Agenda and minutes

Estate Management Appeals Panel
Wednesday 30th January 2019 7.30 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Council Offices, The Campus, Welwyn Garden City, Herts, AL8 6AE

Contact: Helen Johnson 

Items
No. Item

25.

MINUTES

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 5 December 2018 (previously circulated).

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting on 5 December 2018 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

26.

348 HOWLANDS WELWYN GARDEN CITY AL7 4HD - 6/2018/1861/EM - INSTALLATION OF 1 X REAR DORMER TO FACILITATE EXTENSION OF EXISTING LOFT pdf icon PDF 286 KB

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 installation of one rear dormer to facilitate extension of existing loft.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) set out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management Consent for the installation of 1 x rear dormer to facilitate extension of existing loft.

 

The application site is a two storey mid terrace dwelling house, located on the north side of Howlands. The application property is located within a row of 13 terraced houses. The rear of this terrace, and the appeal property itself, is open to public views from a public footpath that runs across the rear of the terrace to the east.

 

The appeal was against the refusal of Estate Management (EM) consent.  The appellant’s letter of appeal was attached to the report at Appendix 1 and the original officers for the application was attached at Appendix 2.

 

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

 

The appeal property is located within a terrace of 13 similarly designed properties.  None of these properties have rear dormer windows.  This property would be the first to have such an alteration in this group of 13.  The report noted that rather than two individual dormer windows as approved in July 2018, the introduction of a one elongated rear dormer would represent a more dominating form of development to the rear roof slope of this property. The elongated dormer would not read as a subordinate roof form within the rear roof slope of the terrace as a whole.  It would be more visible, given its more solid and unbroken form and is considered to be harmful to the amenities and values of the property itself and to the wider surrounding area.  Members discussed the views of the rear roof slope of the property and that the visibility from the public footpath to the east of the site and it was agreed that elongated dormer across the rear of the property would be very apparent causing significant harm to the amenities and values of the area.

 

Photographs of the rear of the appeal site were provided by the applicant and the appellant had stated that ‘it would be no visible difference in the two separate dorms or one single dormer’.

 

Officers explained that the rear dormer window would be unacceptable by virtue of its width, scale and siting on the rear roof slope of the dwelling which would be overtly visible from a number of properties in the area from the public footpath noted.  The height of the ridge was considered.

 

It was moved by Councillor H Bromley, seconded by Councillor M Cowan and

 

RESOLVED:

(5 voting For and 2 Against)

 

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

27.

1 MIDDLEFIELD, WELWYN GARDEN CITY AL7 4DQ - 6/2018/2537/EM - REMOVAL OF CHIMNEY STACK pdf icon PDF 293 KB

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 removal of a chimney stack.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) set out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management Consent for the removal of a chimney stack.

 

The appeal site, No.1 Middlefield is a two storey yellow brick detached dwelling.  The site is enclosed by a boundary hedge with an attached garage to the side.  Middlefield is located off Boundary Lane.

 

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.

 

Members gave consideration to removal of chimney stacks and installation of false chimneys and it was noted that in some cases the removal of a chimney stack provided additional space within the dwelling.  The report noted that in order to respond to the large number of requests for roof alternations and energy efficiency measures such as Solar PV panels, following consultation the Council had approved a new Policy approach within the Estate Management Scheme Areas to deal with roof alteration.

 

The case has been advanced by the appellant in support of the appeal.  The grounds of the appeal site that Nos 1 and 2 Middlefield are distinct in design terms from other properties on Middlefield, being detached and with chimneys that are barely visible from the street.  Other properties on the street are terraced and have prominent chimneys on the ridge line of the roof.  In the context of Middlefield it appears that Nos 1 and 2 have already had their chimneys removed.  Members noted that the two properties mentioned above, there has been no EM application history to suggest that either address has had consent for the works and No1 Middlefield still has a chimney stack installed on the rear roof slope.

