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 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 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 building and quality of the design.

The conservation area appraisal for Rosemount acknowledges that the uniformity window arrangements within tenements in Rosemount has largely been lost and therefore the replacement of non-traditional windows with sash and case windows is not expected as is the case in other conservation areas. It goes on to say that carefully matching new windows to the most prevalent and appropriate existing windows would enhance a tenement. This would assist in creating a degree of uniformity in terraces thereby preserving and enhancing the character of the area.

Policies within the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2015 reiterate Policy D5 and H1 do not introduce any differing considerations.

Finally, Mr Easton advised that in assessing the proposal it was suggested that the review body consider whether the proposed replacement windows enhance, preserve or harm the character of the conservation area by altering the uniform appearance of the window arrangement.

In relation to consultations, the report which was included within the agenda had advised that no consultees had raised any observations and that no letters of objection had been received.

The report advised that the stated reason for refusal of planning permission was as follows:

1. The proposal is contrary to Scottish Planning Policy, Scottish Historic Environment Policy and Policy D5 of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012 as the replacement windows do not enhance the character of the Rosemount Conservation Area. The proposed window arrangement impacts significantly on the current uniform fenestration and contrary to the guidance contained in Technical Advice Note – The Repair and Replacement of Windows and Doors and Historic Scotland’s guidance - Managing Change in the Historic Environment;
2. The proposal is contrary to Policy H1 of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012 as the proposal would have an adverse impact on the character of the area; and
3. Approval of this application would create an undesirable precedent for similar proposals resulting in further erosion of the character of the conservation area.

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

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 session nor further written representations were required, as members felt they had enough information before them.

Members 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:-

1. The proposal is contrary to Scottish Planning Policy, Scottish Historic Environment Policy and Policy D5 of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012 as the replacement windows do not enhance the character of the Rosemount Conservation Area. The proposed window arrangement impacts significantly on the current uniform fenestration and contrary to the guidance contained in Technical Advice Note – The Repair and Replacement of Windows and Doors and Historic Scotland’s guidance - Managing Change in the Historic Environment;
2. The proposal is contrary to Policy H1 of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012 as the proposal would have an adverse impact on the character of the area; and
3. Approval of this application would create an undesirable precedent for similar proposals resulting in further erosion of the character of the conservation area.