Agenda item


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 retention of a front door and double garage doors.


Members were introduced to James Homer, who will be leading on the Estate Management Scheme (EMS) and the Design Guide.


The report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) set out the appeal against the refusal of Estate Management (EM) consent for the retention of front door and double garage doors.  No 56 Valley Road is a two storey link detached dwelling sited amongst similar type dwellings set with spacious plots and open frontages.  The properties along this road have a consistent style of fenestration and architectural detailing.  The fenestration is predominately white with a small number of doors in pale pastel colours.


There were three objectors and they wished for the decision to be withheld and expressed concerns relating to the design of the replacement doors and suggestions of alterations that have been mentioned within the Appeal cover letter; which included a change of colour, removal of chrome handles and adding beading to the glass panels.


The key issue in the determination of this appeal was the impact of the proposed replacement front and garage doors on the values and amenities of the surrounding area.  The impact on the residential amenity of adjoining occupiers was considered acceptable.  Policy EM1 of the Estate Management Scheme states that extension and alterations to existing buildings would only be allowed if they were in keeping with the design, appearance, materials and architectural detailing used in the existing building and do not have a detrimental impact on the amenities and values of the surrounding area.


The report noted that the case had been advanced by the appellant in support of their appeal.  It was mentioned in the supporting of the appeal that there are many different colours and styles of front and garage doors along Valley Road and the surrounding Estate Management Area therefore they do not believe that their doors fail to maintain and enhance the amenities and values of the Garden City.  No evidence had been submitted to support their claims.  However, it was acknowledged that there were a variety of door colours within the vicinity of the site.  Generally the design of those doors have a more traditional style and appearance with glazed panels.


The applicant also stated that they had discussions with the installer about making alterations to the door.  Details of these alteration have not been submitted.  The Officer advised that any alterations proposed would require a separate Estate Management application to be made and an assessment made in that regard.  The doors in question fail to maintain and enhance the amenities and values of the Garden City.


Members commented that the design and colour of the front door and garage doors was out of keeping with the overall character and appearance of the property and the street scene.  It would not respect the architectural style of the property and therefore visually altering the appearance of the property with a detrimental effect.


It was noted that solicitors should advice at the time of the purchase of the property that the dwelling is in an Estate Management Scheme area and therefore any alternations to the property would require EM consent.  The Panel noted that the EMS Design Guide had been produced and would be out for consultation on 24 June 2019.


A Member suggested that it may be helpful for residents if an article could be published in the Life magazine advising of the EMS.  It was also suggested that if Members note any unacceptable changes to the character of dwellings in the EM area that they should inform the Officers to help maintain the Garden City ethos.


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





That the delegated decision be upheld and the appeal dismissed


Supporting documents: