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 erection of a single storey rear extension.

The report of the Executive Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) set out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management Consent for the erection of a single storey rear extension. 

The report noted that the original application sought Estate Management consent for the erection of a rear extension with a height of approximately 3.7m, an eaves height of approximately 2.3m and a width of approximately 6.1m.  Its proposed depth was approximately 3.5m.  The extension was designed with a solid pitched room with three rooflights.

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

Whilst there was no objection to the principle of a single storey rear extension to the property, the refusal related especially to the introduction of a full width extension with a pitched roof.  In the Garden City single storey extensions are generally expected to be designed with a flat roof which is there to limit the impact of the development on the rear elevation and maintain a consistency with the design and appearance of single storey extensions.

The appellant had highlighted a rear extension located at number 43 Broomhills.  This was granted consent in December 2015.  It was noted that the proposal ‘seeks to match the closet built extension that is a pitched roof and would therefore maintain the existing character and appearance of the area’.  The appellant had also made reference to another rear extension with a pitched roof at number 20 Windhill.  It was noted that this extension at number 20 Windhill was some distance from the appeal property. The extensions at neighbouring properties, with pitched roofs, were noted, but officers advised that these cases were anomalies which should not set a precedent for other properties.

It was felt that the full width extension, with a sloping roof, rather than a flat roof would represent a more dominant form of development to the rear of the row of properties.  The proposal was seen as not reflective of the character and appearance of the dwelling or the terrace and would have a detrimental impact on the amenities and values of the surrounding area and the Garden City as a whole and this conflicts with Policy EM1 of the Estate Management Scheme.

Members were concerned that a pitched roof on a single storey would set a precedence and the objections from officers should be upheld to protect the area.

It was moved by Councillor M Cowan, seconded by Councillor F Thomson and

RESOLVED

(5 voting for, 2 against)

That the delegated decision be upheld and the appeal dismissed.