Agenda item

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

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 replacement of an existing conservatory.

The appeal site was a detached two storey dwelling which formed part of a collection of nine properties of similar styles in Rosedale. Six of the nine properties had single storey extensions/conservatories. Of the six, two had flat roofs and four had conservatories. 

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 a mixture of contemporary grey panels combined with glass on the roof. The new frames would be white upvc with glass and brick elevations.

Whilst there was no objection to the principle of a replacement conservatory, the refusal related to the introduction of a more solid form of roof. Single storey extensions were expected to be designed with a flat roof which limited the impact of the development on rear elevations and maintained a consistency with the design and appearance of single storey extensions.

The proposal would not be in keeping with the character and appearance of the application property and the surrounding properties and street scene 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.

Ms. Hutchinson spoke on behalf of the applicant. She highlighted that the previous application had a larger proportion of a solid roof form and the proposed roof was energy efficient. Ms. Hutchinson pointed out that other properties in the area had solid roof conservatories that had been approved and that she had a list of neighbours with no objections to the proposal. She also said they had had conflicting advice from Officers.

The following points were raised by Members and discussed:

·         If there was a solid roof then perhaps it would be better classed as a ground floor extension. The Development Management Service Manager agreed with the point in principle and that there was tension with some of the EM schemes details.  Ground floor extensions required a flat roof under the scheme.

·         That if the conservatory could not be noticed due to the applicants’ hedge, then there was no detrimental impact on the street scene. The Development Management Service Manager advised that, if the appeal was allowed, the Panel could recommend the height of the hedge as an informative rather than a condition.

·         The conservatory could have a visual impact. The Development Management Service Manager advised that it was not considered to harm the living conditions of neighbours.

·         The key issue was the use of solid roof on the conservatory as a matter of principle.

It was then moved by Councillor H.Bromley, seconded by Councillor H.Bower and

RESOLVED

(4 Voting For and 2 Against)

That Members dismiss the appeal, in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

The chairman thanked all Officers for their hard work over the municipal year and to the Members of the Panel.