Venue: Council Chamber , Campus East, Welwyn Garden City, Herts, AL8 6AE. View directions
Contact: Gurdip Paddan 01707 357349 Email: email@example.com
SUBSTITUTION OF MEMBERS
To note any substitution of Members made in accordance with Council Procedure Rules 19-22.
The following substitution of Panel Member had been made in accordance with Council procedure Rule 19-22:
Councillor S. Markiewicz for F. Thomson.
To note any apologies.
An apology for absence was received from Councillor F. Thomson.
To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 19 October 2017 (previously circulated).
The Minutes of the meeting held on 19 October 2017 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
Report of the Executive Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) sets out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management Consent for a replacement front door.
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 replacement of the front door.
The key issue in the determination of this appeal was the impact of the proposed door on values and amenities of the surrounding area. The impact on the residential amenity of adjoining occupiers was considered to be acceptable.
The report noted that the appeal dwelling hosted neo-Georgian characteristics of a typical Welwyn Garden City dwelling, in terms of materials, Georgian glazing design as well as distinct architectural features including the front porch. The front porches along Woodhall Lane, which include pitch and flat roofs and form part of the uniformity of these properties and therefore being a prominent feature that contribute to the character and appearance of part of this streetscene. The design and style of front doors vary in Woodhall Lane, although the original style of Georgian style glazing was still apparent within a number of properties within the streetscene. It was noted that the existing front door at the appeal property was not the original front door, however, it was considered to be in keeping with the streetscene given it is white in colour and with regard to its neutral, traditional and simplistic design. The existing white front door and white front porch were considered to contribute positively to the values and amenities of the area.
The proposed design of the new front door in Woodhall Lane would result in an inappropriate and incongruous addition which would be unacceptable and have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the appeal property, the row of terrace properties in which it is located and the surrounding streetscene. There had been no additional evidence or information put forward by the Appellant which would add or alter the Officer’s recommendation. Therefore the proposed design of the door would cause harm to the values and amenities of the area and the proposal fails to accord with Policy EM1 of the Welwyn Garden City Estate Management Scheme.
The Appellant attended the meeting and stated that he was not aware of the Estate Management Scheme at the time the order was placed for the door. He further added that he had spent £600 on the new door and further funding was required as he has not been able to fit the door. He specified that there were various types/styles of doors in the neighbourhood and photographs were supplied. Members had sympathy for the Appellant but also noted the need to advocate the Estate Management Scheme.
Members commended on the depth of the front garden and the impact the proposed door would have on the streetscene. It was noted that there had been no objections from neighbours. The Chairman clarified that it was the responsibility of the Appellant’s solicitor as the time of the purchase of the property to notify the vendor of the Estate Management Scheme. The Panel noted that there had been ... view the full minutes text for item 26.
Report of the Executive Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) to update Panel Members with regard to the arbitration cases that were put before the Panel on 19 October 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 19 October 2017.
73 Walnut Grove - Owner was contacted in October following a compliance site visit which showed the approved scheme has not been implemented. Latest correspondence on the 6 of November 2017 indicated that work was in progress and plants for the soft landscaping and front hedge have been ordered. The Enforcement team will continue to monitor implementation with a view to recommend the case for closure on satisfactory completion. An update will be available at the next meeting.
26 The Croft - The scheme has been implemented and confirmed by a site visit and was considered acceptable. The application was approved on 4 December 2017. The case will be closed.
251 Knightsfield – The owner was advised the only way forward was to replace the roof lantern with a flat roof light and to reduce the height of the parapet wall, on all sides, to the level proposed under refused application 6/2016/1303/EM. The Owner has confirmed via e-mail on 15 January 2018 that an architect has been commissioned to prepare the necessary drawings for a revised scheme to be submitted to the Panel for consideration.
31 Sandpit Road - The owner has been contacted with regards to the requirement for a front hedge to be reinstated, as Members had expressed dissatisfaction with the front boundary treatment. The applicant has been given up to the end of March 2018 to carry out the planting. The case was being kept open until a suitable hedge is planted, following which the case can be closed.
72 Chequers - On 29 December 2017 a retrospective application for the scheme was submitted to the Council for consideration albeit currently invalid (the applicant has requested for extra time to submit the required information). It was suggested that it may be better to have 50% as minimum planting in the area. The 48% proposed soft landscaping with the hedge was reasoned acceptable. The requirement of having greater hardstanding parking areas was understood.
19 Fearnley Road - The applicant has tentatively agreed a modified scheme comprising of approximately 47% soft landscaping to be submitted to the Council for consideration. Submission of a revised scheme for consideration is awaited. Enforcement Officer has sent a further e-mail on 24 January 2018 with a cautioning of formal action in order to speed up the process.
56 Broomhills – It was noted that the latest response indicated that a hedge, matching the neighbours’ would be planted by March 2018. The Enforcement Team will continue to monitor and update the Panel soon after that date.
11 The Moors - Following authorisation by the Panel in October 2017, a letter was sent to the owner on 23 November 2017 with an invitation to participate in the arbitration process to resolve the dispute. The Enforcement Officer to chase the application and set a deadline by ... view the full minutes text for item 27.