Agenda item

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) sets out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management Consent for the replacement of an existing conservatory.

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance), which set out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management Consent for the replacement of an existing conservatory.

The application (reference: 6/2018/0110/EM) was refused on 09 March 2018 for the following reason:

“The proposal, by virtue of its solid pitched roof design, would not be in keeping with the character and appearance of the application property and the surrounding properties and streetscene. It would fail to represent high quality design, and would be detrimental to the amenities and values of the Garden City.  Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary to Policy EM1 of the Estate Management Scheme.”

The property has a rear conservatory that was granted Estate Management consent in 2005 (ref: W6/2005/0360/EM).

The proposal sought consent for the replacement of the existing conservatory with a new conservatory type extension of the same size and footprint. Instead of having a glass roof, the new structure would have contemporary grey panels combined with glass on the roof. The new frames would be white upvc with glass and brick elevations.

This was an appeal against the refusal of EM consent. The Appellant’s letter of appeal was attached at Appendix 1, and the original Officer’s report for application reference 6/2018/0110/EM, was attached at Appendix 2.

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

Whilst there was no objection to the principle of a replacement conservatory, the refusal related specially to the introduction of a more solid form of roof.  In the Garden City single storey extension were generally expected to be designed with a flat roof which would limit the impact of the development on the rear elevation and maintain a consistency with the design and appearance of single storey extensions.  Generally, extensions with a solid pitch roof forms were not consistent with the style of flat roofed single storey extension which were prolific within Welwyn Garden City’s Estate Management areas.

The Appellant made reference to various applications for pitched single storey extension within the Estate Management area.  It was noted that in this regard none of the cases set precedent for the replacement conservatory with a solid roof as proposed.  All the examples cited were for flat roof extension which were considered acceptable in the Estate Management area.

It was agreed that the proposal would fail to enhance the appearance of the existing property given its pitched roof design with a more solid roof form.  The conservatory extension would appear out of keeping with the property and the surrounding properties and form an overly dominant form to the rear of the dwelling which would be unacceptable.

The Panel were shown a sample of the type of roof proposed and it was suggested that the Appellant works with Officers to agree a suitable balance of glass and solid panels for the proposed conservatory roof.  A number of photographs were viewed. The Chairman clarified that there was roof in the vicinity which had been granted permission by error and no further explanations were made on the property in question.

Members commented on the type of glass that could be used to ensure that the conservatory benefited from the thermal efficiencies of new materials.

It was moved by Councillor A.Chesterman, seconded by Councillor H.Bower and

RESOLVED:

(unanimously)

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