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 formation of a hardstanding which would include the partial removal of the front hedgerow and the removal of a holly tree.

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 formation of a hardstanding which would include the partial removal of the front hedgerow and the removal of a holly tree.

The application (6/2019/1328/EM) was refused for the following reason: 

‘The proposed development would result in an excessive amount of hardstanding and a total absence of soft landscaping which together with the proposed fence would erode the street scene and be harmful to the values and amenities of the application site and this area of Welwyn Garden City. As a result, the proposal would fail to maintain the values and amenities of the Garden City and comply with Policies EM2, EM3 and EM4 of the Estate Management Scheme’. 

The subject property was a single storey detached dwelling and, at present, the house was accessed by a footpath to the street with the remainder of the frontage lined with a mature hedge. The remainder of the front garden being grassed with some significant mature trees and small areas of hardstanding. In addition, the front garden of the application site slopes down from the highway towards the main dwelling.

This area of Kirklands was verdant and characterised by mature trees and hedgerows typical of this area of the Garden City.

There was an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management Scheme Consent for the removal of a section of hedgerow, a holly tree and the formation of an area of hardstanding within the front garden of the appeal site.  The appellant’s letter of appeal and revised proposal was attached at Appendix 1 and the delegated Officer’s report for application 6/2019/1328/EM was attached at Appendix 2.

The applicant proposed the removal of a 2.6m section of the front boundary hedgerow, however, due to the inaccuracy of the plans and the extent of the proposed engineering works there was concern that the development would result in the significant loss of these mature hedgerows along the front and side boundaries and create an area that would appear overly exposed.

The appellant had highlighted that he had received support from neighbours and the parking issues faced during the day and overnight were a result of residents from Knightsfield and staff from the local primary school parking along Kirklands. The appellant stated that the narrowness of the road and the school drop off and pick up times compounded the situation. It was accepted that parking in the area can at times be difficult, however, this was not considered significant enough to allow the excessive removal of the hedgerows and holly tree within the application site.

The appellant has also submitted revised drawings with the appeal. The revised scheme proposed significant alterations, however, they cannot be considered as part of the appeal. It was noted that the revised proposal was unlikely to receive Estate Management Scheme consent due to the size of the hardstanding across the front of the site and its prominence within the street due to the engineering work required to create a level surface. In addition, the scope of the engineering works was likely to require planning permission.     

No additional evidence or information had been put forward by the appellant which would add to or alter the Officer’s recommendation.

Based on the inaccuracy of the plans regarding the extent, design and layout of the hardstanding proposed, together with the excessive removal of the front/side hedgerow and removal of the holly tree, it was felt that the proposal would not retain an appropriate balance between hard and soft landscaping and would erode and detract from the character and appearance of the appeal property and the street scene of this part of Kirklands.

Members acknowledged that there were parking problems in the area and were sympathetic to the appellant. The proposal was noted as being an engineering challenge. They suggested a compromise could be found if the appellant contacted the Officers for a discussion on the proposal.

RESOLVED:

(Unanimous)

That Members uphold the delegated decision and dismiss the appeal.