Agenda item

Members, please note that all plans and supporting documents relevant to the review can be viewed online here and by entering the application reference number 250433.

The LRB then considered the third request to review the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation for the refusal of the application for the installation of a fence to front (retrospective) at 36 Devonshire Road, Aberdeen, AB10 6XR. Planning Reference Number 250430.

The Chairperson advised that Ms Lucy Greene would again be acting as the Planning Adviser to the Body in the following case under consideration this day and reiterated that although the Planning Adviser was employed by the planning authority, she 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.

In relation to the application, the LRB had before it (1) a delegated report by the Appointed Officer, Aberdeen City Council; (2) an application dated 28 April 2025; (3)  the Decision Notice dated 22 July 2025; (4) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant/agent; and (6) three letters of representation.

Ms Greene advised that the applicant had indicated on the Notice of Review that there were new mattersto be raised. The applicant had also expressed the view that a hearing should take place in order for the applicant to convey the impact this has had and answer questions from the LRB members.

She then described the site including planning history and outlined the appellant’s proposal for detailed planning permission.

The LRB then heard from Elena Plews, Legal Adviser, Aberdeen City Council who provided information relating to a request from the applicant to speak to the LRB. She explained that in terms of the Local Review Body Regulations, this could happen, if the LRB decided that it required further information before determining the review. Additionally, information could be by way of a site visit, further written submissions, or by holding a hearing session. In this situation, following this request, the only way the applicant could speak to the LRB would be by way of the LRB convening a hearing session.

Mrs Plews outlined the procedure for hearing sessions and indicated that the LRB members now needed to decide whether or not they needed further information relating to planning considerations, to be able to determine this review by way of holding a hearing session, or whether they believe that they have sufficient information to be able to determine this review.

The Chairperson and Councillors Lawrence, Macdonald and Thomson all indicated in turn that they each had enough information before them and therefore agreed that the review under consideration should be determined without the need of a hearing.

Mrs Plews then provided information relating to the consideration of new matters advising that it was for the LRB to consider whether or not to accept the new information. In this case, the applicant had provided some information explaining in their view, why that material could not have been presented to the Planning Case Officer during the application stage and that the information was extremely sensitive, therefore she recommended that the LRB meeting move into private session to consider that information, which was of a sensitive nature.

The LRB agreed to hear the sensitive information in private session.

On return to public session, the Chairperson and Councillors Lawrence, Macdonald and Thomson all indicated in turn that they would accept the additional information into the proceedings, due to the exceptional circumstances provided by the applicant.

Ms Greene indicated that the appointed officer’s reasons for refusal outlined in the report of handling was as follows:-

·       The fence was of an excessive height and alien design and materials for the context of the application site and the surrounding area. This adversely disrupted the regular and extensive rhythm of largely low boundary treatments in stone, metal railing or planted hedging that has been established on the street and which made a significant contribution to its historic character and distinctive sense of place;

·       The development therefore failed to preserve the character and appearance of the surrounding area, contrary to Policy 16 (Quality Homes) of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and Policy H1(Residential Areas) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2023 (ALDP). The proposed works were also contrary to the relevant guidance set out in the Householder Development Guide Aberdeen Planning Guidance; and

·       The fence harmed the distinctiveness of the surrounding area and was therefore contrary to Policies 14 (Design Quality and Place) of NPF4 and D1 (Quality Placemaking) of the ALDP. The works would also fail to preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area, contrary to Historic Environment Policy for Scotland, Policy 7 (Historic Assets and Places) of NPF4 and Policy D6(Historic Environment) of the ALDP.

Ms Greene outlined the key points from the appellant’s Notice of Review as follows:-

·       1.7m fence was already in place, but offered to reduce height to 1.4m by removing 2 slats;

·       There was an offer to paint it banco National Trust green and grow clematis;

·       not applying for planning permission was a genuine oversight;

·       this was previously a 2m hedge jointly maintained;

·       subsequently the hedge was partially removed and canes with tinsel on boundary, plastic poles and fairy lights. These were not in keeping with Conservation Area;

·       Understands the value of conserving historic character;

·       there were human reasons for the fence;

·       there was reference to advice from the Council’s Enforcement Officer, which referred to the reason the fence was not permitted development; and

·       refers to another fence nearby of greater height.

Ms Greene intimated that there were three letters of representation, two of which were letters of support and one objection.

In terms of relevant policy considerations, Ms Greene referred to the National Planning Framework 4 and the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2023.

Ms Greene responded to questions from members relating to the site layout, boundary and height of the fence.

Members each advised in turn and unanimously agreed toreverse the appointed officer’s earlier decision. Planning permission was therefore granted conditionally.

In coming to their decision, the Local Review Body had regard to the provisions of the development plan as required by Sections 25 and 37 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) and other material considerations in so far as these were pertinent to the determination of the application.

More specifically, the reasons on which the Local Review Body based this decision are as follows –

The Local Review Body agreed that the fence is an excessive height and should therefore be reduced by two slats although the design and materials for the context of the application site and the surrounding area are acceptable. At the reduced height the fence would not adversely disrupt the regular and extensive rhythm of largely low boundary treatments in stone, metal railing or planted hedging that has been established on the street and which makes a significant contribution to its historic character and distinctive sense of place.

With conditions relating to the height reduction, application of colour and planting the development would be acceptable, would preserve the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and comply with Policy 16 (Quality Homes) of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and Policy H1 (Residential Areas) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2023 (ALDP). It would also comply with the relevant guidance set out in the Householder Development Guide Aberdeen Planning Guidance.

The fence, subject to appropriate conditions, would not harm the distinctiveness of the surrounding area and would therefore comply with Policies 14 (Design Quality and Place) of NPF4 and D1 (Quality Placemaking) of the ALDP preserving, the character and appearance of the Albyn Place / Rubislaw Conservation Area, and complying with Historic Environment Policy for Scotland, Policy 7 (Historic Assets and Places) of NPF4 and Policy D6 (Historic Environment) of the ALDP.

CONDITIONS

This permission is granted subject to the following conditions:-

(01)    REDUCTION IN HEIGHT OF FENCE

That within 3 months of the date of this permission the fence shall be reduced in height by the removal of two horizontal timber slats and a similar reduction in height of support posts.

Reason: In the interests of preserving the character of the Conservation Area.

(02)    PAINT COLOUR

That within 3 months of the date of this permission the fence shall be painted in a dark colour, in accordance with details which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority in advance.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and the character of the Conservation Area.

(03)    PLANTING

That within 3 months of the date of this permission there shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority details of climbing plants to be planted adjacent to the fence. The details shall include species, number of plants and size at planting.

Planting shall be carried out prior to 31 May 2026 and any plants becoming diseased or dying within five years shall be replaced during the following planting season by plants of the same species.

Reason: In order to soften the appearance of the fence, in the interests of preserving the character of the Conservation Area.

-                COUNCILLOR NEIL COPLAND, Chairperson