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 removal of a chimney stack.

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

31 Howicks Green was a two storey end of terrace dwelling with a pitched roof and within a row of three dwellings, situated on a corner plot. Howicks Green was located off Howlands and characterised with semi-detached and terraced properties with many having regularly spaced brick built chimneys.

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.

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

“The demolition of the chimney stack is considered to be inappropriate and out of keeping with the style of the host dwelling and this part of Howicks Green. The proposed development would detract from the character and appearance of the host dwelling and neighbouring properties and fails to maintain and enhance the amenities and values of this part of the Garden City and is therefore not compliant with policy EM1 of the Estate Management Scheme and the Council’s approach to roof alterations”.

The appellant stated in their letter of appeal (Appendix 1 of the report)  that other properties within the area had removed chimneys, such as No. 4 Howicks Green and No. 218 Howlands.

The Officer’s view was that there was no EM application history with regards to the two addresses and no compelling justification given to support the application. No additional evidence or information had been put forward by the appellant which would alter the Officer’s recommendation.

The appellant was in attendance and said before the Panel that:

•      It was the first time she had seen written documentation which explained the reason her application had been refused.

•      She accepted that the proposal would harm the character of the area but the area as whole had been comprised anyway.

•      There were no objections from her neighbours.

Councillor J.Weston made a representation and told the Panel that:

•      The EM Scheme and its subsequent enforcement was inconsistent: Chimneys had been removed in the vicinity of 31 Howicks Green without consent.

•      Without consistent enforcement residents would perceive the EM Scheme as unfair.

•      The EM Scheme was poorly managed by the Council and there had been poor communication. No decision letter had been sent out to the appellant and they had believed that the Certificate of Lawfulness was consent.

•      An Officer had told the appellant that it would take time and money to appeal and they could guarantee that she would not get permission.

The Chairman advised that the properties who had removed chimney stacks did not have consent and would subsequently be passed onto Planning Enforcement.

The Development Management Service Manager advised those present of the following:

•      The Certificate of Lawfulness applied to permitted development and not the EM application.

•      The usual process was that a routine decision notice was sent to the applicant which explained the reason for a decision and that the decision was subsequently put on the Council’s website. 

•      It was not unusual for Officers to advise applicants and in this case a removal of a chimney stack in the EM area is usually refused.

The Officer explained to the appellant that the Planning team would be in touch with the appellant to discuss how her case was managed.

The Panel agreed that it was inappropriate to remove chimney stacks as it would destroy the symmetry of buildings. It could be permissible if there were structural reasons to do so and in which case the erection of a false chimney was often permitted.

In addition, the Panel said that inconsistency was not an argument in the case or any other, and that if public had seen development without consent in an EM area then they could bring it to the Council’s attention.

It was moved by Councillor H.Bromley, seconded by Councillor M.Cowan and

RESOLVED:

(unanimously)

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