Agenda and minutes

The agenda and reports associated with this minute can be found at:-

http://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=284&MId=4180&Ver=4

The Local Review Body of Aberdeen City Council met this day to review the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to refuse the request for planning permission for the replacement of existing white PVC windows with new PVCU windows to third floor flat at Flat 5, 5 Wallfield Crescent, Aberdeen (ref 151730).

Councillor Milne, as Chairperson, gave a brief outline of the business to be undertaken.  He indicated that the Local Review Body would be addressed by the Assistant Clerk, Mr Masson, as regards the procedure to be followed and also, thereafter, by Mr Matthew Easton, who would be acting as the Planning Adviser to the Body in the case under consideration this day.

The Chairperson stated that although the Planning Adviser was employed by the planning authority he had not been involved in any way with the consideration or determination of the application under review and was present to provide factual information and guidance to the Body only.  He emphasised that the officer would not be asked to express any view on the proposed application.

The Local Review Body was then addressed by the Assistant Clerk as regards the procedure to be followed, at which time reference was made to the procedure note circulated with the papers calling the meeting and to certain more general aspects relating to the procedure.

Mr Easton explained that the application which was the subject of the review was for the replacement of existing white PVC windows with new PVCU windows to a third floor flat located within a traditional tenement in the Rosemount and Westburn Conservation Area. 

It was noted that the submitted Notice of Review was found to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes. 

Mr Easton advised that detailed planning permission had been sought to replace the existing white PVC windows with new white PVC windows which have a different arrangement. He indicated that although the principle of replacing the windows was considered acceptable, the application was refused by officers as it was considered that the replacement window arrangement would impact significantly on the uniform appearance of the windows in the building and therefore fail to preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area. This was considered to be contrary to Scottish Planning Policy, Scottish Historic Environment Policy, Policy D5 of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan and the Council’s supplementary guidance on the replacement of windows and doors.

Mr Easton indicated that the appellants argued that the proposal would provide enhanced safety as the new windows would meet current building regulations, whereas the existing do not. It was also argued that there was already a variety of window styles in the street and that this does not detract from the visual appearance of the area.

In relation to documents which the members of the Body should consider, Mr Easton outlined that all the following documents were accessible via web links, and available as set out in the papers:-

Local Development Plan

Policy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.

The Local Review Body then considered the second request for a review.  The Chairperson advised that the LRB would again be addressed by Mr Matthew Easton and reminded members that Mr Easton had not been involved in any way with the consideration or determination of the application under review and was present to provide factual information and guidance to the Body only.  Mr Easton would not be asked to express any view on the proposed application.

Mr Easton explained that the application which was the subject of the review was virtually identical to the previous application, in so far as it was for the replacement of existing white PVC windows with new PVCU windows to a third floor flat located within a traditional tenement in the Rosemount and Westburn Conservation Area.

It was noted that the submitted Notice of Review was found to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.

Mr Easton again advised that detailed planning permission had been sought to replace the existing white PVC windows with new white PVC windows which have a different arrangement. He indicated that although the principle of replacing the windows was considered acceptable, the application was refused by officers as it was considered that the replacement window arrangement would impact significantly on the uniform appearance of the windows in the building and therefore fail to preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area. This was considered to be contrary to Scottish Planning Policy, Scottish Historic Environment Policy, Policy D5 of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan and the Council’s supplementary guidance on the replacement of windows and doors.

Mr Easton again indicated that the appellants argued that the proposal would provide enhanced safety as the new windows would meet current building regulations, whereas the existing do not. It was also argued that there was already a variety of window styles in the street and that this does not detract from the visual appearance of the area.

In relation to documents which the members of the Body should consider, Mr Easton outlined that all the following documents were accessible via web links, and available as set out in the papers:-

Local Development Plan

Policy H1 on residential area states that, householder development will be approved in principle if it does not have an unacceptable impact on the character or amenity of the surrounding area.

Policy D5 on Built Heritage states that development affecting conservation areas will only be permitted if they comply with Scottish Planning Policy.

In turn Scottish Planning Policy says that proposals for development within conservation areas should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. Proposals that do not harm the character or appearance should be treated as preserving its character or appearance.

The Councils Technical Advice Note on windows and doors and Historic Environment Scotland’s guidance state that where there is no alternative to the replacement of windows, they should be replaced in an environmentally sensitive way in keeping with the character or the original  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

The Local Review Body then considered the third request for a review. The Chairperson advised that the LRB would now be addressed by Ms Lucy Greene and reminded members that Ms Greene had not been involved in any way with the consideration or determination of the application under review and was present to provide factual information and guidance to the Body only.  Ms Greene would not be asked to express any view on the proposed application.

Ms Greene explained that the property which was the subject of the review was a single storey semi-detached house on a residential street. It was located on Morgan Road, Aberdeen, which is in the area to the south of Rosehill Drive and east of Anderson Drive. The proposal under review was for the building up of the hipped roof to form a straight gable and dormers on the front and rear of the house. The extension would be finished in slate to the roof, UPVC windows and rain water goods and render to the extended gable.

Ms Greene advised that there were no comments from consultees and no objections from neighbours.

Ms Greene indicated that the issues for consideration were the policies within the adopted Aberdeen Local Development Plan and the Supplementary Guidance contained within the Householder Development Guide. The area was zoned under the Residential Areas policy and the proposal is for an extension to a residential house, there are no tensions with policy in terms of the principle.

Ms Greene explained that Policy R1, refers directly to the Householder Supplementary Guidance, and states that proposals should be approved, only if they accord with the guidance. There are two sections of the Householder Developer guidance that were particularly relevant, those being:-

• Any Existing extensions, dormers or other alterations which were approved prior to the introduction of the supplementary guidance will not be considered by the planning authority to provide justification for a development proposal which would otherwise fail to comply with the guidance set out in the document. This guidance is intended to improve quality of design and effectively raise the design standards and ground rules against which proposals will be measured; and
• With respect to dormers, ‘the dormer extension should not appear to dominate the original roof space’.

Ms Greene intimated that detailed policy on dormer design was also contained within the Householder Supplementary Guidance, the dormer complies with this guidance in terms of its design, amount of glazing and relationship to the roof. The tension comes in the judgement as to whether it overwhelms the roof. This was a matter of judgement for members.

In relation to hipped roof extensions, Ms Greene advised that the guidance covers this type of extension and states ‘modifying only one half of a hipped roof is likely to result in the roof having an unbalanced appearance. The practice of extending a hipped roof on one half of a pair of semi-detached houses to terminate at a raised gable will not generally be accepted unless the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.