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 the replacement and enlargement of hardstanding in the front garden of the property.

The report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) set out the appeal against the refusal of Estate Management Consent for the replacement and enlargement of the hardstanding in the front garden of the property. The application was refused for the following reason:

‘The reduction in the amount of soft landscaping and the corresponding increased level and prominence of the hardstanding in the front garden of the property would harm the character and amenities of the property, the street scene and the GardenCity. The proposal is therefore harmful to the amenities and values of WelwynGarden City and is contrary to Policy EM4 of the Estate Management Scheme’.

The subject property was a mid- terrace dwelling in a narrow and deep plot located

on the north western side of Wren Wood. The property was set back from the back edge of the pavement by around six metres while the front garden was around 70% laid as hardstanding with grass growing between the spaced paving stones in the front right hand area of the garden. There was a hedge on the north eastern boundary of the property, though this only extended to the front half of the front garden. There was no hedge across the front of the property.

The street scene comprised terraces of dwellings of various lengths which provided a fairly uniform appearance to the street. A number of the properties on the road had hedges along part of their frontages. A number of properties had 100% (or very close to) hardstanding in their front gardens.

The application sought the replacement and enlargement of the hardstanding at the property. The proposal would result in less than 10% of the front garden remaining as soft landscaping with only a small area of lawn close to the front of the two storey element of the dwelling. The full frontage of the property would remain open and there would be no hedging or planting along it.

A late representation of photographic evidence had been received from the appellant.

Mr D. Speed, appellant, spoke in favour of his appeal saying that there was a problem with parking in the area. Other roads had parking on both sides but this was not the case for Wren Wood. The proposal would improve the image of the property and many neighbouring properties already had hardstanding. The garage was unsuitable for modern cars and visitors were unable to park close to the property. The shrubs and laurel hedge would remain.

Ms Sennett spoke as an objector saying, that she was not opposed to the proposal but did have concerns. She felt that the laurel hedge could be pruned back by 18 inches but 50% of the soft landscaping should be left intact. The garage was suitable for a mid-sized car. The impact of the kerb being dropped would be the loss of a car parking space for other residents. There would be a reduction of light, additional noise disturbance and fumes if cars were parked on the proposed hardstanding.

Members acknowledged that there were parking problems in the area and were sympathetic to the appellant. They suggested a compromise could be found if the appellant put in a new application where some soft landscaping was retained.

It was proposed and seconded by Councillors F.Thomson and M.Cowan.

RESOLVED

(Unanimous)

That the delegated decision be upheld and the appeal dismissed.