Thames Water’s proposed upgrades to one of its sewage treatment works have been approved by planning officers.

This is just one of the many applications considered by Buckinghamshire Council during the past seven days.

To view more details for each application, go to the council’s planning portal with the reference number attached.

Upgrades to Thames Water Chesham Sewage Treatment Works, Latimer Road (PL/24/0256/CONDA)

Thames Water says its planned upgrades will help lower the phosphorous content of treated sewage before it is discharged into the River Chess.

This week, planners have approved the water company’s environmental management plan for the site.

The planned upgrade of the sewage works – which include a new electricity transformer building – were approved by officers in December last year.

The proposals also include new equipment in the ‘tertiary solids removal area’ and a new ‘ferric sulphate chemical dosing package plant’.

An ongoing discharge of effluent from the Chesham Sewage Treatment Works into the Chess has been flowing for more than 1,000 hours since February 29 at the time of writing.

Demolition of structures refused at Feltrim, 99 Packhorse Road, Gerrards Cross (PL/23/3103/FA)

Mr A Anand’s plans to knock down the existing single garage, car port and rear extension have been refused.

The applicant had applied for permission to replace them with a two-storey rear extension with a single-storey flat roof side extension and alterations to the existing vehicular access.

However, planning officers said: “The proposed extensions would overwhelm the existing dwelling, resulting in a poorly designed unbroken extended dwelling of extensive depth, and a contrived and convoluted roof form.”

Planned demolition for new flats withdrawn, 12 Wood Lane, Iver Heath (PL/23/4161/FA)

The CISSH Property Group has withdrawn its plans to knock down the existing property and replace it with a single block of nine flats, including associated car parking spaces, an amenity area, as well as bin and cycle storage.

The family-run developer claimed that tenants in its new apartments would be managed by its own in-house rental team.

The applicant said its plans would revert the site to its original layout of two separate land parcels.