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 erection of a front porch and the replacement of the existing front door.

The report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on the erection of front porch to replace existing including the replacement of the existing front door.  The appeal site is a two storey end terrace dwelling house, located on the northern side of Uplands; close to the junction with Holly Walk and located in a row of four terrace houses.  The porches in this row of terraces all feature an open canopy over the front door of either flat or pitched roof design.

The key issue in the determination of this appeal was the impact of the proposed porch on the values and amenities of the surrounding areas.  The impact on the residential amenity of adjoining occupiers was considered to be acceptable.

The case had been advanced by the appellant in support of their appeal.  This included:

1.    Following the first refusal, the porch was redesigned to a brick structure with small side windows and a front door in keeping with the Garden City design principles.

2.    Historically, porches had been permitted across the Monkswood and Uplands Estate (as evidence in photographs included in both the appeal and the applications).

3.    Examples of applications which have been granted consent during the period of time between the two applications, as well as a side extension which was granted in February 2018 opposite the application site.

Members were advised that that the photographs had been provided by the appellant to demonstrate examples of approved extensions in the area.  The appellant referred to a front porch at 47 Uplands. The Officer explained that whilst this porch was approved under the scheme in 1997, the addition has removed an original feature which has diluted the character of the terrace and immediate area.  The presence of this porch was not considered to be a reason to justify a significant alteration to the porch canopy at the application site, which would further dilute the original Garden City design and character.  The Panel noted that the application at No 47 pre-dated the Estate Management policies which were introduced in 2008 with the aim of simplifying the scheme by creating a set of policies to guide decision making.

The Panel agreed that the proposal would fail to enhance the appearance of the existing property given its enclosed design, which appeared to be out of keeping with the host dwelling and the surrounding terrace of properties.  It would form an overly dominant form to the front of the dwelling which would be unacceptable and detrimental to the values and amenities of the appeal property.  Members commented that there needs to be consistency.  A brick built porch would be unacceptable.

Some concern was expressed in respect of not being able to identify the location of objectors from the paperwork; noted that in some cases there has been comments from distant areas which have no bearing on the proposal.

It was confirmed that the colour of the proposed door was not included as part of the application.

It was then moved by Councillor B. Fitzsimon, seconded by M. Cowan and

RESOLVED:

(Unanimously)

That the delegated decision be upheld and the appeal dismissed