Agenda item

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) setting out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management (EM) Consent for the installation of two dormer windows within the front roof slope of 8 Valley Road.

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) setting out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management (EM) Consent for the installation of two dormer windows within the front roof slope of 8 Valley Road.

The report noted that No.8 Valley Road was a two storey detached property located on the western side of the street. The property had an open frontage with areas of hardstanding and soft landscaping. The property occupied a prominent position with the street scene.

The application sought Estate Management Scheme consent to install two dormer windows within the front elevation of the main building.  An application to install similar front dormer windows was submitted in 2018 and subsequently refused due to the impact they would have upon the property and the wider street scene.

The current application was refused on the 10 December 2020 for the following reason: 

“Although the windows would mirror glazing bar pattern of the existing windows, it is considered that the introduction of front dormer windows would detract from the simple, unaltered and uninterrupted roof form of the existing dwelling, which would disrupt the uniformity amongst the dwellings of similar design within this locality. The proposed dormers are considered an incongruous addition that would be unduly prominent and result in a harmful impact upon the original design of the house and the wider street scene. As a result, the application fails to comply with Policy EM1 of the Estate Management Scheme.”

It should be noted that the associated planning application was also refused but allowed on appeal on 24 June 2021.

To support their appeal, the appellant referenced the design statement submitted with the original application that identified a number of properties within Welwyn Garden City that had similar front facing dormers. However, the majority do not have a record of the change and it could be considered either part of the original home or unauthorised additions. There were two properties that had front facing dormers granted consent under the Estate Management Scheme:

•      50 Church Road – two front dormers approved in 1997.

•      53 Parkway – single front dormer approved in 2005.

The appellant had stated that comments from the refused applications in 2018 had been incorporated into the design, scaling and placement of the dormers within the application and that this had not be reviewed and considered by the officer. The officer report acknowledged that the proposed dormers would be equally spaced and located to align with the vertical spacing between the ground and first floor windows. However, front dormers can only be considered acceptable in areas where it can be demonstrated that they are a common feature within the street scene. Although the appellant has offered examples from across the wider area, it was considered that front dormers were not a common feature within this area of Valley Road.

A planning application for the front dormers was allowed at appeal, however the inspectorate made this decision based on local and national planning policy which did not include the Estate Management Scheme.  The appeal should only be considered against the policies of the Welwyn Garden City Estate Management Scheme and therefore the outcome from the planning appeal does not add weight to the appeal.

The key issue in the determination of this appeal is the impact the proposed dormer windows would have on the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area.

Mr D.Wheeler, Agent, spoke on behalf of appellant, stating that his client and family have lived at the property for 22 years and are passionate about the garden city. All previous works carried out at the property have been done with due regard to the heritage of the house and to respect the surrounding streetscene. The application was for conservation dormers not Velux windows.  There have been no objections raised by neighbours, local heritage societies or councillors on the application. The Senior Built Heritage consultant confirmed the proposal was not out of character with the house. Mr Wheeler also stated that the Secretary of State’s planning inspectorate who upheld the planning appeal in June 2021 advised that front dormer windows are indeed an original feature of that end of Valley Road as well as many other garden city properties. Mr Wheeler also believed that the appeal hearing should place importance in due consideration on the Secretary of State’s planning inspectorate comments and considerations made whilst upholding the appeal.

During discussion, the following points were raised:

•Members thought that the front dormer windows would not be out of character in the area and would have no effect on the streetscene.

•Members also noted that on the top part of Valley Road there were a number of houses that had different features on their properties. For example, ivy covering homes, white coloured houses and brick houses.

•In response to Member questions, Officers stated that allowing the appeal would be viewed as a one off decision and would not impact the policies and design guides in place. However permitting this appeal could have a baring on decisions made for Estate Management Scheme consent on future applications involving front dormer windows.

Given the views expressed by Members during the debate, the proposal was for the Committee to reject the Officer recommendations and allow the appeal. It was proposed and seconded by Councillors A.Hellyer and L.Musk and

RESOLVED:

(unanimous)

Members rejected the officer recommendation to uphold the delegated decision and dismiss the appeal.