Agenda and minutes

To note any substitution of Members made in accordance with Council Procedure Rules 19-22.

The following substitution of Panel Members had been made in accordance with Council Procedure Rules 19-22:-

Councillor S.Elam for M.Cowan

Councillor P.Mabbott for H.Bromley

To note any apologies.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors H.Bromley and M.Cowan.

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 14 June 2018 (previously circulated).

The Minutes of the meeting on 14 June 2018 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) sets out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management Consent for the retention of retrospective solar photovoltaic panels to the front and rear roof slopes of the property.

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance), which set out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management Consent for the retention of retrospective solar photovoltaic panels to the front and rear roof slopes of the property.

The application (reference: 6/2018/1096/EM) was refused on the 11 June 2018 for the following reason:

“The front solar panels, by virtue of their siting, scale, number and appearance, would result in an overly prominent installation that would be harmful to the character and appearance of the property, amenities and values of the area. Whilst the installation would improve the energy efficiency of the property this does not outweigh the harm to visual amenity. The retrospective application is therefore contrary to Policy EM1 of the Estate Management Scheme.”

The appeal site, 37 Linkfield, is a mid-terraced two storey dwelling with a pitched roof and formed part of a row of four terrace properties. The design of the roofs within the vicinity, have not undergone alterations, therefore contributing the uniform character and appearance of the dwellings within the vicinity.

The key issue in the determination of this appeal case was the impact of the retrospective front solar photovoltaic panels upon the amenities and values of the Garden City.  The assessment concluded that the development would not result in an adverse harm upon residential amenity of adjoining occupiers.

Due to the visibility of the solar photovoltaic panels within the streetscene the development would have a detrimental impact upon the uniform character and appearance of the streetscene and wide amenities and values of the area.  Therefore the development appeared incongruous and out of keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding properties.

The Panel acknowledged that the solar photovoltaic panels are an energy efficiency measure beneficial to the environment.  However, the Estate Management Scheme had been created and adapted over time to support such sustainable methods, whilst ensuring amenities and values of the Garden City being maintained and enhanced.

The proposal sought retrospective Estate Management Consent for the installation of solar photovoltaic panels to the front and rear roof slopes. There are six solar panels on the front roof slope and six situated on the rear roof slope.

The Appellant was present and stated that the solar panels on the front and on the rear of the property roof were not harmful to the character of house or the area.  He also added that there were a number of properties nearby that had solar panels, including Council properties. 

Members agreed that those solar panels sited to the rear of the dwelling would be obscured from the street scene but those on the front roof would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the property. 

It was moved by Councillor A.Chesterman, seconded by Councillor N.Pace and

RESOLVED:

(unanimously)

That the Members uphold the delegated decision and dismiss the appeal.

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) sets out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management Consent for the replacement of a front door to the property.

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance), which set out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management Consent for the replacement of a front door to the property.

The application (reference: 6/2018/1275/EM) was refused on the 11 June 2018 for the following reason:

“The proposed design would not be in keeping with the design, appearance, and architectural detailing used in the existing building. The proposal would therefore be detrimental to the amenities and values of the surrounding area and the Garden City, thus contrary to Policy EM4 of the Estate Management Scheme”.

Whilst the reason for refusal referred to Policy EM4 (Hard surfacing), this should be EM1 (Extensions and Alterations). Taking into account the wording of the reason for refusal, it clearly related to Policy EM1 and it was not considered that the appellant was prejudiced in any way to understand the concerns of the development.  Accordingly this appeal was assessed against Policy EM1.

The key issue in the determination of this appeal was the impact of the proposed development upon the amenities and values of the Garden City.

Front doors within Linkfield follow a fairly uniform pattern in that, the mid-terraced properties are white in colour, with the top half of the door being obscured glazed. Whilst front doors amongst the bookend terraced properties are sited on the side elevation often brown in colour, with a Georgian design.

The proposal sought Estate Management Consent for a replacement door. The proposed door would be Worcester anice anthracite grey, with four vertical centred glazed windows, a silver door handle on the side and the letter box sited to the bottom of the panels.

The report noted that objection had been raised to the detailed design and colour of the door as it would contrast with the Georgian style identified with the surrounding mid-terraced properties in the area and the architectural design identified within the Garden City.  The colour and design proposed would result in an incongruous addition to the street-scene and as a result would cause harm to the amenities and values of the areas.  This would be readily viewable within the street-scene.

The Appellant was present at the meeting and stated that there were a number of different colour and styles of doors along the road and at nearby properties.  It was explained that the design of the door was very important within Estate Management Scheme.  It was agreed that Officers work with the Appellant to mutually agree an acceptable colour and style of the door.

