A statement made by Stuart Kenny, Director General of Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation

So, Letchworth Garden City Council is launching an investigation into “Landlord’s Consent” controls the Foundation exercises and the way they are applied. The Council does so at a time when many communities, nationwide, who do not have the benefit of Schemes of Management, or Covenants in leases, fear the Government’s inclination to reduce planning restrictions by allowing more “permitted development”.

Yes, there is very real concern that more “carbuncles” will appear, but, I stress, not in Letchworth Garden City where the object of the Scheme of Management is to preserve the standard of appearance and amenity of the world’s first Garden City.

Not too far down the A1, residents of the second Garden City – Welwyn Garden City – are very concerned that their Local Authority is not managing the Scheme of Management which they have rigorously enough.

Of course, managing the Scheme and Covenants in leases is a time and resource consuming business. In its financial year 2005/06, the Foundation received over 2200 applications for Landlord’s Consent. Interestingly, of these, only 10 received outright refusals and an additional 15 received approval for part of the works. Seven ‘refusals’ were referred to the Advisory Management Committee, which endorsed five of the Foundation’s initial decisions. The Committee recommended that the two other decisions be reviewed by the Board of Management, they were, and approvals were subsequently issued.

Hats off, therefore, to the vast majority of Letchworthians whose sensitive alterations to their properties helps retain the quality of environment in the Garden City as well as adding to their value. Turning to those who may be less concerned, of course no homeowner likes to be refused permission to do something to their house – it seems almost an unwelcome intrusion. Understandably, the irritation is exacerbated when an owner has already received planning consent from the Local Authority. However, national planning legislation and Estate Management through a Scheme of Management and/or covenants in leases are two quite separate matters.

Rest assured that before reaching a decision to refuse an application, the Foundation's Board of Management considers the matter very carefully indeed. Let me explain the key parts of the process.

When anything other than a minor application is received, the Foundation advertises the application and consults neighbouring property owners direct. Staff also consider the application against the Foundation's Design Guidance – public documents which applicants and their advisors should consider prior to finalising a proposal and seeking consent.

If either there is a neighbour's objection and/or the proposals are not consistent with the Design Guidance, the application is referred to the Foundation's Board of Management. However, before the matter goes to the Board, any concerns raised in the process are communicated to the applicants, or their agent, giving an opportunity for the proposals to be reviewed.

The Board receives a written report from the Director of Property with a recommendation. If there has been a neighbour's objection, and/or if the Director of Property's recommendation is to refuse the application, the Board visit the site and offer to meet the applicant there and also offer to meet with any neighbours who have objected to the proposal. They then return to Spirella, discuss the application and reach a view.

If their decision is to refuse, the applicant is informed of the reasons for the refusal and of the right to have the matter reviewed by the Advisory Management Committee (AMC). That Committee is chaired by local solicitor Raymond Scroggins, a member of the Garden City Society, David Davies representing the Letchworth Citizens Association, and Stephanie Turner and Tony Stone – both Foundation Governors who are not members of the Board of Management. The Chairman has a casting vote, if required.

As is clear from the statistics above, the Board of Management considers the AMC's advice very seriously indeed.

In spite of all the Guidance and processes referred to above, the Foundation is, of course, open to legal challenge as to a decision to refuse Landlord’s Consent. In what in many ways may prove to be a landmark judgement, on 24th January 2007, Judge Farnworth, sitting in Luton County Court ruled against claimants who were seeking to have overturned the Board of Management’s decision to refuse particular alterations to a property in Sollershott West. Judge Farnworth ordered the Claimant to pay the Foundation’s costs, which, added to his own costs, which were said in Court to be £41,000, could mean a final bill of over £80,000.

As the Foundation anticipated, the Judgement turned on the question of the ‘reasonableness’ of the decision by the Board of Management. The Judge having heard evidence, and having visited the site, considered that the impact of the proposed development on the adjoining property was such for the Board of Management to have acted reasonably in refusing consent. The Judgement will, no doubt, resonate beyond Letchworth Garden City, where Schemes of Management are important in terms of protecting special environments.

While for the reasons stated earlier I am pleased with the Judgement, I am only sorry that the Claimant decided to pursue the matter, through the Courts, at such a cost.

The Claimants “Expert Witness”, was Town Cllr Raymond Smale who, at least on this occasion, did not cost Council Tax payers any money. Readers may recall that the Garden City Council was largely born out of the campaign group, led by Cllr Smale, which opposed the Heritage Foundation’s conversion of Paynes Farm into two residential units. The campaign group persuaded North Hertfordshire District Councillors to refuse the Foundation’s planning application, the Foundation took the matter to Appeal, won and was awarded costs of some £32,000 against North Hertfordshire District Council. Word on the street is that, the development having been completed, the vast majority of locals find it admirable.

With such an uninspired track record in terms of taking on the Foundation (albeit using other people’s money), one can only be surprised at Cllr Smale preparing to do so again. Let us just hope that the ‘public consultation’ which is envisaged by the Town Council features less ‘leading questions’ than that which led to its creation.

It is not for the Foundation to have a view as to how Letchworth Garden City Council has or hasn’t spent its budgets over the years and to what effect, and how it might do so in the future. However, I suspect that many Letchworthians who either supported or were ambivalent to the formation of a Town Council may with hindsight, have views both as to its effectiveness and its ambitions.

One thing is certain. The Heritage Foundation will vigorously oppose any move by the Town Council, or anyone else, to terminate, vary or take over its Scheme of Management. The environment of Letchworth Garden City is much too important for the Foundation to do otherwise; the obligations on it, under Act of Parliament, too clear.