Agenda item

The report of the Head of Planning sets out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management Consent for the extension of the driveway and removal of front boundary hedge.

The report of the Executive Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) set out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management Consent for the extension of the driveway and removal of front boundary hedge.

The application was refused due to the hardstanding area and loss of part of the hedge to the front of the dwelling, which would result in an unbalanced frontage with excessive hardstanding and insufficient soft landscaping which would erode and would be inconsistent with the immediate character of Fearnley Road and the surrounding Garden City.  Accordingly, the proposal would be detrimental to the values and amenities of this part of the Garden City contrary to Policies EM3 and EM4 of the Estate Management Scheme.  The original application sought retrospective Estate Management consent for an extended driveway and removal of hedgerow on the front boundary to facilitate a driveway.

The report noted that within the supporting text to Policy EM4, it outlines that the Council will aim to ensure that a significant proportion, around 50% unless individual circumstances indicate that this would not be appropriate, of the frontage would be retained as landscaped ‘greenery’ to retain the appearance and ethos of the Garden City.

The key issue in the determination of this appeal was the impact on the amenities and values of the subject property, the surrounding area and Welwyn Garden City.

Members expressed a view that the hardstanding area was too large and that the garage to the property provides one parking space.  The size of modern garages was discussed and it was felt that some garages could not accommodate a modern family car.

The case had been advanced by the appellant who was in attendance, in support of the appeal which had highlighted a number of reasons for the enlarged driveway and the partial removal of the hedgerow along the front boundary. These included:

-       To enable the appellant to accommodate two cars on the driveway – previously there was parking for one car.

-       Parking restrictions on Fearnley Road which prohibits cars parking on the road Monday to Saturday 9am to 11am.

-       The plan submitted was the minimum space allowed for the parking of two cars and the other hardstanding areas along Fearnley Road which appear to have extended their driveways by more than 50%

The appellant highlighted that he was not the owner of the property when the parking review work programme was carried out and that he would not have carried out any work without consulting the Council, which he did and he was sent to Highways.  He also advised that he sought advice from a Council recommended company to carry out the hardstanding area works.  It was confirmed that the Council does not recommend companies for such works.  The appellant also stated that the development scheme has been developed in the 1950s/1960s and felt to be not fit for current purposes.

 Members discussed that the County Council need to be contacted in respect of the cross over, as the grass verge was being damaged by vehicles constantly driving over.

In response to the comments from Members and the appellant it was suggested that the appellant contact the Principal Development Management Officer (North) to seek a way forward satisfactorily for both parties.

It was moved by Councillor M Cowan, seconded by Councillor M Larkins and

            RESOLVED

            (4 voting for, 2 against)

            That the delegated decision be upheld and the appeal dismissed.