To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 23 September 2020 (previously circulated).

The minutes of the meeting held on 23 September 2020 were approved as a correct record and noted by the Chairman.

To note declarations of Members’ disclosable pecuniary interests, non-disclosable pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests in respect of items on this Agenda.

Councillor Cowan declared an interest in Item 10 by virtue of having notified the Council of one of the enforcement cases.

The report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) sets out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management (EM) Consent for the erection of a front porch.

The report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance), which set out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management (EM) Consent for the erection of a front porch.

The application was refused on the 13 August 2020 for the following reason:

“Although relatively small, the proposed porch would be an incongruous addition to the home and would detract from the architectural value of the original home. The proposed porch would alter the relationship within the group of houses within Handside Green and would have a detrimental impact upon the values and amenities of the property and street scene. As a result, the application fails to comply with Policy EM1 of the Estate Management Scheme.”

The application sought Estate Management Scheme consent to erect an open porch on the front elevation.

The key issue in the determination of this appeal was the impact the proposed porch would have on the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area.

The appellant had submitted a video that was played to the Panel. The appellant stated that the porch was designed in sympathy with the existing frontage of the house. The porch was small, only 1.8m wide with the pillars following the outline of existing bricks around the door. These were in harmony with the street scene. Care had been taken to match Welwyn Garden City houses with matching bricks, roof overhang and typical relief lines around the perimeter of the roof which echoed the lines of the balustrade. It was not incongruous and would not have a detrimental impact on the value or amenities of the street. The design tied in with the porch at 2 Handside Green which pre-dated the Estate Management Scheme. The existence of that porch had never affected the saleability of houses in Handside Green.

Whilst Members were sensitive to the appellant’s wishes and appreciated the design of the porch and that it was using materials sensitive to the area, the Estate Management Scheme had to be considered when proposing additions to homes covered by the scheme and the application of the rules and regulations of the scheme needed to be consistent.

Members felt that the close was very small and any additional porches would be very prominent in the street scene.

RESOLVED:

(Unanimous)

That Members uphold the delegated decision and dismiss the appeal.

The report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) sets out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management (EM) Consent for the erection of a front porch.

The report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance), which set out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management (EM) Consent for the erection of a front porch.

The application was refused on the 13 August 2020 for the following reason:

“Although relatively small, the proposed porch would be an incongruous addition to the home and would detract from the architectural value of the original home. The proposed porch would alter the relationship within the group of houses within Handside Green and would have a detrimental impact upon the values and amenities of the property and street scene. As a result, the application fails to comply with Policy EM1 of the Estate Management Scheme.”

The application sought Estate Management Scheme consent to erect an open porch on the front elevation.

The key issue in the determination of this appeal is the impact the proposed porch would have on the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area.

The appellant had submitted a statement to be read out to the Panel. The appellant felt that the addition of a small porch to their house would not have a detrimental effect on the property or that of the other houses in the close.

Since lockdown they had enjoyed many walks around Welwyn Garden City and had noticed that a significant number of houses were built with a porch of some description.

Two out of the ten houses in Handside Green were indeed built with porches and one had a porch added at a later date.

The addition of a porch would give protection from the weather for themselves and visitors. It would be environmentally advantageous as it would increase the insulation of the front door.

With their neighbour, they had specifically designed our porches to compliment the houses and appear as if they were part of the original building.

Although sympathetic to the appellant’s wishes, Members felt that the rules and regulations of the Estate Management Scheme needed to be upheld for consistency and the protection of the Estate Management area.

RESOLVED:

(Unanimous)

That Members uphold the delegated decision and dismiss the appeal.

The Panel is asked to resolve:

That under Section 100(A)(2) and (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be now excluded from the meeting for items 10 and 11 (if any) on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of confidential or exempt information as defined in Section 100A(3) and Paragraphs 5 (privileged and legal advice) and 6 (statutory notice or order) Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the said Act (as amended).

In resolving to exclude the public in respect of the exempt information, it is considered that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.   

The report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) updated Panel Members with regard to outstanding arbitration cases that had been put before the Panel as well as additional cases for consideration.

RESOLVED:

That Members note the contents of the report and the new cases.

A verbal update was provided to Panel Members with regards to arbitration cases and legal advice sought.

RESOLVED:

That Members note the verbal report.