Four detached dwellings at The White House, Gerrards Cross

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the existing dwelling and building four detached dwellings.

“This application follows a previously refused application, ref. PL/24/1061/FA, which proposed the erection of 6 dwellings. That application was refused on the grounds that it would have resulted in a much denser form of development than was typical of the locality and failed to be sympathetic to the existing character of the area.”

“The application has been referred for determination by the South/East Area Planning Committee following it being called in by Councillors Bracken and Broom. Recommendation – Defer and delegate the application to the Director of Planning and Environment to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions set out in this report and any others which he considers appropriate and the satisfactory completion of a Planning Obligation to secure the provision a financial…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was an existing detached dwelling in Gerrards Cross, with rising land, a public footpath nearby and a conservation area to the west.

“The site lies within 5.6km of the Burnham Beeches SAC, and the Gerrards Cross Conservation Area lies to the west of the site. A public footpath lies to the south of the site. The proposed dwellings would be a traditional appearance with pitched roofs and projecting pitched elements. A schedule of materials has been submitted with the application showing the proposed use of red multi brick and traditionally profiled clay tiles.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the four-dwelling scheme comparable with local density and character, with no unacceptable effects on neighbours, highways, drainage, trees or ecology.

“The scale of development within each plot is also now more representative of that found elsewhere within the vicinity. Overall therefore, it is considered that the current proposals overcome the Councils previous concerns, and the development does reflect the prevailing density and characteristics of the immediate and wider locality and therefore does not adversely impact upon the character and appearance of the site of locality in general.”

“Landscape Issues Core Strategy Policies: CP9 (Natural environment) Local Plan Saved Policies: EP3 (The use, design and layout of development) EP4 (Landscaping) L10 (Proposals involving felling or other works affecting trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order) 4.27 The previous application was considered acceptable from the point of view of its impact on existing trees and the future landscaping of the site.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways, trees, ecology, waste and environmental health officers raised no objections, subject to conditions and mitigation, while Natural England required the impacts on designated sites to be addressed.

“SUMMARY OF NATURAL ENGLAND’S ADVICE FURTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IMPACTS ON DESIGNATED SITES The proposed development has the potential to have a harmful effect on terrestrial Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and those Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs) or Ramsar sites that they underpin. Natural England's statutory advice on these potential impacts is set out below.”

“Where the proposal includes bespoke mitigation that falls outside of the strategic solution, Natural England should be consulted. Reserved Matters applications, and in some cases the discharge/removal/variation of conditions, where the permission was granted prior to the introduction of the strategic approach, should also be subject to the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) and our advice above applies.”

Officer report

Objections received

The town council and residents raised concerns about overdevelopment, access, neighbouring properties, flooding, biodiversity, highways, privacy, traffic, noise, parking and the conservation area.

“Councillor Comments Cllr Bracken: I call in this application on the grounds that the development of this scale is out of keeping with other properties in the area and would have a negative impact on properties on South Park Drive.”

“Other Representations Comments have been received objecting to the proposal, which can be summarised as follows: • Loss of Privacy/Overlooking • Impact on Biodiversity • Impact on Burnham Beeches SAC • Impact on wildlife • Access for emergency vehicles/fire appliance • Overdevelopment • Highway Implications during construction • Impact on Outlook of existing properties • Overshadowing • Increase in traffic • Increase in noise and disturbance • Adverse highway implications •…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent spoke on behalf of the applicant.

The committee vote

Members voted in favour of approving the application in accordance with the officer recommendation.

“Members voted in favour of the motion to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.”

“Speaking on behalf of the applicant: [name withheld]…”

Minutes

The decision

The application was approved in accordance with the officer recommendation.

“Resolved: that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.”

Minutes