Agenda and minutes

Estate Management Appeals Panel
Thursday 19th October 2017 7.30 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Campus East, Welwyn Garden City, Herts, AL8 6AE. View directions

Contact: Gurdip Paddan 01707 357349 Email: 

No. Item



To note any substitution of Members made in accordance with Council Procedure Rules 19-22.



The following substitutions of Panel Members had been made in accordance with Council Procedure Rules 19-22.


Councillor M Larkins for A Chesterman


Councillor J Weston for M Birleson




To note any apologies.


Apologies for absence were received from Councillors A Chesterman and M Birleson.



To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 24 August 2017 (previously circulated).



The minutes of the meeting held on 24 August 2017 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.



To note declarations of Members’ disclosable pecuniary interests, non-disclosable pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests in respect of items on this Agenda.



Councillor M. Cowan declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 22 in respect of 38 Furzefield Road, Welwyn Garden City.




Report of the Executive Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) sets out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management Consent for the retention of internal alterations and a roof light.



Additional documents:


The report of the Executive Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) set out an appeal against the refusal of the Estate Management Consent for the retention of internal alterations and a roof light. 


This appeal was originally scheduled to be determined at the previous Appeal Panel in August, however the appellant requested that the appeal be withdrawn and deferred to this Panel in order for the appellant to submit further information in support of the appeal.  This information consisted of a Design and Access Statement, which reiterated previous information submitted and included a) The location of the roof light as being on the ‘front elevation’ b) other examples of roof lights in the vicinity.


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


The report noted that the appeal dwelling was located within a row of terrace, cottage style dwellings situated around a pedestrian courtyard.  The principle elevation is considered to be that which faces into the courtyard as typical domestic features could be seen, those being the main door and porch.  Furthermore other properties within the terrace also have these features.


The Appellant attended the meeting and stated that the elevation in which the roof light had been installed was in fact at the rear elevation.  He further added that No 4 and the house on the left as you entered Fern Grove had ‘Velux window facing towards the road. The Panel were informed that the Velux window was professionally fitted.


A representative of the Digswell House Mews Management Company spoke against the development and objected to the Velux window that had been installed in the roof of the 3 Digswell House Mews. The roof light was considered to disrupt the roof slope and the wider roof line of this terrace row of properties, which retain their original period character.  The appearance of the roof light, regardless that is of a ‘conservation style’ was out of keeping with the design, appearance and contrary to the original architectural detailing used in the existing buildings.


Neighbours considered the proposed roof light to have been poorly executed and it was readily visible from the wider public realm although there are already a number of roof lights seen to various properties which were clearly visible from Fern Grove, as no approval appeared to have been granted as it was not considered that this sets a precedent for the area.


Members of the Panel had visited the area and supported the Officers’ recommendation and agreed that the proposed roof light dominated the front facing roof slope and would be readily visible with the public realm having a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area and the resultant appearance would not be in line with the values and amenities of the Garden City.


It was moved by Councillor M. Larkins, seconded by Councillor M. Cowan and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.



Report of the Executive Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) update Panel Members with regard to the arbitration cases that were put before the Panel on 24 August 2017.




The report of the Executive Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) updated the Panel with regard to arbitration cases that were put before the Panel on 24 August 2017.


Officers informed the Panel of a change to the recommendation such that the Panel’s agreement was sought to refer 72 Chequers to arbitration, as well as 11 The Moors.


It was also agreed that 176 Heronswood Road and 38 Furzefield Road would be removed from the update until 6 months before their respective dates for compliance.




73 Walnut Grove – The period for compliance has expired and the case will go to arbitration.


26 The Croft – A retrospective application has been submitted for consideration by the Council.  The application was currently invalid and owner has been contacted to provide the necessary information/documents to validate the application. To be determined by 4 December 2017.


251 Knightsfield – The owner has declined to participate in the arbitration process and has opted to carry out works to address the concerns raised against the development. They have been advised that the only way forward was to replace the roof lantern with a flat roof light and to reduce the height of the parapet wall to the level proposed under refused application. A response was awaited from the owner.


31 Sandpit Road – The owner has been contacted with regards to the requirement for a front hedge to be reinstated.  Compliance with the requirement was awaited.


7 Young’s Rise – Following extensive negotiation and threats of arbitration action, the owners have agreed to reinstate the chimney.   A compliance site visit on 31 August 2017 confirmed the chimney has been re-instated.


72 Chequers – The Panel were informed that no response has been received from the applicant and the case to be taken to arbitration.


176 Heronswood Road – The Enforcement Team will continue to monitor to ensure replacement chimney is implemented. There was concern raised in respect of the timescales.


19 Fearnley Road – Submission of a revised scheme for consideration was awaited and the Team was actively following the case.


38 Furzefield Road – Due to no specification of date by which the owner was required to undertake the soft landscaping other than to complete the development within 3 years of the decision date.  It was noted that no further action was being taken until nearer the deadline – 17 Feb 2019.


56 Broomhills – Front hedge to be reinstated.  The Enforcement Officer was currently in contact with the applicant with a view to speeding up submission of a revised scheme for consideration by the Council.  Have generated additional complaints.


11 The Moors – It is unlikely that Estate Management consent would be granted due to the depth of the rear extension and the owner has been advised to submit an application showing a reduced depth.  The current application was deemed invalid.  To be referred to arbitration.




Meeting ended at 8pm