Agenda item

Report of the Executive Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) sets out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management Consent for the conversion of the loft and the installation of a rear facing dormer and roof lights to the front elevation.

The report of Executive Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) set out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management Consent for the conversion of the loft and the installation of a rear facing dormer and roof lights to the front elevation.

The application was refused for the following reasons:

1. The rear dormer window is unacceptable by virtue of its extent, siting and dominant appearance on the rear roof slope of the dwelling which is overtly visible from the street scene of Bushey Ley and Dodwood. The dormer would result in a visually discordant and incongruous feature that would be detrimental to the appearance of the streetscene, failing to maintain and enhance the amenities and values of the Garden City in accordance with Policy EM1 of the Estate Management Scheme.

2. By virtue of the proposed number, siting and appearance of the roof lights they would form an uncharacteristic addition to the front roof slope of the property that, given the visibility of the front roof slope this would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the application property and the street scene. The proposal would fail to maintain and enhance the values and amenities of Welwyn Garden City contrary to Policy EM1 of the Estate Management Scheme.

The key issue in the determination of this appeal was the impact of the development on the amenities and values of the surrounding area.  The impact on the residential amenity of adjoining occupiers was judged to be acceptable.

It was noted that the appellant had made reference to property numbers 50, 56 and 68 located on Great Ganett, as these properties featured rear facing dormer windows, these were located on a different street approximately 250m away and were not visible neither were they immediately close to the host site. Officers advised that these properties did not set a precedent within Bushey Ley and surrounding area.  With regard to the front facing roof light, these were not a typical feature within the street scene of Bushey Ley.  The main concern was the impact of roof lights on the appearance of the terrace of properties which would be visible from Bushey Ley.

Whilst the appellant had suggested the removal of the front facing roof lights which would be a positive benefit to the scheme.  The Panel were advised that no alterations had been proposed to the dormer window, which would harm the values and amenities of the Garden City as outlined above.

Additionally in order to be able to manage the amount of requests for roof alterations and energy efficiency measures together with alterations to windows and doors it was felt that a design guide be created, as this would help applicants.

It was noted that recent all over hardstanding areas at various locations in Great Ganett, some of which had been referred to by the appellant and may have been constructed without consent should be investigated by Officers.

Members upheld the original refusal of consent. Members considered that smaller dormer windows may be acceptable on the rear elevation, subject to consideration of details, but found the current proposal to be unacceptable. 

It was moved by Councillor M. Cowan, seconded by Councillor A. Chesterman and

            RESOLVED

            (6 voting for, 1 abstention)

            That the delegated decision be upheld and the appeal dismissed.