Agenda item

The Local Review Body then considered the second request for a review to evaluate the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to refuse the request for planning permission for replacement windows at 103B Rosemount Place, Aberdeen (160141).

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would now be addressed by Mr Matthew Easton and 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.

In relation to the application, the Local Review Body had before it (1) a delegated report by Ms Linda Speers, Planning Officer, dated 23 February 2016; (2) the decision notice; (3) plans showing the proposal; (4) planning policies referred to in the delegated report; and (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent.

Mr Easton advised that the application refused under delegated powers by officers relates to a proposal for window replacements at a first floor flat within a development dating from the early 1990’s which is located within the Rosemount and Westburn Conservation Area.

He indicated that the existing windows have the appearance of timber sash and case with multi-pane upper sashes and traditional astragal detailing but open in the manner of a casement window. Detailed planning permission has been sought to replace these with new rosewood coloured PVC windows which would be casement style with tilt and turn opening mechanism and planted-on astragals.

Mr Easton explained that although the principle of replacing the windows was considered acceptable, due to the uniform appearance of the block the only suitable replacement was considered to be replicas of the existing windows. This option was rejected by the appellants.

Mr Easton advised that the application was therefore 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 intimated that in the Notice of Review, the appellants argue that the proposal varies only slightly from what is already in place and that there is already a variety of window styles in the street and that this does not detract from the visual appearance of the area.

Mr Easton advised that relevant considerations were as follows:-

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 indicated that in assessing the proposal it is 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.

At this juncture, the Chairperson asked if members were happy to proceed with determining the application.  Members felt that they had sufficient information in order to reach a decision and did not require a site visit. 

Following discussion of the application, all three Members agreed that (1) the proposal wascontrary 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 and Westburn Conservation Area.  The proposed window design and detail 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 therefore agreed unanimouslyto uphold the decision of the appointed officer and 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.