Agenda item

Report of the Executive Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) sets out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management Consent for a replacement front door.

The report of the Executive Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) set out an appeal against the refusal of the Estate Management Consent for the replacement of the front door.

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

The report noted that the appeal dwelling hosted neo-Georgian characteristics of a typical Welwyn Garden City dwelling, in terms of materials, Georgian glazing design as well as distinct architectural features including the front porch.  The front porches along Woodhall Lane, which include pitch and flat roofs and form part of the uniformity of these properties and therefore being a prominent feature that contribute to the character and appearance of part of this streetscene.  The design and style of front doors vary in Woodhall Lane, although the original style of Georgian style glazing was still apparent within a number of properties within the streetscene.  It was noted that the existing front door at the appeal property was not the original front door, however, it was considered to be in keeping with the streetscene given it is white in colour and with regard to its neutral, traditional and simplistic design.  The existing white front door and white front porch were considered to contribute positively to the values and amenities of the area.

The proposed design of the new front door in Woodhall Lane would result in an inappropriate and incongruous addition which would be unacceptable and have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the appeal property, the row of terrace properties in which it is located and the surrounding streetscene.  There had been no additional evidence or information put forward by the Appellant which would add or alter the Officer’s recommendation.  Therefore the proposed design of the door would cause harm to the values and amenities of the area and the proposal fails to accord with Policy EM1 of the Welwyn Garden City Estate Management Scheme.

The Appellant attended the meeting and stated that he was not aware of the Estate Management Scheme at the time the order was placed for the door.  He further added that he had spent £600 on the new door and further funding was required as he has not been able to fit the door.  He specified that there were various types/styles of doors in the neighbourhood and photographs were supplied. Members had sympathy for the Appellant but also noted the need to advocate the Estate Management Scheme.

Members commended on the depth of the front garden and the impact the proposed door would have on the streetscene.  It was noted that there had been no objections from neighbours.  The Chairman clarified that it was the responsibility of the Appellant’s solicitor as the time of the purchase of the property to notify the vendor of the Estate Management Scheme.  The Panel noted that there had been an issue relating to another front door some time ago.

Members also discussed the issue of creating a conservation area but this had been turned down in the past.  A discussion ensued on having A Design Guide, creating a conservation area for the Estate Management Scheme area and providing residents with the Estate Management Scheme material periodically as a reminder of the Scheme. 

Officers advised that a conservation area would not offer any further protection to the Estate Management Scheme area, as this was a separate Scheme.  The Design Guide was on the agenda and had been reported to Cabinet in November 2017.  It was unfortunate that the photographs that had been supplied had no addresses so therefore no action was currently being taken.

The Panel enquired about the number enforcement actions taken in the past year.  It was reported approximately 200 investigation were open and a significant number of cases going to arbitration.   Officers clarified that enforcement action can only be taken once breaches were brought to the Council’s attention.

It was moved by Councillor J. Beckerman, seconded by Councillor S. Markiewicz and

RESOLVED

(4 voting for, 3 against)

That the recommendation be refused and the appeal allowed.