Agenda item

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 permissions for the extension of an existing office to provide additional office and support accommodation at 6 Albert Street (ref 140714).

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, Mrs Dunsmuir, as regards the procedure to be followed and also, thereafter, by Mr Gavin Evans, 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 Evans explained that the application which was the subject of the review was for an extension to the existing office accommodation at 6 Albert Street.  Mr Evans explained that he had checked the submitted Notice of Review and found it to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.  He added that the applicant had asked that the LRB request further written submissions to be made and a further hearing session organised.

Mr Evans explained that the application related to the extension to an existing office at 6 Albert Street.  The site was located at the west end of Union Street, and was a Category B listed building, while also being designated as a group Category A listing with other properties within Albert Street.  The site also sat within the Albyn Place / Rubislaw Conservation Area.  The building consisted of granite walls and a natural slate roof, and was single storey in height with both attic and basement levels.  The building fronted onto Albert Street, and its rear elevation could be seen from Albert Walk, a lane to the rear of the site.  Mr Evans explained that planning permission was now sought for an extension to the rear of the building, consisting of accommodation over three levels.  At its widest point, the extension would measure approximately 5x6 metres at basement level.  The ground floor was to be linked with a glazed corridor over two floors, measuring 2.5m long by 2.1 m wide.  The main extension would be 6.6m wide by 14.9m long (at the ground floor level), while at first floor level there was to be an office extension projecting from the link extension which would measure 5.55m long by 4.575m wide.  A roof terrace was also proposed above the ground floor extension which would include walling around the perimeter at a height of 1.1m.  It was also proposed that the remainder of the rear wall would be demolished to make space for an additional car within the rear feu.  The report noted that this alteration would require planning permission as well as listed building consent.

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

Development Plan – Aberdeen Local Development Plan (2012);  D1 (Architecture and Placemaking) – to ensure that high standards of design were achieved through a number of considerations, including context, to ensure that the setting of the proposed development and its design were acceptable;  D5 (Built Heritage) – that proposals affecting listed buildings would only be permitted if they complied with Scottish Planning Policy; and BI3 (West End Offices) – within the area, applications for change of use for office purposes would be given favourable consideration.

Also of relevancy was Historic Scotland:  Managing Change in the Historic Environment – Extensions; Roofs; Setting; and Mr Evans advised that the Interim Supplementary Guidance: Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan – including the Conservation Area Character Appraisal: Albyn Place and Rubislaw July 2013 was also a material planning consideration.  Sections 25 and 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) required that where, in making any determination under the planning acts, regard was to be had to the provisions of the development plan and that determination should be made in accordance with the plan, so far as material to the application, unless material considerations indicated otherwise.  Section 64 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 places a duty on planning authorities to preserve and enhance the character or appearance of conservation areas.

In relation to consultations, Mr Evans explained that no consultees had raised any objections and one letter of objection had been received which stated that no other extensions on Albert Street were taller than single storey in height; the proposed cladding was not in keeping with the stonework of the listed building; the imposing nature of the proposal; and the adverse impact on daylight and privacy.

Mr Evans further explained that it was also important to point out that within the Statement of Reasons, submitted with the notice of review, the applicant made a business case for the expansion of the property; and stated that they did not consider there would be an adverse impact on the terrace as a whole, nor on the listed building; that the proposal protected the character and appearance of the building; that they disagreed with the planning officer’s assessment that the design of the extension was not of a high quality; that the Interim Guidance on conservation areas did not preclude the erection of extensions greater than one storey; that they did not consider there to be an adverse impact in terms of amenity or loss of privacy; and also set out why they felt their proposal complied with the planning policies outlined in the report of handling.

Mr Evans advised that the stated reason for refusal of planning permission was as follows:

The proposed rear extension due to its scale and mass is contrary to the Interim Supplementary Guidance Conservation Area Character Appraisals and Management Plan, July 2013, which is a material consideration for extensions within Conservation Areas, and Scottish Planning Policy, Scottish Historic Environment Policy, and Local Development Plan Policies D1 (Placemaking and Architecture) and D5 (Built Heritage), and Managing Change: Extensions (Historic Scotland).  In particular, the extension is overly long, wide and high, and obscures many of the features of the building, which is Category B listed, including dormer window, windows, and the eaves.  Due to the design of the rear extension, being bulky, it would appear as an alien feature, particularly at first floor level within the terrace obscuring the eaves which is a unifying feature of the terrace and the traditional dormer window.  The proposal would not preserve the setting of the listed building nor would it preserve the character of the Conservation Area from within public areas of which it would be visible.

