The report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) sets out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management (EM) Consent for the retrospective erection of a two storey rear extension.

The report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) set out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management (EM) Consent for the retrospective erection of a two storey rear extension.

The property was a large two storey detached dwelling house located to the east of Handside Lane. The property featured a front gable and a flat roof front porch, a rear conservatory and side to rear garage built up to the northern boundary of the site.

Planning permission was originally granted in February 2016 (ref.  6/2015/2470/HOUSE) for a development of the same description. However, no Estate Management application was submitted for that development.  The development commenced and during the course of construction, it became apparent that the works were not entirely in accordance with the previously approved plans including:

·         An additional window serving an en-suite bathroom to bedroom three had been introduced at the first floor level in the northern side elevation (facing number 95 Handside Lane).

·         An additional window had been introduced in the southern side elevation at first floor level serving a bedroom (facing number 99 Handside Lane).

·         The existing permitted first floor window serving the landing in the southern elevation (facing number 99 Handside Lane) had been made smaller.

·         A gabled roof on the extension had been built when the approved plan for the planning application showed a hipped roof on the proposed side elevations but a gabled roof on the rear elevation (an inconsistency in the approved plans). The result of this is that either roof form could be constructed lawfully. 

The Estate Management application sought consent for the same development that was proposed under the planning application which included the above variation to the original two storey extension that was granted permission.

The first floor window in the northern elevation of the extension had clear glass and was openable and was not considered to have resulted in a detrimental loss of privacy for the occupants of number 95 Handside Lane and had not impacted on their residential amenity. The proposal was therefore in compliance with Policy EM1 of the Estate Management Scheme.

Officers recommended that the appeal be allowed subject to conditions which were circulated as a late item prior to the meeting.

The applicant, Mrs. M, advised the Committee that she became aware in June 2018 that her builders were working to different plans with additional windows and also that her surveyor had not sought Estate Management consent. Mrs. M also stated that several of her neighbours had direct and unobstructed views of her rear garden.

Mr. F spoke against the scheme, explaining that the bedroom view of the extension had a direct view into his living room and overlooked his patio. He felt it was greatly at odds with Council and government guidelines. In addition that the gable end roof had increased the roof height by one meter and had been built differently to what had been approved. Mr. F invited the Committee to visit the site.

In addition, Mr. W spoke against the scheme, explaining that the additional south facing window which overlooked their property had caused anxiety and such windows were not normally approved. Mr. W invited the Committee to visit the site.

Next Councillor M. Cowan spoke against the scheme and highlighted that the original application for planning permission ought not to have been approved.  In addition that the gable was oversize and industrial and out of keeping with the area. Although the windows were glazed, the light penetration on neighbouring properties and gardens had an impact. Councillor M. Cowan subsequently withdrew from the meeting, returning for the following item. 

The Chairman reminded the Committee to comment only on the appeal and not the original planning permission.

Officers confirmed that the additional windows were added but now the window facing number 95 was obscure glazed and fixed shut and the windows to the north did not result in an issue of loss of privacy for the neighbours.

The following points were raised and discussed by Members:

·         It did not seem right that residents could do a retrospective application for permission for something that should not have been allowed in the first place.

·         The issue of light pollution from the additional windows was raised, although it was understood that many residents had spot lights in the garden with no permission.

·         There was concern if Mr. F was overlooked. Officers confirmed the window in question was obscure glazed.

It was moved by Councillor L.Musk, seconded by Councillor H.Bower and

RESOLVED:

(5 voting For and 1 Against)

That Members allow the appeal, as per the Officers recommendation and subject to the following conditions:

1.    All works carried out in pursuance of this consent shall be and remain part of the Premises and shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the conveyance in all respects as if such works had at all times formed part of the Premises.

REASON:   To comply with the requirements of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 Estate Management Scheme for Welwyn Garden City.

2.    This consent or copy hereof shall be annexed to the Conveyance.

REASON:   To comply with the requirements of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 Estate Management Scheme for Welwyn Garden City.

3.    There shall be no encroachment over the boundary of the plot either above or below ground level, nor any interference with the foundations of the adjoining property without the agreement of the adjoining owner or lessee.

REASON:   To comply with the requirements of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 Estate Management Scheme for Welwyn Garden City.

4.    This consent now issued is given by the Council only in accordance with the requirements of the Management Scheme/Conveyance or Leasehold Covenants.

REASON:   To comply with the requirements of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 Estate Management Scheme for Welwyn Garden City.

5.    The windows in the southern elevation of bedroom three and the landing (both looking towards 99 Handside Lane) shall be retained as obscured glazed and non- opening below 1.8m above internal floor level.

REASON:   In the interests of the privacy and amenity of the occupiers of the neighbouring and surrounding properties.

6.    The window in the northern elevation of the en-suite bathroom to bedroom three (looking towards 95 Handside Lane) shall be retained as obscure glazed and non- opening below 1.8m above internal floor level. 

REASON:   In the interests of the privacy and amenity of the occupiers of the neighbouring property.