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

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, alterations of elevations and the removal of a front hedge.

In particular the proposal sought to erect a porch with a new front door on the front elevation and to replace an existing door on the side elevation with a window.

The properties within Lady Grove followed a pattern in that, the front entrances were often located on the side elevations of semi-detached and end of terrace dwellings in the street.

The key issue in the determination of the appeal was the impact of the proposed development upon the amenities and values of the Garden City contrary to Policy EM1. 

Policy EM1 of the Estate Management Scheme (EMS) stated that extensions and alterations would only be allowed where the works were in keeping with the design, appearance, materials and architectural detail used in the existing building, and would not harm the amenities and values of the area.

The application was refused on the 29 May 2018 for the following reason:

“The proposed front porch and the part removal of front boundary hedge would not be in keeping with the host dwelling, the area and its immediate context and would be detrimental to the amenities and values of the existing area.  Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to Policy EM1 of the Welwyn Garden City Estates Management Scheme”.

The appellant stated in their letter of appeal (Appendix 2 of the report) that the existing hedge was uneven, did not match the neighbours hedges and some properties had no hedge at all.  Creating a porch over the existing door on the side elevation of the property would restrict access to their garage and impose on the shared driveway. 

The appellant was in attendance and, in addition to the points made in their letter of appeal, said that:

•      The same case officer handled the original application as well as the appeal, and thus was biased.

•      Other properties in the area had been granted permission to alter their front porches.

The Chairman advised the appellant that the case would have been dealt with fairly and the Panel highlighted the following points:

•      Properties which had been granted permission were designed as a block and therefore did not set a precedent.

•      Creating a porch at the front of the property could restrict parking further as well as causing asymmetry of the semi-detached block of which the property was part of.

•      No substantial additional evidence or information had been put forward by the appellant which would alter the Officer’s recommendation.

The Panel encouraged the appellant to revisit their designs to make another application that was more acceptable to the EM Scheme.

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

RESOLVED:

(unanimously)

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