Photographs were considered and general comments were made in respect of the letterbox being at the lower part of the door; this was perceived as a potential health hazard and inapt in adverse weather conditions; for example, flooding.

It was moved by Councillor A.Chesterman, seconded by Councillor S.Elam and

RESOLVED:

(unanimously)

That the Members uphold the delegated decision and dismiss the appeal.

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) sets out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management Consent for the replacement of an existing conservatory.

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance), which set out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management Consent for the replacement of an existing conservatory.

The application (reference: 6/2018/0110/EM) was refused on 09 March 2018 for the following reason:

“The proposal, by virtue of its solid pitched roof design, would not be in keeping with the character and appearance of the application property and the surrounding properties and streetscene. It would fail to represent high quality design, and would be detrimental to the amenities and values of the Garden City.  Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary to Policy EM1 of the Estate Management Scheme.”

The property has a rear conservatory that was granted Estate Management consent in 2005 (ref: W6/2005/0360/EM).

The proposal sought consent for the replacement of the existing conservatory with a new conservatory type extension of the same size and footprint. Instead of having a glass roof, the new structure would have contemporary grey panels combined with glass on the roof. The new frames would be white upvc with glass and brick elevations.

This was an appeal against the refusal of EM consent. The Appellant’s letter of appeal was attached at Appendix 1, and the original Officer’s report for application reference 6/2018/0110/EM, was attached at Appendix 2.

The key issue in the determination of this appeal was the impact of the proposed conservatory on the values and amenities of the surrounding area. The impact on the residential amenity of adjoining occupiers was acceptable.

Whilst there was no objection to the principle of a replacement conservatory, the refusal related specially to the introduction of a more solid form of roof.  In the Garden City single storey extension were generally expected to be designed with a flat roof which would limit the impact of the development on the rear elevation and maintain a consistency with the design and appearance of single storey extensions.  Generally, extensions with a solid pitch roof forms were not consistent with the style of flat roofed single storey extension which were prolific within Welwyn Garden City’s Estate Management areas.

The Appellant made reference to various applications for pitched single storey extension within the Estate Management area.  It was noted that in this regard none of the cases set precedent for the replacement conservatory with a solid roof as proposed.  All the examples cited were for flat roof extension which were considered acceptable in the Estate Management area.

It was agreed that the proposal would fail to enhance the appearance of the existing property given its pitched roof design with a more solid roof form.  The conservatory extension would appear out of keeping with the property and the surrounding properties and form an overly dominant form to the rear of the dwelling which would be unacceptable.

The Panel were shown a sample of the type of roof proposed and it was suggested that the Appellant works with Officers to agree a suitable balance of glass and solid panels for the proposed conservatory  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) to update Members with regard to outstanding arbitration cases that were put before the Panel, up to and including, on 14 June 2018.

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) to update Members with regard to outstanding arbitration cases that were put before the Panel, up to and including, on 14 June 2018.  The following cases were noted.

251 Knightsfield

A retrospective application for EM consent was submitted in June 2013 under application number W6/2013/1237/EM but the submitted plans did not reflect the development as built.

72 Chequers

Removal of front hedge and creation of hardstanding; date of breach unknown but reported in August 2012.  The established hedges to the front of the above site were removed and the complete front garden has been turned into a hardstanding without Estate Management Consent. 

19 Fearnley Road

A retrospective application for Estate Management consent to try and retain the hardstanding was submitted under application number 6/2016/1603/EM and refused on 28 September 2016. The owner appealed the decision, the appeal was heard by the Panel on 26 January 2017 where the decision was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

11 The Moors

A retrospective application for EM permission was eventually submitted under application number 6/2017/1557/EM in July 2017 however it has remained invalid ever since.

88 Pentley Park

New raised beds, steps and walls and hardstanding to the front of the property. Exact date of breach is unknown but complaint was received on 11 April 2016. Following warning letters, a retrospective application for retention of the works was submitted on 11 May 2016 but was refused on 7th July 2016.

3 Digswell House Mews

The owner was contacted and the enforcement team were advised that an appeal would be submitted.  The appeal was heard at the Panel meeting in October 2017 and the Panel dismissed the appeal.

37 Linkfield

Following a site visit the owner was contacted advising action in regard to the solar panels particularly the ones located on the front roof slope of the property which the owner was advised were unlikely to be granted estate management permission.

This application was considered under Minute number 10 above.

The Officers explained that due to resource implications there were a number enforcements outstanding and these would be presented at the next meeting.

Members requested that an update on the position regarding the breaches of the Estate Management Scheme in Broomhills and Daniells.

Post Minute Note: The requested information was circulated on the following day regarding affected properties.