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 enlargement of a driveway.

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 enlargement of a driveway.

The application was refused on the 11 November 2019 for the following reason:

“It is considered that the development would result in an unacceptable amount of hard landscaping, contrary to policy EM3 and EM4 which in turn would have an unacceptable impact on the appearance and ethos of the Garden City.”

The proposal sought Estate Management Consent to extend the existing hardstanding on the frontage.

The proposed hardstanding would replace the existing soft landscaped area and extend the existing hardstanding across the frontage.  Additionally 0.5m of the front boundary hedge would also be removed.

There was an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management Consent.  The        appellant’s letter of appeal and supporting documents were attached at Appendix 1 and the original Officer’s report was attached at Appendix 2.

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.

The proposal would result in an unbalanced proportion of soft and hard landscaping at the property, detracting from the overall character of the area. In addition, the proposal would see the loss of some of the hedgerow at the front of the site, which cannot be justified in this instance. Furthermore, the loss of the hedgerow would result in the amount of hardstanding appearing more prominent within the street scene.

The appellant had provided photographic evidence of neighbouring properties with hardstanding areas. He highlighted that this cul-de-sac has an increasing number of vehicles requiring parking spaces. The property being positioned partly in the corner and angled has a relatively small frontage onto the street area compared with other properties.

Members felt that the area had lost a considerable amount of greenery and there was a great deal of hardstanding areas within this small place and therefore support the Officer’s recommendation. Concern was expressed in terms of historical unauthorised hardstanding areas. It was agreed that the Panel’s decision should be consistent. The Officer would look into the unauthorised hardstanding area and add these to the enforcement list.  Further concern was expressed in terms of enforcements being posed on residents who have purchased properties with unauthorised developments; especially in the current economic uncertainty.

A discussion ensued on the responsibility of this Panel and whether legal advice should be sought regarding enforcements.  Would it be possible to bring this matter to light during a sale/purchase of property searches during conveyancing? It was agreed that this matter be discussed at a Cross Party Group meeting.

(Note: Cllr F. Thomson had declared an interest and withdrew for this item. Minute 39 refers).

RESOLVED:

(Unanimous)

That Members uphold the delegated decision and dismiss the appeal.