The proposed demolition of the boundary wall to accommodate additional car parking is considered unacceptable.  The wall, which runs parallel with Albert Walk and part way into the feu, contributes to the character of the Conservation Area and defines the historical feu.  The deterioration of back lanes and removal of boundary walls would have an adverse impact on the setting of the listed building and would not preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area, contrary to the Interim Supplementary Guidance Conservation Area Character Appraisals and Management Plan, July 2013, Scottish Planning Policy, Scottish Historic Environment Policy, Local Development Plan Policy D5 (Built Heritage), and Managing Change: Setting (Historic Scotland).

The proposal, if approved, would set an undesirable precedent for similar developments in the Albyn Place/ Rubislaw Conservation Area that would adversely affect and undermine the special character of the area as a result of the impact on the rear lane and rear feus, and on the terrace of listed buildings.

The Local Review Body then asked a number of questions of Mr Evans.

At this point, the Local Review Body considered whether they had sufficient information before them to proceed to determine the review.

The Local Review Body thereupon agreed that the review under consideration should be determined without further procedure.  The members of the Local Review Body therefore agreed that neither a hearing sessions nor further written representations were required, as members felt they had enough information before them.

Councillor McCaig noted that there was clear guidance in terms of the supplementary and conservation guidance which set out what was acceptable, and added that the proposal was larger than what was suggested in the guidance.  He also felt that there would be an adverse impact on the conservation area.  Councillor McCaig added that in his opinion, there had not been any factors set out in the supporting statement which outweighed the application of the planning policies.  He felt that it was not an exceptional design and therefore agreed with the decision of the appointed officer.

Councillor Stuart added that the percentage of the site taken up by the proposed extension was well above what would be considered acceptable and felt that the extension would not improve Albert Walk or Albert Street.

Councillor Crockett stated that while he would usually be sympathetic to an economic development argument in terms of planning applications, in this case he agreed that the proposal was excessive for the site and would be an alien feature on the existing building.  Councillor Lawrence agreed, stating that the mass of the proposal would destroy the amenity of the area. 

The Chairperson agreed with the comments made, particularly in relation to the size and massing of the proposal, and added that he would not want to see the loss of windows at the rear of the property.  Members therefore unanimously upheld the decision of the appointed office to refuse the application.

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(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) which required that where, in making any determination under the planning acts, regard was to be had to the provisions of the development plan and that determination should be made in accordance with the plan, so far as material to the application, unless material considerations indicated otherwise. 

More specifically, the reasons in which the Local Review Body based this decision were as follows:-

The proposed rear extension due to its scale and mass is contrary to the Interim Supplementary Guidance Conservation Area Character Appraisals and Management Plan, July 2013, which is a material consideration for extensions within Conservation Areas, and Scottish Planning Policy, Scottish Historic Environment Policy, and Local Development Plan Policies D1 (Placemaking and Architecture) and D5 (Built Heritage), and Managing Change: Extensions (Historic Scotland).  In particular, the extension is overly long, wide and high, and obscures many of the features of the building, which is Category B listed, including dormer window, windows, and the eaves.  Due to the design of the rear extension, being bulky, it would appear as an alien feature, particularly at first floor level within the terrace obscuring the eaves which is a unifying feature of the terrace and the traditional dormer window.  The proposal would not preserve the setting of the listed building nor would it preserve the character of the Conservation Area from within public areas of which it would be visible.

The proposed demolition of the boundary wall to accommodate additional car parking is considered unacceptable.  The wall, which runs parallel with Albert Walk and part way into the feu, contributes to the character of the Conservation Area and defines the historical feu.  The deterioration of back lanes and removal of boundary walls would have an adverse impact on the setting of the listed building and would not preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area, contrary to the Interim Supplementary Guidance Conservation Area Character Appraisals and Management Plan, July 2013, Scottish Planning Policy, Scottish Historic Environment Policy, Local Development Plan Policy D5 (Built Heritage), and Managing Change: Setting (Historic Scotland).

The proposal, if approved, would set an undesirable precedent for similar developments in the Albyn Place/ Rubislaw Conservation Area that would adversely affect and undermine the special character of the area as a result of the impact on the rear lane and rear feus, and on the terrace of listed buildings.