework consultation data base. To see a list of organisations who were consulted about the SPD see Appendix 1. 3. The consultation period for the SPD was 8 weeks from 8th April to the 7th June 2013. This timescale was chosen so as to correspond with the consultation period for the Delivery Development Plan Document. This time period therefore complies with, and significantly exceeds, the SPD regulations, which require that the consultation period has to be not less than 4 weeks. 4. The Council used various other ways to draw attention to the opportunity to make comments on the SPD. This included publication of the SPD on the Council’s website, provision of copies of the SPD in the Planning Services area of the Council’s reception, distributing copies of the SPD to eight libraries who serve the District area (including the four community libraries) and placing a press release in the local paper at the start of the consultation period. 1 The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. 3 Summary of main issues in the responses and addressing the main issues raised 5. Twelve individuals/organisations made duly made responses on the SPD. Responses came from a variety of organisations. A list of those responding and a summary of their comments, together with a proposed response, can be found below in Table 1. Potential changes to the SPD are highlighted in the last column of the table. 4 Table 1: Summary of Responses to the SPD Respondent / Support / Object / Summary of Comment(s) CDC Response Possible Change to SPD? Organisation Comment / Not Received Specified (S/O/C/N) Network Rail Not specified As Network Rail is a statutory Comments noted but not relevant to No change needed undertaker please ensure that we the contents of the SPD. are consulted on all planning applications for extensions and householder development adjacent to our land and the operational railway. Highways Not specified The HA will be concerned with Comments noted but not relevant to No change needed Agency proposals that have the potential to the contents of the SPD. impact the safe and efficient operation of the SRN. We have reviewed the consultations and do not have any comments at this time. Health and Not specified Thank you for inviting the Health and Noted. No change needed. Safety Safety Executive to comment on the Executive above documents. Health and Safety Executive does not wish to submit any comments. Chiltern Support Thank you for consulting the Support welcomed. No change needed. Conservation Chilterns Conservation Board in Board connection with the above. The Board welcomes the production of the SPD and supports the document as drafted, particularly in connection with the prominence given to the need to adhere to the advice in the Chilterns Building Design Guide and the Supplementary Technical Notes on Flint, Brick and Roofing Materials. 5 Respondent / Support / Object / Summary of Comment(s) CDC Response Possible Change to SPD? Organisation Comment / Not Received Specified (S/O/C/N) Amersham Support/Comment Overall, the guidelines are extremely Support is welcomed. Officers use No change needed. District useful. With regard to applications the 45 (and 60) degree diagrams Residents for extensions - a simple guidance that you have referred to as a guide Association on the 45 degree light line from the but non compliance may not centre of a window of a normal room necessarily lead to a development to the neighbour’s proposed building proposal being unacceptable. It is line –as in some of the Council’s old considered that the wording in the documents, will save lot of SPD addresses the issue of aggravation for both the parties – the concern. applicant as well as the neighbour! Natural Not specified We have no comments to make with Noted. No change needed. England regard to this SPD. Mr. Carl Object Hiding away behind planning With regard to flat roofs, it is Flat roofs p. 5 at the end of the first Skinner documents is no substitute for face acknowledged that modern building sentence add “although modern to face meetings. The document is materials have led to a greater life building materials and methods can very one sided and is based on span for flat roofs and the text will be improve both lifespan and personal opinion rather than adjusted accordingly to reflect this. It maintenance costs.” Government guidelines on planning. is also agreed to amend the text on More specifically, the statements crown roofs. In relation to amenity, it Crown Roofs p. 5 to read “Crown made on page 5 are incorrect in that is not agreed that the SPD is roofs can result in a building which 1. flat roofs no longer have shorter misleading. appears bulky and are not generally life spans than pitched roofs 2. crown encouraged. They frequently roofs aren’t bulky when designed indicate that a building span or properly and 3. with regard to footprint is too large. Crown roofs amenity, to suggest that past may however be acceptable in precedents do not play a large part in locations where the roof form would legal disputes is misleading. not be prominent, especially if there are other acceptable examples of crown roofs in the vicinity.” No other changes needed. 6 Respondent / Support / Object / Summary of Comment(s) CDC Response Possible Change to SPD? Organisation Comment / Not Received Specified (S/O/C/N) Robin A Support/ Object This document is generally well- Support welcomed. Crown Roofs p. 5 to read “Crown Bretherick and written and helpful. The criticism of roofs can result in a building which Fraser crown roofs is however ill-founded. Crown roofs – agree to modify the appears bulky and are not generally Kirkcaldy With regard to two-storey extensions, text. encouraged. They frequently in some circumstances consideration indicate that a building span or should be given to maintaining With regard to setting back the first footprint is too large. Crown roofs apparent space around a building by floor of a 2- storey side extension, may however be acceptable in setting back the first floor of a 2- roof alterations and large flat-roof locations where the roof form would storey extension (from the front) dormer windows, it is not considered not be prominent, especially if there rather than setting in 1m from the that the advice contained in the SPD are other acceptable examples of boundary e.g. for semis. With regard should be changed. The SPD is crown roofs in the vicinity.” to roof alterations to bungalows, it is guidance and for setting out key suggested that in many principles of design. For example, Include additional text on Areas of circumstances it is preferable to raise the SPD does not preclude the Little Change in Annex 2. the roof to form a two storey dwelling raising of a bungalow roof to form a than to add dormer windows. In full two-storey dwelling. No other changes needed. addition, large flat-roof dormer windows, if well detailed (and of a Comments on Residential Parking suitably modest scale) can be are noted but it is not considered visually acceptable on the front roof necessary to amend the SPD. slope, especially for larger detached houses. Inadequate parking, as a It is agreed that Annex 2 on result of expanding an existing Planning Constraints should include house, should only be an issue in reference to Areas of Little Change. exceptional circumstances. Annex 2 Planning Constraints should make reference to the fact that stricter constraints exist within Areas of Little Change. Mr. Adrian Object Objects to the relaxation of existing Changes to the planning regulations No change needed. Norris planning regulations relating to are undertaken by the Government residential and commercial and so beyond the scope of this development extension proposals SPD. The scope of this SPD does within Green Belt and within the not include replacement dwellings. AONB, other than one for one replacement of existing houses under the current rules for development within the Green Belt/ AONB. 7 Respondent / Support / Object / Summary of Comment(s) CDC Response Possible Change to SPD? Organisation Comment / Not Received Specified (S/O/C/N) Mrs Carole Object (2 ‘Significant tree’ should be defined The SPD provides guidance and it is Daylight and Sunlight pgs.