Agenda item - 4 THE COMMONS, WELWYN GARDEN CITY, AL7 4RP - 6/2018/0205/EM - ERECTION OF FRONT PORCH

Agenda item

4 THE COMMONS, WELWYN GARDEN CITY, AL7 4RP - 6/2018/0205/EM - ERECTION OF FRONT PORCH

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) which sets out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management Consent for the erection of a front porch.

Minutes:

The report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) set out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management Consent for the erection of a front porch.

 

The appellant’s letter of appeal was attached at Appendix 1, and the original Officer’s report for application reference 6/2018/0205/EM, was attached at Appendix 2.

 

The report noted that the appeal property was a two storey, mid terrace dwelling located centrally on the west side of The Commons.  The property, along with the two other terrace dwellings which it adjoined, were designed with distinctive and symmetrical architectural features (such as fenestrations, chimneys and door surrounds).  The appeal property did not have a front porch and included a door surround painted white with a small flat overhang. The architectural detailing was replicated on both of the two adjoining properties in that row of terraces. All of these features could be viewed from the street and contributed positively to the character and appearance of the appeal property and the row of terraces and surrounding street scene. 

 

Members were informed that, in contrast, the proposed front porch would be brick built and enclosed and would extend across a large proportion of the front of the house and project beyond the existing front of the house.  It would appear as a large and bulky addition, completely at odds with the architectural appearance of the existing front door and an incongruous addition that would fail to maintain the values and amenities of the appeal property, the row of properties it was located in and the amenities and values of the Garden City.

 

The Appellant attended the meeting and stated the following:

 

      Other porches had been granted consent.

      That the proposed porch had taken the appearance other porches into account and was designed in keeping with the existing dwellings.

      That the proposal was in keeping with the existing front porches of properties Nos. 3, 5, 7 and 9.

      That consent had been granted for a side extension at No.6 which visually changed the terrace.

      That the porch would be below the height required for planning permission.

 

In response, Officers reiterated that each case must be considered on its own merits and Members strongly agreed that porches in nearby streets did not set a precedent and moreover, those at properties Nos. 3, 5, 7 and 9 were part of the original design.

 

In addition, Members noted that the porch was below the height required for planning permission under permitted development but this did not apply with the Estate Management Scheme.

 

Members had every sympathy for the Appellant for going through the correct process of making an Estate Management application and appearing before the panel but not meeting the right criteria for consent.  Moreover, many residents modified their properties without consent and this understandably create a sense of injustice and frustration. That said, Members noted, in many cases residents had to remove modifications to their property retrospectively which cost money and also residents could have an issue selling their property without the correct paper work.  

 

Members agreed that more ought to be done with regards to those who have disregarded the Estate Management Scheme and acknowledge that a number of breaches of the Estate Management Scheme were outstanding and could not be investigated immediately due to limited resources of the Planning Enforcement Team.  

 

Next, a discussion followed with regards to the apparent incompatibility of the Estate Management Scheme with the needs of modern living, in particular the requirements for car parking (i.e. hardstanding) and additional space (i.e. porches).

 

Officers advised the Panel that the Council was in the process of revising the Estate Management Scheme and had consulted residents in early 2017. The result was that the majority wanted to maintain the scheme but the administration of the scheme could be improved.  A new Design Guide, which specified what was and was not likely to be acceptable under the scheme, was in the process of being produced and it was hoped it would assist in in balancing garden city principles with the needs of modern residents.

 

In summary no additional evidence or information had been put forward by the Appellant which would add or alter the Officer’s recommendation. Subsequently, the proposed porch would cause harm to the values and amenities of the area and failed to accord with Policy EM1 of the Welwyn Garden City Estate Management Scheme.

 

It was moved by Councillor M.Cowan, seconded by Councillor N.Pace and

 

RESOLVED:

(unanimous)

 

That the Members uphold the delegated decision and dismiss the appeal.

Supporting documents: