(Public Pack)Agenda Document for Estate Management Appeals Panel

Public Document Pack

Please note that by law this meeting can be filmed, audio- Please ask for: recorded, photographed or reported electronically by the use Gurdip Paddan of social media by anyone attending. This does not apply to any part of the meeting that is held in private session.

7 June 2017

Dear Councillor

You are requested to attend a meeting of the WELWYN HATFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL ESTATE MANAGEMENT APPEALS PANEL to be held on Thursday 15 June 2017 at 7.30 pm in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, The Campus, Welwyn Garden City, Herts, AL8 6AE.

Yours faithfully

Executive Director Public Protection, Planning and Governance

A G E N D A PART 1

1. APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN:

The Cabinet at their meeting on 12 June 2017 to appoint a Chairman of the Panel for the 2017/18 municipal year.

2. SUBSTITUTION OF MEMBERS:

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

3. APOLOGIES:

To note any apologies.

4. MINUTES:

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meetings held on 29 September 2016, 2 November 2016 and 26 January 2017 (previously circulated).

5. NOTIFICATION OF URGENT BUSINESS TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER ITEM 7 AND ANY ITEMS WITHDRAWN FROM THE AGENDA:

6. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS:

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

7. SUCH OTHER BUSINESS AS, IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIRMAN, IS OF SUFFICIENT URGENCY TO WARRANT IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION:

8. 56 BROOMHILLS WELWYN GARDEN CITY AL7 1RD - W6/2015/0739/EM - RETENTION OF VEHICLE HARDSTANDING, NEW PATHWAY AND SHRUBBERY: (Pages 3 - 24)

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 landscaping works.

9. 42 SPRINGFIELDS, WELWYN GARDEN CITY, AL8 6XN - 6/2016/1982/EM - REPLACEMENT OF FRONT DOOR: (Pages 25 - 50)

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.

10. 81 BUSHEY LEY, WELWYN GARDEN CITY, AL7 3HF - 6/2016/2444/EM - CONVERSION OF LOFT WITH INSTALLATION OF DORMER TO THE REAR AND ROOF LIGHTS TO FRONT ELEVATIONS: (Pages 51 - 62)

Report of the Executive Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) sets out an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management Consent for the conversion of the loft and the installation of a rear facing dormer and roof lights to the front elevation.

11. UPDATE ON PROGRESS WITH ARBITRATION CASES: (Pages 63 - 78)

Report to update Panel Members on the status of arbitration cases that were put before the Panel on 26th January 2017.

Circulation – membership to be confirmed on 12 June 2017

Councillor M Perkins (Executive Member for Planning, Housing and Community

Executive Board Press and Public (except Part II Items)

If you require any further information about this Agenda please contact Gurdip Paddan 01707 357349 or email: [email protected] Agenda Item 8

Part I Executive Member: Councillor Perkins WELWYN HATFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL ESTATE MANAGEMENT APPEAL PANEL – 15 JUNE 2017 REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (PUBLIC PROTECTION, PLANNING AND GOVERNANCE) W6/2015/0739/EM 56 BROOMHILLS WELWYN GARDEN CITY AL7 1RD RETENTION OF VEHICLE HARDSTANDING, NEW PATHWAY AND SHRUBBERY APPLICANT: Mrs T Mjekiqi (Haldens)

1. Background 1.1. This is an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management Consent for the retention of landscaping works. The application (W6/2015/0739/EM) was refused on the 27 April 2017 for the following reason: “The retention of the landscaping works which have taken place, by virtue of the inappropriateness of the balance of soft and hard landscaping and the removal of the front facing hedgerow screening would harm the values and amenities of the street scene. The frontage results in visually prominent car parking in contrast with the rest of the street which, for the most part, retains soft landscape screening of parked vehicles. No justification, individual circumstances or other considerations have been put forth which would outweigh the identified harm. Accordingly, the proposed retention of the landscaping works conflicts with the aims, targets and purposes of policies EM3 and EM4 of the Welwyn Garden City Estate Management Scheme.” 2. Site Description 2.1. The site contains a two storey terraced dwelling with an attached garage projecting to the front on the west side of the dwelling. This results in an L shaped frontage wrapping around the garage. The frontage is approximately 4.6m deep from the garage, and approximately 11.6m deep from the front of the main part of the two storey dwelling. 2.2. The original design of the area in terms of frontages was hard surface driveway leading to the garage with hard surface footpaths for access to the front doors of the property. By virtue of the layout of the properties, this resulted in double- width shared dropped kerbs, with lengths of front facing hedgerow between the driveways. 2.3. Development within the area has resulted in some properties hard surfacing behind front facing hedgerows, as well as some reductions in the width of front facing hedgerows. No.62 Broomhills in particular hosts a similar balance of hard and soft landscaping with a lack of front facing screening. There is no

Page 3 record of Estate Management Consent having been given for the works which have taken place at No.62, and as such, it is not considered that a precedent has been set. 3. The Proposal 3.1. The proposal is for the retention of landscaping works to the frontage of the property. The existing frontage is entirely hard surfaced to a depth of approximately 4.5m level with the front of the garage. The remaining frontage beside the garage hosts a hard surfaced footpath between two planting areas. The boundary between the host dwelling and No.58 Broomhills is currently a hedgerow. 4. Estate Management History 4.1. None. 5. Policy 5.1. Estate Management Scheme Policies (October 2008). EM3 – Soft Landscaping. EM4 – Hard Landscaping. 6. Representations Received 6.1. No representations have been received in relation to the appeals process. 6.2. One representation was received during the consideration of the application which expressed support for the landscaping works. 7. Discussion 7.1. This is an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management Consent. The appellant’s letter of appeal is attached at Appendix 1, and the original officer’s report for application referenced W6/2015/0739/EM, is attached at Appendix 2. 7.2. The key issue in the determination of this appeal is the impact of the landscaping works on the amenities and values of the surrounding area. 7.3. Hard landscaping is considered acceptable when it would maintain the amenities and values of the street scene in which it is located by achieving a balance between hard and soft landscaping. 7.4. Soft landscaping, in relation to works to trees and hedgerows, is considered to not harm the character and amenities of the area where the proposal would not result in the loss of any existing hedgerows other than the minimum required for vehicular access or sufficient justification for the works have been given and other considerations apply. 7.5. The Existing (Previous) block plan provided with the application shows that, prior to the proposed landscaping works taking place, the frontage was indicative of its original condition. The front facing hedgerow and soft

Page 4 landscaping covered more than half the width of the frontage. The front facing hedgerow would have provided a good level of screening to any vehicles parked upon the driveway. It is considered that the previous layout contributed highly to the values and amenities of the street in which it was located. 7.6. Considerations in regards to the nature of the proposed landscaping in terms of whether or not it achieves an appropriate balance of hard and soft landscaping and whether there is sufficient justification or other circumstances which overcome the harm resultant from the removal of more than the minimum required of front facing hedgerow, is discussed within the Officer Report. It was concluded that the landscaping works would harm the values and amenities of the street in which the frontage is located. 7.7. The appellant’s grounds of appeal begins with the length of time taken to make a decision in this case. It is regrettable that this application was not decided within the 8 week target for Estate Management applications. On occasion, when an application has not been decided within its deadline, and largely when an application is retrospective, making matters more sensitive, it does take longer to come to a decision, however, it is accepted that the delay in reaching a decision was too long. Whilst this application has taken a long time to be decided, the delay does not affect whether or not a proposal, or proposed retention in this case, complies or conflicts with relevant policies. 7.8. The appellant’s statement makes reference to the houses in the area not being uniform in any sense, with “high hedges, low hedges, very small (50 inches or under) hedges, fences. Walls or shrubs of some description. Therefore, the precedent to change the look of houses on the estate has long since been set”. 7.9. The appellants grounds of appeal continues to refute whether or not the balance of hard landscaping is appropriate taking full regard of the sites context. Furthermore, the appellant asks whether or not properties in the area have been granted Estate Management Consent for certain developments. 7.10. Overall, it is considered that the grounds of appeal amount to a belief that a precedent has been set and that the balance of hard and soft landscaping is appropriate based on the existing condition of the immediate vicinity. 7.11. Notwithstanding the fact that each proposal should be assessed on its own merits, and different applications have individual circumstances, below is a list of proposals within Broomhills which have applied for Estate Management Consent since 2008 when the current policies were applied. 7.12. 6/2016/2103/EM – 47 Broomhills: Created 3m width in hardstanding on the longer part of the frontage. In terms of width, 50% retained as soft landscaping with beech hedge screening. Granted. 7.13. 6/2015/1511/EM – 35 Broomhills: Introduced hardstanding for one parking space to the front of the property with 50% soft landscaping and retention of hedgerow screening. Granted.

Page 5 7.14. W6/2013/0982/EM – 41 Broomhills: Resulted in near 100% hard landscaping with shrubs to the front providing screening and shrubs near the front elevation. Granted. 7.15. W6/2012/2322/EM – 29 Broomhills: Near 100% hard landscaping with 2m high, 2.3m wide front hedging to screen and enhanced side shrubbery boundary with No.27 Broomhills. Granted. 7.16. W6/2010/2478/EM – 82 Broomhills: 6m deep and 3m wide hardstanding installed (sufficient for the parking of one vehicle), some hedge retained to the front and gate installed. Granted. 7.17. W6/2008/1752/EM – 37 Broomhills: 100% hard surfacing with complete hedge screening. Refused. 7.18. The above listed Estate Management history in the street scene was given full consideration during the formation of the Officer Report. Some of the properties listed within the appellant’s statement applied for Consent prior to 2008, and others, especially properties in Daniells, are not considered to impact the street in which the frontage is located, and thereby have little impact on the assessment as to whether the landscaping harms “the amenities and values of the street scene in which it is located”. 7.19. The above list shows very different proposals to the one subject to this appeal being given consent under the current Estate Management Policies. The site circumstances in terms of frontages are different to the host site, and the proposals always retain front facing screening to soften the impact of parked vehicles. Accordingly, it is not considered that this decision has gone against any precedent set in the street scene which has been granted Estate Management Consent. 7.20. Furthermore, the condition of the street scene was given full consideration in coming to a decision on whether the retention of the landscaping works would harm or maintain the values and amenities of the street. Prior to the decision being made, a site visit was made. This site visit informed the judgement that hedgerow screening of parked vehicles continues to be important to the values and amenities of the street scene. 7.21. Precedent does play a part in decision making when considering applications for Estate Management Consent. In this case, it would be very difficult to resist similar proposals within the immediate street scene if this proposal were given Estate Management Consent. In that light, the proposal should not be seen in isolation, but the impact of the proposal be considered cumulatively if the others within the area were to apply for the same level of hard surfacing without any screening. 8. Conclusion 8.1. No additional evidence or information has been put forth in the appellant’s statement which adds to or would alter the recommendation and decision in the application referenced W6/2015/0739/EM. When assessing whether any harm

Page 6 would result from the balance of hard and soft landscaping retained, as well as the removal of any hedgerow screening, full consideration is given to the existing condition of the street scene. In this case, giving consent for the retention of the hard surfacing and loss of front facing hedgerow would cause harm to the values and amenities of the street scene. Accordingly, the retention of the landscaping works which have taken place would fail to accord with Policies EM3 and EM4 of the Welwyn Garden City Estate Management Scheme. 9. Recommendation 9.1. That the Members uphold the delegated decision and dismiss the appeal. Sam Dicocco, (Development Management Officer) Date: 30 May 2017 Background papers: Appendix 1: Appellants grounds of appeal Appendix 2: Original delegated officer’s report Appendix 3: Photos of houses in the street

Page 7

Page 8 56 Broomhills Welwyn Garden City Herts. AL7 1RD

Planning Department at Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council The Campus Weiwyn Garden City AL8 6AE

th17 May 2017

Dear Sir

Application No: W6/20 15/0739/EM Date of Refusal: 5 May2017

I write to appeal against the refusal of the above application. I appeal on the following grounds:

• I submitted my application in April 2015 and only now, 2 years later, have I received a response. This is completely unreasonable. I have been given 8 weeks to appeal against your decision which took 2 years to make. Why has it taken so long to reach this decision? Please confirm what are

the stated timelines for response in your policy/process — providing written evidence of this - your website states approximately 8 weeks unless objections etc.

• Your reason for refusal states - by virtue of the inappropriateness of the balance of soft and hard landscaping and the removal of thefront facing hedgerowscreeningwouldharm the valuesand amenities of the street scene.Thefrontage results in visuallyprominent car parking in contrast with the rest of the street which,for the mostpart, retains soft landscape screeningofparked vehicles. - I completely refute this claim. The houses in my area are not uniform in any sense. They all look different, with the following versions: high hedges, low hedges, very small (50 inches or under) hedges, fences, walls or shrubs of some description. Therefore, the precedent to change the look of houses on the estate has long since been set. • When we put in our driveway we specifically ensured that we balanced the hard and soft

landscape — planting a hedge in between our house and our neighbour and also other green

shrubbery. Many houses do not have any soft landscape at all, with it all having been paved over —

including, but not limited to, my next door neighbour and her neighbour — (54 & 52 Broomhills). Again, this precedent has long since been set. • I have listed in the attached document the houses in my immediate vicinity which have little or no hedge in place. I request evidence that these houses have either:

o Received planning permission — in which case I would like to understand why they have been granted permission and yet I have been refused.

o Have not received planning permission — in which case I request evidence that you have informed them of your refusal and told them to change it back as you have done me.

Page 9 o I am happy to provide photographic evidence of these houses should this be required. o I am also happy to follow up this letter with a Freedom of Information Act Request for this information. I am very aggrieved that I, Tina Mjekiqi, appear to have been singled out for this treatment and I question why.

o I stress that the attached list of houses is only in my immediate vicinity — either in Broomhills itself, or backing on to my property in Daniells. There are definitely many more on the estate and I am happy to walk the entire area and provide further evidence if required.

However, I would like to put this issue to bed and therefore, as a possible compromise, I would be willing to put, next to the neighbours hedge (no. 58), a small trellis with planter in which I could put green shrubs to hide the bins. I believe this would look very similar to the many houses which have a very small hedge or plants of some description.

I have tried to contact you to discuss this compromise, but have not received a call back, hence I have submitted this appeal.

I look forward to your response, in a timely manner.

Yours faithfully

TINA MJEKIQI

Page 10 HOUSES WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE 56 BROOMHILLS VICINITY WITH DIFFERENT LANDSCAPE

No Hedge

Broomhills - 27, 30, 31, 33 Daniells - 207, 222, 226, 240, 241, 248, 250, 252, 254

Part Hedge or Shrubbery (under 5Oin — some almost non-existent)

Broomhills — 9, 15, 17, 25, 36, 38, 62

Daniells — 195, 197, 209, 224, 228, 232, 242, 243, 244, 245, 257

Fence — no hedge

Daniells — 234

Wall

Strawfields — 1, 3

Page 11 Page 12

WELWYN HATFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - PLANNING, PUBLIC PROTECTION AND GOVERNANCE

DELEGATED APPLICATION

Application No: W6/2015/0739/EM Location: 56 Broomhills Welwyn Garden City AL7 1RD Proposal: Retention of vehicle hardstanding, new pathway and shrubbery Officer: Mr S Dicocco

Recommendation: Refused

Context Site and The site contains a two storey terraced dwelling with an attached garage Application projecting to the front on the west side of the dwelling. This results in an L description shaped frontage wrapping around the garage. The frontage is approximately 4.6m deep from the garage, and approximately 11.6m deep from the front of the main part of the two storey dwelling.

The proposal is for the retention of landscaping works to the frontage of the property. The existing frontage is entirely hard surfaced to a depth of approximately 4.5m level with the front of the garage. The remaining frontage beside the garage hosts a hard surfaced footpath between two planting areas. The boundary between the host dwelling and No.58 Broomhills is currently a hedgerow.

Prior to the works, the frontage had hard surfacing to the front of the garage, as well as a narrow footpath alongside the garage to the front door of the property. The remainder of the frontage was soft landscaping, with approximately 3m of front facing hedgerow. Constraints Estate Management Scheme, as defined within the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 Relevant history None Consultations Neighbour Support: 1 Object: 0 Other: 0 representations Summary of  Broomhills is very crowded with parked vehicles and I think my neighbours neighbour are to be commended for their action in taking a car off the road as well as responses being prepared to layout their front garden with thought and care Relevant Policies EM1 EM2 EM3 EM4 Considerations Landscaping The landscaping works which have taken place has resulted in an issues (incl. inappropriate balance of hard and soft landscaping. Additionally, the removal hardstandings) of the front hedgerow is contrary to policy EM4 which restricts the loss of hedgerows along the boundary, other than the minimum required to access the hard standing. The proposal has resulted in two side by side car parking spaces across the width of the frontage of the property. The limited soft landscaping proposed

Page 13 would be set back approximately 4.5m from the street, and regularly obscured by parked vehicles. Given the purpose of policy EM4 is to retain the appearance and ethos of the Garden City through reducing the visual prominence of parked vehicles in light of the increased pressure for on-site car parking, the landscaping works which have taken place are in conflict not only with the aims and targets of the policy, but also the purpose behind the policy. The over-arching aim of policy EM4 is to maintain the values and amenities of the street scene in which the property is located. Having visited the street, one property benefits from similar hard landscaping and lack of screening (No.62 Broomhills). There is no record of Estate Management Consent having been given in for the works which have taken place at No.62, and as such, it is not considered that a precedent has been set. It is noted that other properties host significant hard landscaping while retaining good front soft landscaping screening. These examples are materially different to this application. It is felt that the frontage of No.56 Broomhills is visually prominent and contrasting to the majority of other frontages within the street. Accordingly, the retention of the landscaping works would be harmful to the values and amenities of the street scene in which it is located. Policy EM3 suggests that complete removal of hedgerows is rarely consented unless sufficient justification for the works have been given, or other considerations apply. In this case, the entirety of the front hedgerow has been removed. A letter stating that the application should be approved as many other houses in the estate have already completed similar work and therefore a precedent has been set has been put forth as justification. Given the above discussion in regards to any precedent being set, this justification is not considered sufficient. No other considerations apply. Conclusion The retention of the landscaping works which have taken place, by virtue of the inappropriateness of the balance of soft and hard landscaping and the removal of the front facing hedgerow screening would harm the values and amenities of the street scene. The frontage results in visually prominent car parking in contrast with the rest of the street which, for the most part, retains soft landscape screening of parked vehicles. No justification, individual circumstances or other considerations have been put forth which would outweigh the identified harm and conflict with the purposes of policies EM3 and EM4 of the Welwyn Garden City Estate Management Scheme. Accordingly, the proposed retention of the landscaping works should be refused.

Reasons for Refusal:

1. The retention of the landscaping works which have taken place, by virtue of the inappropriateness of the balance of soft and hard landscaping and the removal of the front facing hedgerow screening would harm the values and amenities of the street scene. The frontage results in visually prominent car parking in contrast with the rest of the street which, for the most part, retains soft landscape screening of parked vehicles. No justification, individual circumstances or other considerations have been put forth which would outweigh the identified harm. Accordingly, the proposed retention of the landscaping works conflicts with the aims, targets and purposes of policies EM3 and EM4 of the Welwyn Garden City Estate Management Scheme.

2 of 3 Page 14 REFUSED DRAWING NUMBERS

2. Plan Revision Details Received Date Number Number 1:100 Planned (Current) 20 April 2015 1:100 Existing (Previous) 20 April 2015 1:1250 Site Location Plan 20 April 2015

Determined By:

Mr C Carter 5 May 2017

3 of 3 Page 15 This page is intentionally left blank 1 and 3 Strawfields

9, 11 and 13 Broomhills

Page 17 15 and 17 Broomhills

25 and 27 Broomhills

Page 18 30 Broomhills

31 and 33 Broomhills

Page 19 36 and 38 Broomhills

36, 38 and 40 Broomhills

Page 20 56 Broomhills

62 Broomhills

Page 21 Broomhills Street Scene

Daniells Street Scene

Page 22 4 to 16 Broomhills

Page 23 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9

Part I Executive Member: Councillor Perkins WELWYN HATFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL ESTATE MANAGEMENT SCHEME PANEL – 15 JUNE 2017 REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (PUBLIC PROTECTION, PLANNING AND GOVERNANCE) 6/2016/1982/EM 42 SPRINGFIELDS, WELWYN GARDEN CITY, AL8 6XN REPLACEMENT OF FRONT DOOR APPLICANT: Mr D Crosby (Handside)

1. Background 1.1. This is an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management Consent for a replacement front door. The application (6/2016/1982) was refused on the 22 February 2017 for the following reason: “The proposed alteration to the colour of the front door would be detrimental to the appearance of the subject property, the surrounding street scene and the values and amenities of Welwyn Garden City; contrary to Policy EM1 of the Welwyn Garden City Estate Management Scheme.”

2. Site Description 2.1. The site contains a mid-terraced dwelling with a pitched roof within a row of four dwellings which is located in a central position within Springfields. The properties in Springfields are not consistent. To the north west of the terrace of dwellings in which the host dwelling is sited, Sprinfields hosts more modern style dwellings with clear glazing and side facing gables, contrasting to the dwellings to the south east of the terrace which are far more characteristic of Welwyn Garden City buildings. These characteristics represent themselves in terms of materials, Georgian glazing design as well as distinct architectural features including flat roof bay windows and storm porch. 2.2. The mid-terraced dwellings within the appeal terrace, including the host dwelling, have front doors facing the street, while the end terrace dwellings have their front doors located on their side elevations. The mid-terraced dwellings host an individual architectural feature of recessed front door, whereby the walls fall in at an approximate 45 degree angle with staggered projecting brickwork. This detailing can be viewed from the street and contributes positively to the character and appearance of the terrace of properties and the surrounding area. 2.3. The existing front door in the appeal property is white in colour, and hosts a mid-level, obscure glazed panel. By virtue of the above unique architectural feature of the recessed front door on the host dwelling, it is considered that the

Page 25 colour of the front door, being consistent within the terrace and the majority of doors in Springfields, contributes to the values and amenities of the street scene. 3. The Proposal 3.1. The proposal seeks consent for the replacement of the existing front door. The proposed door would be finished in black and would include two mid-to-high- level detailed obscure glazed panels with rounded tops. 4. Relevant Estate Management History 4.1. None 5. Policy 5.1. Estate Management Scheme Policies (October 2008) EM1 – Extensions and Alterations 6. Representations Received 6.1. No representations have been received. 7. Discussion 7.1. This is an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management Consent. The appellant’s letter of appeal is attached at Appendix 1, and the original officer’s report for application referenced 6/2016/1982/EM, is attached at Appendix 2. 7.2. The key issue in the determination of this appeal is the impact of the proposed door on the values and amenities of the surrounding area. The impact on the residential amenity of adjoining occupiers is considered to be acceptable. 7.3. Policy EM1 of the Estate Management Scheme (EMS) refers to extensions and alterations, and states that extensions and alterations will only be allowed where the works are in keeping with the design, appearance, materials and architectural detail used in the existing building, and would not harm the amenities and values of the area. 7.4. The appeal dwelling is characteristic of a Welwyn Garden City dwelling, in terms of materials, Georgian glazing design as well as distinct architectural features including flat roof bay windows and storm porch. The dwelling hosts a unique feature in the recess frame for the front door with staggered projecting brickwork. This feature is continued within the terrace of dwellings in which the appeal property sits, as well as the terrace directly opposite. This helps to make the front door a prominent feature within the row of terrace properties when viewed from Springfields. 7.5. This part of Springfields contains front doors that are white in colour which, although varying in design, contributes positively to the streetscene. It is therefore essential that the uniformity in appearance of dwellings is maintained; in particular those features which are visible from the street frontage. As

Page 26 described above, there is a strong uniformity of fenestration including the colour of front doors in properties in this part of Springfields, and this positively enhances the character and appearance of the surrounding area and Welwyn Garden City in general. 7.6. Accordingly, it is considered that the colour of front doors in this area contributes to the values and amenities of the area, and this is of particular importance given the features of the host appeal dwelling. 7.7. Whilst no objections are raised to the detailed design of the door, even though it is not a Georgian style design and appearance, the colour of the door would contrast with the surrounding area. As a result of the colour alone, the proposed door would result in an incongruous addition to the street scene, and as a result would cause harm to the amenities and values of the area. This would be readily viewable within the street scene. 7.8. Comments raised by the appellant refer to the consistency of the application of Estate Management policies within the Handside area in that that multiple dark colour front doors are present within Springfields, Handside and surrounding streets; whether the proposed door colour would in fact be detrimental to the subject property; and whether the proposed door colour would have an impact on the surrounding street scene given its current condition in terms of “potholes, untidy council tenant gardens, spoilt grass verges and damaged kerbstones”. 7.9. There are numerous style of doors, however the concern is not associated with the appearance, it is the colour. The contribution of white and pastel coloured doors in the street to the values and amenities of the area, as well as the consistency of the colour of doors within the terrace and terrace opposite has been referred to above. Officers do not consider that other scenes of negative appearance, such as potholes, untidy land or spoilt grass verges dilutes the contribution of the colour of front doors to the values and amenities of the area, nor reduces the detrimental impact of the colour of the proposed door. This provides no weight in favour of the proposal. 7.10. The appellant also outlines that he wishes to improve the appearance and security of the house; and that the Council has treated this application differently to others. In relation to the security of the dwelling, the Estate Management Scheme does not restrict the installation of a secure white composite door. In regards to being treated differently, each application is considered on its own merits. In this case, the property is considered to be of high quality design, which provides a significant and positive contribution to the street scene. Furthermore, other properties in the area host white or light coloured pastel doors. This indicates a consistency in application of the applicable policies. During the process of this application, officers contacted the appellant advising a white or lighter, pastel colour door of the same design as proposed would be acceptable, however unfortunately no amendments were received.

Page 27 7.11. A compelling case has therefore not been made by the appellant to demonstrate why the circumstances present by the occupants of this particular property, when considered in its context should override the wider values of and amenities of Springfields. 8. Conclusion 8.1. The proposed colour of the new front door, in a prominent location of Springfields, 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 street scene. No additional evidence or information has been put forward by the appellant which adds to or would alter officer’s recommendation. Therefore the proposed colour 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. 9. Recommendation 9.1. That the Members uphold the delegated decision and dismiss the appeal.

Sam Dicocco, (Development Management Officer) Date: 30 May 2017

Background papers: Appendix 1: Appellants grounds of appeal Appendix 2: Original delegated officer’s report

Page 28

Page 29 This page is intentionally left blank Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 WELWYN HATFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - PLANNING, PUBLIC PROTECTION AND GOVERNANCE

DELEGATED APPLICATION

Application No: 6/2016/1982/EM Location: 42 Springfields, Welwyn Garden City, AL8 6XN Proposal: Replacement of front door Officer: Mr S Dicocco

Recommendation: Refused

Context Site and The site contains a mid-terraced dwelling with a pitched roof. The terrace of Application dwellings is four deep, with the end of terrace dwellings hosting front doors description within the side elevations. The two mid-terraced dwellings maintain a shared alleyway access to the rear gardens with a central first floor circular window. A further interesting feature shared between the two mid-terraced dwellings is the recess for the front door, whereby the walls fall in at an approximate 45 degree angle with staggered projecting brickwork. The dwellings host Georgian glazing bars throughout, and are contiguous with groups of dwellings within Welwyn Garden City.

The proposal involves the replacement of the existing front door. The existing front door is white in colour, and hosts a mid-level, obscure glazed panel. The proposed door would be finished in black and host two mid-to-high-level detailed obscure glazed panels with rounded tops. Constraints Estate Management Scheme, as defined within the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 Relevant history Application Number: W6/1999/5083/EM Decision: Granted Decision Date: 01 June 1999 Proposal: Formation of vehicle crossover and hardstanding

Application Number: W6/2000/0471/EM Decision: Granted Decision Date: 15 May 2000 Proposal: INSTALLATION OF TWO ROOF LIGHTS TO REAR

Application Number: W6/2003/1418/EM Decision: Granted Decision Date: 19 November 2003 Proposal: ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION

Application Number: 6/2016/1943/EM Decision: Granted Decision Date: 17 January 2017 Proposal: Extension to current hardstanding to provide extra car parking space. Consultations Neighbour Support: 0 Object: 0 Other: 0 representations Summary of None neighbour responses

Page 41 Consultee 1. Councillor Helen Bromley – No response responses 2. Councillor Fiona Thomson – No response 3. Councillor Rachel Basch – No response Relevant Policies EM1 EM2 EM3 Others Considerations Design (form, Policy EM1 aims to protect the amenities and values of the Garden City from size, scale, siting) harm. Harm is considered to result from additions which are not in-keeping and Character with the design, appearance, materials and architectural detailing used in the (impact upon existing building. amenities and As above, the dwelling is contiguous of a Welwyn Garden City dwelling, in values of Garden terms of materials, Georgian glazing design and flat roof bay windows and City) storm porch. Not unlike Welwyn Garden City housing stock, the dwelling hosts a unique feature in the recess frame for the front door with staggered projecting brickwork. The dwellings within the terrace, and opposite, mirror image terrace, do not hold any particular consistency in terms of front door design. Notwithstanding this, there remains a broad consistency in terms of front door colour in the locality.

The proposal seeks to alter both the design and the colour of the front door. The design of the proposed door is acceptable as it is broadly similar in appearance to others in the surrounding locality. However the proposed colour change is not considered to be compatible with the character and appearance of the surrounding streetscene which comprises predominately white or pastel coloured doors. The proposal would therefore be harmful to the appearance of the subject property, the surrounding streetscene and the character and appearance of Welwyn Garden City. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy EM1 of the Welwyn Garden City Estate Management Scheme.

The host dwelling currently exemplifies a typical Welwyn Garden City dwelling. Given the unique framing of the front door, and the existing contribution of the subject dwelling to the values and amenities of the area, the proposed black front door colour would not be in-keeping with the appearance of the existing building. Furthermore, this alteration would cause harm to the values and amenities of the surrounding area. Accordingly, the proposal fails to comply with the aims of Policy EM1 of the Welwyn Garden City Estate Management Scheme.

Impact on None neighbours Landscaping None issues (incl. hardstandings) Any other None

2 of 3 Page 42 considerations Conclusion The proposed replacement door would not, by reason of its proposed colour, be in-keeping with the design and appearance of the existing dwelling. This out of character feature would be exacerbated by the unique framing of the recessed front door. Given the dwellings current contribution to the street scene, being consistent with the wider Garden City design, the proposed door would cause harm to the values and amenities of the area. Accordingly, the proposal fails to comply with the aims of Policy EM1 of the Welwyn Garden City Estate Management Scheme.

Reasons for Refusal:

1. The proposed alteration to the colour of the front door would be detrimental to the appearance of the subject property, the surrounding street scene and the values and amenities of Welwyn Garden City; contrary to Policy EM1 of the Welwyn Garden City Estate Management Scheme.

REFUSED DRAWING NUMBERS

2. Plan Number Revision Details Received Date Number 1:1250 Location Plan 3 October 2016 Existing Front Door Design 10 October 2016 Proposed Front Door Design 10 October 2016

Determined By:

Ms F Nwanze 22 February 2017

3 of 3 Page 43 This page is intentionally left blank Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49

Page 50 Agenda Item 10

Part I Executive Member: Councillor Perkins

WELWYN HATFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL ESTATE MANAGEMENT APPEAL PANEL – 15 JUNE 2017 REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (PUBLIC PROTECTION, PLANNING AND GOVERNANCE)

6/2016/2444/EM

81 BUSHEY LEY, WELWYN GARDEN CITY, AL7 3HF

CONVERSION OF LOFT WITH INSTALLATION OF DORMER TO THE REAR AND ROOF LIGHTS TO FRONT ELEVATIONS

APPLICANT: Mr S Brunyee

(Panshanger)

1 Background

1.1 This is an appeal against the refusal of Estate Management Consent for the conversion of the loft and the installation of a rear facing dormer and roof lights to the front elevation. The application was refused for the following reasons:

1. ‘The rear dormer window is unacceptable by virtue of its extent, siting and dominant appearance on the rear roofslope of the dwelling which is overtly visible from the street scene of Bushey Ley and Dodwood. The dormer would result in a visually discordant and incongruous feature that would be detrimental to the appearance of the streetscene, failing to maintain and enhance the amenities and values of the Garden City in accordance with Policy EM1 of the Estate Management Scheme.’

2. ‘By virtue of the proposed number, siting and appearance of the roof lights they would form an uncharacteristic addition to the front roof slope of the property that, given the visibility of the front roof slope this would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the application property and the street scene. The proposal would fail to maintain and enhance the values and amenities of Welwyn Garden City contrary to Policy EM1 of the Estate Management Scheme.’

2 Site Description

2.1 The application site is located to south-east of Welwyn Garden City and comprises of an end of terrace, two storey property. The appeal property fronts Bushey Ley, however it is sited on a corner plot with a small cul-de sac, Dodwood. The immediate street scene is residential in character with properties similar in size and design to the appeal property.

Page 51 2.2 It should be noted that the area appears relatively unchanged with no alterations readily visible within the public realm. The terraced row of properties in which the appeal property is sited, retain their original character and are consistent in terms of appearance with other rows of terraces in the street scene.

3 The Proposal

3.1 The original application sought Estate Management consent for the conversion of the loft, installation of a rear facing dormer and roof lights to the front elevation.

4 Estate Management History

4.1 W6/2003/0327/EM – Formation of a Vehicle Hardstanding – Granted 4th August 2003

5 Policy

5.1 Estate Management Scheme Policies (October 2008):

5.2 EM1 – Extensions and Alterations

6 Discussion

6.1 This is an appeal against the refusal for Estate Management Consent. The appellant’s Appeal Statement is attached at Appendix 1 and the delegated officer’s report for application reference 6/2016/2444/EM, is attached at Appendix 2.

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

6.3 Policy EM1 of the Estate Management Scheme (EMS) refers to proposals for extensions and alterations, the policy clearly states that extensions and alterations to existing properties will only be allowed if they are 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 or the residential amenity of adjoining occupiers.

6.4 Additionally in order to be able to manage the large amount of requests for roof alterations and energy efficiency measures, following public consultation the Council has approved a Policy approach within the Welwyn Garden Estate Management Scheme Areas to deal with roof alterations and this is as follows:

 Estate Management Consent will only be granted for energy efficiency

Page 52 measures and other roof alterations where they are sited on the rear or side roof slope and are sited to minimise the effect on the external appearance of the building.

 Estate Management Consent will only be granted if the proposed alteration, when viewed from any surrounding public vantage point does not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and the wider amenities and values of the area.

 Exceptions to this Policy approach will apply where, in the judgement of the case officer the architectural design and style of an individual property or the wider character of the area means that an alteration on a principal roof slope of a property would not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and wider amenities and values of the area.

 In all cases the decision maker will continue to weigh the environmental benefits of energy efficiency measures against the visual impact.

This above approach applies to the installation of new chimneys, roof lights, dormer windows, Solar PV, Thermal equipment, wind turbines, flues, sun pipes, aerials and antennas and any other alterations to the roof of a property covered by the Estate Management Scheme.

6.5 The appeal dwelling is located on a prominent corner plot with Bushey Ley and Dodwood, with front and rear elevations readily visible from public vantage points. The main issue is the impact of the dormer window on the appearance of the terrace of properties, which are visible from Bushey Ley and Dodwood and the wider street scene.

6.6 The proposed dormer window by virtue of its size and scale, would extend across the majority of the rear roof slope, leaving nominal verges to the side of the dormer window of 0.1 and 0.2m. As a result the rear dormer would dominate the rear roof slope and would be readily visible having a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and the overall values and amenities of the Garden City.

6.7 No dormer windows could be seen to properties within the terrace row, nor could they be seen to other properties on Bushey Ley or nearby cul-de sacs. Therefore the area maintains uniformity and the original architectural detailing, symmetry and character of the area has been retained.

6.8 Whilst the appellant references No’s 50, 56 and 68 located on Great Ganett, as these properties feature rear facing dormer windows, these are located on a different street approximately 250m away and are not visible nor are they immediately close to the host site. It is not considered that these properties set a precedent within Bushey Ley or nearby cul-de sacs and it is re-iterated that the character of Bushey Ley and the surrounding cul-de sacs still retain the original garden city layout with no interruptions to the roof slopes, therefore retaining the original and intended character of the area.

Page 53

6.9 With regards to the front facing roof lights, these are not a typical feature within the street scene of Bushey Ley or the surrounding area. The main issue is the impact of roof lights on the appearance of the terrace of properties which are visible from Bushey Ley. The roof lights would be highly visible and dominant within the street scene. Due to the unaltered roof forms to properties in the area, the introduction of front facing roof lights is a discordant element and would appear incongruous, causing harm to the value and amenity of the surrounding area and therefore would not be acceptable within the Estate Management Area.

6.10 Whilst the appellant suggests the removal of the front facing roof lights which would be a positive benefit to the scheme. Nonetheless, no alterations are proposed to the dormer window, which harms the values and amenities of the Garden City as outlined above.

7 Conclusion

7.1 The majority of Welwyn Garden City consists of carefully designed layouts, with formal and symmetrical patterns where design and detailing of properties have been carefully planned. Properties have been constructed in groups replicating architectural detailing and it is this architectural integrity that officers seek to protect.

7.2 The proposed alterations fail to be in accordance with the roof alteration approach as explained above, as the rear dormer window by virtue of its extent, siting and dominant appearance on the rear roof slope is readily visible from the street scene of both Bushey Ley and Dodwood. The dormer would result in a visually discordant and incongruous feature that would be detrimental to the appearance of the street scene. Additionally the proposed number, siting and appearance of the roof lights would form a discordant addition to the front roof slope of the property. As such the proposal would fail to maintain and enhance the amenities and values of the Garden City in accordance with Policy EM1 of the Estate Management Scheme.

8 Recommendation

8.1 That Members uphold the delegated decision and dismiss the appeal

Rachael Collard (Development Management) Date 30 May 2017

Background Information Appendix 1: Appellants grounds of appeal Appendix 2: Original delegated officer’s report

Page 54

Page 55 This page is intentionally left blank 81 BUSHEY LEY, WELWYN GARDEN CITY, HERTS

DESIGN STATEMENT

We recently obtained a Certificate of Lawful Development Approval for a rear dormer loft conversion, BUT the Estate Management application was refused.

The following statement will show how and why the proposed loft conversion with rear dormer has been carefully considered and designed to be in keeping with its surroundings and that Estate Management Permission should be granted.

The Site

The property is situated approximately 2 miles South East of Welwyn Garden City town centre and faces East to West back to front and is NOT in a Conservation area.

81 Bushey Ley is an end of terraced house in a road of similar styled houses, built approx. 65 years ago.

There are many properties within the surrounding area, which have Velux loft conversions and dormer loft conversions. There are several close by which have dormer loft conversions, which are No’s, 50, 56 and 68 on Great Gannet. No68 is a full dormer and has only been completed within the last two years.

The Planning Officer commented that our property is sited on a corner plot with a small cul-de sac (Dodwood) immediately to the North of the site and therefore highly visible. The above stated rear dormer approvals at No50 & 56 are adjacent to an open public pedestrian thoroughfare and also as highly visible as our proposal. Even No68 is visible from this public thoroughfare.

This property has not been extended before.

This loft conversion would give us the space to have a master bedroom, a second bedroom and a home office; which is needed as one of us works from home and we plan to start a family. Although there are loft conversions without dormers and just roof lights at No10 Dodwood and No7 Break Mead this type of conversion would not give us the space we need. I am 6”3’ and having a full height dormer would allow me to live in the space comfortably.

Bushey Ley and its surrounding area, is predominantly made up of semi detached and terraced houses which are single-family dwellings.

The area of the site is approx 240m².

Page 57 Assessment

Due to the sites good width of approximately 9.1m and its rear garden depth of 14m, and being an end of terrace with side access it allows excellent amenity space around it; therefore it is more than capable of taking a loft conversion of the size shown.

Involvement

The proposal does NOT increase the current house footprint of 36.4m².

Evaluation

The following key issues have been considered:

1. We are willing to remove the front roof lights from the design. After seeing what has been approved in the area. 2. The impact of the proposed loft dormer on adjoining neighbours – in the Estate Management Officer’s report it was stated that it would have no detrimental impact. As we understand it there has been no complaints from letters that were sent to our neighbours after the submission of our plan. 3. The dormer has a flat roof to match the ones approved in the surrounding area. 4. The aesthetics are very important, and we have designed the works to be in keeping with the existing house.

Design

Our proposal is a loft conversion.

This causes no impact with regards to amenity or overshadowing the neighbours.

We have shown the dormer matches nearby extensions in the surrounding area, which has no impact on neighbouring properties, sits very comfortably against the existing house and blends in very well with the characteristics of the neighbourhood.

Ample amenity, combined with excellent modern living standards of accommodation will provide a high quality family home, which will enhance and benefit the surrounding area.

We trust you find our Design and Access Statement comprehensive, but should you wish to discuss this application during its course to a decision, please feel free to contact us.

Page 58 WELWYN HATFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL DIRECTORATE OF STRATEGY AND DEVELOPMENT

DELEGATED APPLICATION

Application No: 6/2016/2444/EM Location: 81 Bushey Ley, Welwyn Garden City, AL7 3HF Proposal: Conversion of loft with installation of dormer to the rear and rooflights to front elevations Officer: Ms R Collard

Recommendation: Refused

6/2016/2444/EM Context Site and The site lies to the south-east of Welwyn Garden City and comprises of an end Application of terraced two storey property. The property fronts Bushey Ley, however it is description sited on a corner plot with a small cul-de sac, Dodwood immediately to the north of the site.

The application seeks Estate Management consent for a flat roofed rear facing dormer window and roof lights within the front elevation of the property.

Constraints Estate Management Scheme, as defined within the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 Relevant history 6/2016/2439/LAWP - Certificate of lawfulness for a loft conversion – Pending

Consultations Neighbour Support: Object: Other: representations Summary of None received neighbour responses Consultee No comments have been received from Councillors responses Relevant Policies EM1 EM2 EM3 Others Considerations Design (form, The Estate Management Scheme seeks to preserve the amenity and values of size, scale, siting) the Garden City. Policy EM1 of the Estate Management Scheme applies. This and Character seeks to preserve the unique architectural heritage of the town and its (impact upon buildings. amenities and The proposed development, is to be considered against the provisions of values of Garden Estate Management Scheme (EMS) Area Policies EM1 in that extensions and City) alterations to existing buildings will only be allowed if they are 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

Page 59 values of the surrounding area or the residential amenity of adjoining occupiers. For roof alterations such as dormer windows, the Council has approved a new policy approach within the EM area which includes that consent will only be granted if the proposed alteration, when viewed from any surrounding public vantage point does not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and the wider amenities and values of the area. The proposed dormer window, by virtue of its scale (width, depth and height) and resultant mass, would not appear subservient to the roof of the main dwelling house. The dormer would dominate the roof of the dwelling leaving extremely small roof verges to the side and below the dormer itself. However, the main issue is the prominence of the dormer and whether this has an impact on the character and appearance of the streetscene and amenities and values of the area. The application site is an end of terraced property located on a corner plot with the cul-de sac of Dodwood to the north of the site, additionally single storey garage blocks can be seen and therefore the dwelling is on a prominent corner plot with clear views of the rear of the dwelling gained, therefore the proposed dormer window would be overtly visible within the public realm. Roof alterations should not be permitted where they would be visually overly dominant when viewed from any surrounding public vantage point. No roof alterations can be seen to any properties within close proximity to the application site and therefore the original character of the area has remained unaltered. Whilst no dormer windows have been permitted within Bushey Ley, it is noted that dormer windows can be seen to No’s 50, 56 and 68 Great Ganett. Whilst similarities can be drawn, they are located in a different street scene and the dormers that are located on a corner plot are significantly smaller than the dormer proposed. Due to the application site not being visible from the examples in Great Ganett it is not considered that a precedent has been set for further dormer windows particularly as no roof alterations are visible within Bushey Ley or any of the nearby cul-de sacs. Given that this proposal would be significantly visible, it is considered that the proposed dormer window would have a detrimental impact on the amenities and values of the Estate Management area, disturbing an area that has retained its original character. The proposal also includes the installation of two roof lights within the front facing roof plane of the dwelling and as such would be overtly visible within the street scene. No roof lights can be seen to properties within close proximity to the site. It is considered that the number, siting and appearance of the roof lights would not be acceptable and would alter the appearance of the dwelling to an extent that would be unacceptable within the Estate Management Area and would fail to maintain and enhance the values and amenities of Welwyn Garden City. Impact on It is considered that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the neighbours amenity of adjoining occupiers in accordance with Policy EM1 with windows proposed having direct view towards the rear garden of the application property, although views of the rear gardens of the properties immediately behind the application side would be gained, this relationship is considered to be similar to the views already gained from the first floor windows at the host dwelling.

2 of 3 Page 60 Landscaping None issues (incl. hardstandings) Any other None considerations Conclusion It is considered that the proposal fails to maintain and enhance the amenities and values of the Garden City and is therefore not compliant with the Estate Management Scheme and newly adopted policy approach.

Reasons for Refusal:

1. The rear dormer window is unacceptable by virtue of its extent, siting and dominant appearance on the rear roofslope of the dwelling which is overtly visible from the street scene of Bushey Ley and Dodwood. The dormer would result in a visually discordant and incongruous feature that would be detrimental to the appearance of the streetscene, failing to maintain and enhance the amenities and values of the Garden City in accordance with Policy EM1 of the Estate Management Scheme.

2. By virtue of the proposed number, siting and appearance of the roof lights they would form an uncharacteristic addition to the front roof slope of the property that, given the visibility of the front roof slope this would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the application property and the street scene. The proposal would fail to maintain and enhance the values and amenities of Welwyn Garden City contrary to Policy EM1 of the Estate Management Scheme.

3. REFUSED DRAWING NUMBERS: D038_A_100 Revision P01 & D038_A_101 Revision P01 & D038_A_102 Revision P01 received 17th November 2016

Determined By:

Ms F Nwanze 22 December 2016

3 of 3 Page 61 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 11

Part I Main author: Bright Owusu Executive Member: Councillor Perkins

Haldens, Handside, Hollybush, Howlands, Panshanger, Peartree and Sherrards Wards

WELWYN HATFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL ESTATE MANAGEMENT SCHEME APPEAL PANEL – 15 JUNE 2017 REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (PUBLIC PROTECTION, PLANNING AND GOVERNANCE)

UPDATE ON PROGRESS WITH ARBITRATION CASES

1 Executive Summary

1.1 This report is to update Panel Members with regard to the arbitration cases that were put before the Panel on 26th January 2017.

1.2 A brief update on each property can be found in section 3 below.

1.3 Additional cases will be presented at the next Panel meeting

2 Recommendation

2.1 That Members:

 agree the closure of 73 Valley Road and 104 Cole Green Lane;

 note the contents of the report; and

 agree for further case(s) to be presented to the next Panel meeting for Member’s consideration.

Page 63 3 Individual Cases

3.1 73 Walnut Grove

Nature and date of breach: Formation of hardstanding in front garden, date unknown but reported in June 2012.

Background information: A 100% concrete hardstanding has been formed in the front garden. Although it is not entirely clear when the work was completed, the request for investigation was received in June 2012.

Update: A retrospective application 6/2016/1536/EM for the retention of an amended scheme of hardstanding was approved on 20/03/2017 with a condition that the approved scheme be implemented within 6 months of approval. The Enforcement team will monitor implementation with a view to recommend the case for closure on satisfactory implementation

The Panel will be updated at the October 2017 Panel meeting.

Page 64 3.2 73 Valley Road

After

Page 65

Nature and date of breach: Installation of a wide UPVC fascia board and UPVC edged attachment to the roof of a permitted side extension; date unknown but reported in July 2012.

Background information: The constructed side extension is not in accordance with consent granted under W6/2010/0400/EM in that there is a wide UPVC fascia panel affixed to the side elevation immediately below the roof, and a white plastic edged item affixed to the roof. The consent required that samples of materials used in the development must be approved by the Council and that the works must be implemented using those materials. UPVC was not an approved material.

Update: The applicant submitted a wood stain to resolve the UPVC fascia board issue which was looked upon favourably by the Panel at the November 2016 meeting. Following the Panel meeting the owner was updated and has implemented the approved colour scheme.

At the January 2017 meeting the issue of replanting the front hedge was raised apparently for the first time. However the front garden as currently exists appears to have been approved as part of application to retain the hardstanding (W6/2013/0055/EM).

The Panel is therefore requested to approve the closure of the enforcement case.

Page 66 3.3 26 The Croft

Nature and date of breach: Formation of hardstanding in front garden, date unknown.

Update: The registered owner has recently contacted the Council claiming to have only recently received our letters on his return to the country. He has opted for a retrospective application to retain at least part of the hadstanding. An application form and links to information about the Scheme and how to apply for permission have been e-mailed to him. Currently awaiting the submission of the application.

Page 67 3.4 251 Knightsfield

Nature and date of breach: Erection of single storey rear extension without Estate Management Consent; commenced June 2013.

Background information: Officers attended the site at an early stage of construction and advised the owner of the need for EM consent for the extension. At that stage footings had only been dug. However the owner chose to continue with the construction. A retrospective application for EM consent was submitted in June 2013 under application number W6/2013/1237/EM but the building was not constructed in accordance with the submitted plans. The application was, in any event, refused consent in October 2014.

Update: As reported at the last EM Panel, an Estate Management application (reference 6/2016/1303/EM) was refused for “Retention of existing single storey rear extension with alterations to existing parapet” in October 2016.

To date no appeal has been received against the decision to refuse Estate Management consent. As such authorisation is hereby sought for the Head of Planning to refer the matter to be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the President of the Royal Institute of Charted Surveyors in accordance with paragraph 8 of the Management Scheme for Welwyn Garden City.

Page 68 3.5 31 Sandpit Road

Before:

After:

Nature and date of breach: Removal of front hedge and creation of hardstanding; date of breach unknown but reported in January 2014.

Page 69 Background Information: The established hedges to the front of the above site were removed and the complete front garden has been turned into a hardstanding without Estate Management Consent. There are no other such examples of significant hardstandings within the area in which front hedges predominate the streetscene. A retrospective application for EM consent was submitted under application number W6/2014/0888/EM, which was refused on 30th July 2014.

The owner has since returned part of the front garden to soft landscape. Panel members were satisfied with the implemented soft landscaping but requested further information regarding the type of soft landscaping that had been planted along the front boundary. A landscape officer has since assessed the site and considers that the planting along the front boundary is ornamental shrubs, probably quite small and with a neat form.

Update: Following clarification on the nature of soft landscaping implemented at the sites and in particular the along the front boundary. Members expressed dissatisfaction with the front boundary treatment and have insisted that a more suitable hedge would be required for the front boundary treatment and were therefore of the view that the case be kept open until a suitable hedge is planted, following which the case can be closed.

Page 70 3.6 72 Chequers

Nature and date of breach: Removal of front hedge and creation of hardstanding; date of breach unknown but reported in August 2012.

Background information: The established hedges to the front of the above site were removed and the complete front garden has been turned into a hardstanding without Estate Management Consent. There are no other such examples of significant hardstandings within the area in which front hedges predominate the streetscene. A retrospective application for EM consent was submitted under application number W6/2012/1899/EM, which was refused on 18th December 2012.

A letter was sent to the owner on 27th July 2016 and a response was received on 10th August 2016 explaining why the work had been carried out. The owner stated that she works from home and due to on-street parking pressure due to Burrowfelds Industrial Estate and the rise in car ownership in recent years, the hardstanding provides a parking area.

Update: This case was approved to be taken to arbitration as a test case for hardstanding in place 26 the Croft. However following an invitation to the owner to participate in arbitration process. The owner has decided to negotiate a solution with the Council. A meeting is being set up to discuss terms.

Page 71 The panel will be updated on the outcome of the meeting(s) at the next panel meeting.

3.7 176 Heronswood Road

Page 72 Nature and date of breach: The removal of a chimney and its stack without consent and the patching of the roof using different coloured tiles; February 2014

Background Information: The site comprises one of a pair of semi-detached dwellings which were designed with three chimney stacks; a central shared stack and one set slightly in from either side of the block. The block is one of a number of similar blocks in this design led area of Welwyn Garden City and the removal of the chimney stack has led to a jarring imbalance in the pair of houses.

Update: Estate Management application (reference 6/2016/2530/EM) was approved on 19th January 2017 for the erection of a cosmetic chimney. The Enforcement Team will monitor to ensure replacement chimney is implemented.

Page 73 3.8 104 Cole Green Lane

Nature and date of breach: Removal of flower bed and creation of hardstanding; date of breach unknown but reported in June 2015.

Background information: There used to be hardstanding with space for one vehicle and the remaining area was soft landscaping. A retrospective application for EM consent was submitted under application number 6/2015/2271/EM, which was refused on 24th February 2016. An appeal was heard by the Panel on 28th July 2016 where the decision was upheld and appeal dismissed.

Page 74 Update: An Estate Management application (application reference 6/2016/2630/EM) for proposed soft landscaping was approved on 23rd February 2017. The grass has now been planted in accordance with the approved plans.

Given the above, The Panel is requested to approve the closure of the enforcement case.

Page 75 3.9 19 Fearnley Road

Nature and date of breach: extension to driveway to form 100% hardstanding in front garden and the removal of front boundary hedge; date of breach unknown but reported in April 2016.

Background information: There used to be hardstanding with space for one vehicle and the remaining area was soft landscaping. A retrospective application for EM consent was submitted under application number 6/2016/1603/EM, which was refused on 28th September 2016. An appeal was heard by the Panel on 26th January 2017 where the decision was upheld and appeal dismissed.

Update: The applicant is currently in talks with the case officer to negotiate modifications to the refused scheme with a view to submitting a revised scheme for consideration by the Council.

Page 76 3.10 38 Furzefield Road

Nature and date of breach: Formation of hardstanding and removal of hedge; date of breach unknown however an Estate Management application was submitted in April 2014 and an enforcement case opened in June 2014.

Background information: In 2008 there used to be no hardstanding as there were hedges on each front boundary. A retrospective application for EM consent was submitted under application number W6/2014/0937/EM for the retention of vehicle crossover and hardstanding, which was approved on 23rd April 2015. Due to the work already having been carried out, a condition was included on the decision stating that a discharge of condition application in regards to soft landscaping needed to be submitted within two months of the date of decision. The discharge of condition was submitted on 1st July 2015 and following discussions with the owner, the decision was issued on 17th February 2016 stating that the proposed soft landscaping was approved. To date the soft landscaping has not been implemented despite requests from the enforcement team. The owner advised on 10th May 2016 that the work would be carried out by 20th June 2016 however the work has not been carried out.

Page 77 The owner was advised on 12th August 2016 that the case would be referred to the Panel and no response has been received.

Update: A letter was sent to the owner on 18th November 2016 giving a final opportunity to undo or rectify the breach however no response was received within the 28 day deadline. However, the Estate Management application did not specify a period by which the owner is required to undertake the soft landscaping other than to complete the development within 3 years of the decision date. It is therefore proposed to monitor the site to ensure that the complete the landscaping as approved within this timeframe.

4 Equality and Diversity

4.1 I confirm that an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) has not been carried out in connection with the proposals that are set out in this report.

Name of author Bright Owusu Title Principal Planning Enforcement Officer Date 26th May 2017

Page 78