Agenda item

The report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) sets out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management (EM) Consent for replacement garage door.

The report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on the refusal of Estate Management (EM) Consent for the replacement of the garage door at the property. The application (6/2018/1230/EM) was refused for the following reason: 

‘The design and colour of the garage door is out of keeping with the character and appearance of Roundwood Drive and it fails to maintain the values and amenities of the Garden City. Accordingly, the garage door is not in accordance with Policy EM1 of the Estate Management Scheme’.

The subject property was a two storey detached dwelling house located on the southern side of Roundwood Drive, opposite its junction with Reddings. The property was a double fronted dwelling with an integral gable and was sited towards the eastern flank boundary of the plot. As well as the garage, the property had parking for two cars on its driveway. 

The street scene comprised of detached dwellings with a variety of architectural features of varying sizes in large plots.

The application sought retrospective Estate Management consent for the replacement of the garage door at the property. The garage doors as installed were centrally opening and were grey stained timber with black vertical handles. They matched the front door at the property.

Late representation from the appellant’s neighbour had been received in support of the appeal. The appellant’s statement had been circulated to Members via email having been missed off of the agenda.

The Chairman allowed the appellant, Mr N. Southey, to speak in favour of his appeal, despite not having registered to speak by the deadline. The appellant raised the following points:

·         The garage doors are made of steel and cannot be painted. They matched the front door which already had Estate Management Scheme (EM) permission.

·         The architect wrongly advised that permission was not necessary.

·         If the garage door was replaced with another door of a different colour and style, it would not match the front door and would look unsightly.

Members felt that the appeal should be allowed as permission had already been granted for the front door and it would look out of keeping to replace the garage door with a design and colour that differed from the front door.

It was proposed and seconded by Councillors L.Musk and F.Marsh.

RESOLVED:

(6 in favour and 1 against)

That Members allow the appeal, contrary to Officer recommendation, and subject to the following conditions:

CONDITION 1: All works carried out in pursuance of this consent shall be and remain part of the Premises and shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the conveyance in all respects as if such works had at all times formed part of the Premises.

REASON: To comply with the requirements of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 Estate Management Scheme for Welwyn Garden City.

CONDITION 2: This consent or copy hereof shall be annexed to the Conveyance.

REASON: To comply with the requirements of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 Estate Management Scheme for Welwyn Garden City.

CONDITION 3: There shall be no encroachment over the boundary of the plot either above or below ground level, nor any interference with the foundations of the adjoining property without the agreement of the adjoining owner or lessee.

REASON: To comply with the requirements of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 Estate Management Scheme for Welwyn Garden City.

CONDITION 4: This consent now issued is given by the Council only in accordance with the requirements of the Management Scheme/Conveyance or Leasehold Covenants.

REASON: To comply with the requirements of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 Estate Management Scheme for Welwyn Garden City.

CONDITION 5: Drawing Numbers

REASON: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and details.