 

No additional evidence or information had been provided by the appellant which would alter the Officer’s recommendation.  The proposed removal of the chimney in a prominent location within Middlefield would be unacceptable and have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the appeal property, the row of terrace properties in which it is located and the surrounding street scene.

 

Members requested that in future if Officers are in communication with the appellant could this be cited within the report.

 

It was moved by Councillor A Chesterman, seconded by Councillor H Bromley and

 

RESOLVED:

(unanimously)

 

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

28.

5 HOWICKS GREEN WELWYN GARDEN CITY AL7 4RJ - 6/2018/2063/EM - REPLACE POLYCARBONATE CONSERVATORY ROOF WITH LIGHTWEIGHT TILED ROOF pdf icon PDF 379 KB

The report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) sets out appeal against the refusal of Estate Management (EM) Consent for the replacement of a polycarbonate conservatory roof with lightweight tiled roof.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor H.Bromley declared none pecuniary interest and left the Council Chamber and took no part in the discussion on this application.

 

The report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) set out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management (EM) consent for the replacement of a polycarbonate conservatory roof with lightweight tiled roof. 

 

The appeal site is a two storey mid terrace dwelling house, located on the eastern side of Howicks Green; close to the junction with Howlands.  The property has an existing conservatory with a pitched, polycarbonate roof at the rear of the property.  The application property is located in a row of eight terraced houses.  The report noted that there was one other rear conservatory within the terraces.  The rear of this terrace and the application property has open public views from Queen Avenue at the rear.

 

The applicant was present and spoke on the proposal to replace polycarbonate conservatory roof with lightweight tiled roof improving energy consumption, heat control and helping to eliminating light pollution at night.  It would also tone in better with the greens and browns of the surrounding trees and the summer house roof in the garden.  Consideration was given to the access road at the rear of the property and views of the conservatory roof; it was noted that visibility was limited as there is a six foot fence.  The appellant mentioned that the QEII land sold to Bellway Housing; the properties had not been built in keeping with the character and appearance of the neighbouring and surrounding properties of the area.  Officers explained that the QEII development was not located within the EMS so it could not be compared with the proposed development.  The case had been advanced by the appellant in support of their appeal.  This included a photograph of an example of solid roof on a conservatory but it was not known where this photograph was taken whether it was within the EMS area.

 

A discussion ensued on the proposed ‘lightweight tiled’ roof rather than the polycarbonate panels it was agreed that use of modern materials be accepted in this location due to the limited visibility of the roof. The Panel was concerned to ensure that any similar proposals in this terrace would then be required to use matching materials.

 

It was moved by Councillor A.Chesterman, seconded by Councillor L.Musk and

 

RESOLVED

(unanimous)

 

The original refusal was overturned as Members considered that due to the limited visibility of the roof, the proposed change in material would maintain the values and amenities of the Estate Management area, in accordance with Policy EM1. This was subject to the inclusion of the following condition, as well as the standard Estate Management Scheme conditions:

 

“No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the roof of the conservatory have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council.  The development must be implemented using the approved materials  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

29.

EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

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 11 and 12 (if any) on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of confidential or exempt information as defined in Section 100A(3) and Paragraphs 2 (Information likely to reveal the identity of an individual) 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.   

Minutes:

RESOLVED:

 

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 item 11 (Minute 30 refer) on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of confidential or exempt information as defined in Section 100A(3) and Paragraphs 2 (Information likely to reveal the identity of an individual) 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.

30.

UPDATE ON OUTSTANDING ENFORCEMENT CASES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENFORCEMENT ACTION UNDER THE TERMS OF THE MANAGEMENT SCHEME FOR WELWYN GARDEN CITY FOR BREACHES OF THAT SCHEME

The exempt report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) updates Members with outstanding arbitration cases that were put before the Panel, up to and including 15 January 2019.

Minutes:

The Panel considered the report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance), which updated Members with regard to outstanding arbitration cases that were put before the Panel, up to and including, 15 January 2019. 

 

(Note:  A more detailed record of the Panel’s decision is contained in the exempt Minute 30A).

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Panel note the action taken for each case.