Agenda item

Report of the Director (Governance).

This was an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management Consent for the extension of the driveway, removal of flowerbed and small wall at this property.  The application had been refused for the following reason:

‘the extent of the hard surfacing and lack of soft landscaping results in an adverse impact within the street scene and detrimentally impacts the amenities and values of the Estate Management area.  The proposal therefore fails to comply with Policy EM3 of the Estate Management Scheme Policies.’

The key issue in the determination of this appeal was the impact on the amenities and values of the surrounding area having due regard to Policies EM3 and EM4 of the Estate Management Scheme. The impact on the residential amenity of adjoining occupiers was judged to be acceptable.

Policy EM4 of the Estate Management Scheme referred to proposals for hardsurfacing and the removal of excessive areas or prominent landscaping such as trees and hedges could over time erode the character of an area. The Council only allowed for hardsurfacing in front gardens for the parking of private motor vehicles where sufficient soft ‘green’ landscaping (grass, flower beds, shrubs, trees and hedges) and a sufficient length of hedgerow (if applicable) along the frontage of the property was retained or provided to reduce the visual prominence of parked vehicles. Policy EM3 of the Estate Management Scheme referred to works to trees and hedgerows only being allowed where the works would not result in the loss of landscaping which would harm the character and amenities of the area.

The policy aimed to ensure that a significant proportion, 50% of the frontage was retained as landscaped ‘greenery’ to retain the appearance and ethos of the Garden City unless individual circumstances indicated that this would not be appropriate.

The host dwelling had an existing hardstanding, however no Estate Management Consent could be found for this in Council records and the proposal was an additional area of hardstanding. There was an error within the Officer report which stated that a hardstanding was granted in 1992, however no history could be found in relation to any EMS consent for a hardstanding. A hedgerow running the depth of the frontage could be seen to the side boundary with No.102 Cole Green Lane. 

The appellant was in attendance and had highlighted a number of reasons for the enlarged driveway and the removal of the flowerbed and small wall. It was cited that the tree within the grassed verge caused the existing driveway to lift and resultant damage to the house, the driveway was renewed and a slight extension of the driveway was made. Whilst repairs to a damaged driveway and property were not objectionable, the extension of the driveway required Estate Management Consent. This was not sought by the appellant who apologised as they did not know that consent was required. 

The appellant had also stated that the extended driveway was required for wheelchair access. Although the Council sympathised with the appellant’s circumstances, a disabled parking space would need to measure only 3.6m x 4.8m. Accordingly, it was considered that suitable parking could be provided within the frontage and a more substantial area of soft landscaping provided in order to soften the impact on the site frontage.

The appellant’s appeal statement also made reference to properties within Marley Road where double driveways could be seen and that two neighbours opposite on Cole Green Lane had been allowed new driveways. Whilst there might be properties within Marley Road where larger driveways could be seen, regrettably some of these properties had undertaken works without Estate Management Consent and therefore should not set a precedent for sites elsewhere. Furthermore, Marley Road presented a different street scene to Cole Green Lane and this appeal should be assessed within its character and context.  Properties on the opposite side of Cole Green Lane were not in the Estate Management Scheme area and therefore EMS consent was not required.

It was considered that the proposal would result in a detrimental impact on the character of the immediate street scene sufficient to warrant a refusal and that the proposal would fail to maintain and enhance the amenities and values of the Garden City.

The proposal, by virtue of the extent of hard surfacing resulted in a harsh appearance within the street scene. Furthermore, the hardstanding created an unbalanced appearance and a lack of vegetation within the frontage and along the front boundary. This resultant situation impacted the street scene adversely and the proposal would have a detrimental impact upon the visual amenities of the area at odds with policy. As such, the proposal failed to comply with the provisions of Policies EM3 and EM4 of the Estates Management Scheme.

It was moved by Councillor M.Birleson, seconded by Councillor M.Larkins and

RESOLVED:

(5 voting for and 1 against)

That the delegated decision be upheld and the appeal dismissed and that additionally, enforcement action be progressed.