Agenda item

The Local Review Body then considered the final request for a review. The Local Review Body then considered the final request for a review of the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to refuse the request to replace all windows/glazing, to the front and rear elevations with double glazed units in white PVC at 14 Caledonian Court, Ferryhill Terrace, Ferryhill (P151844).

The Chairperson advised that the Local Review Body 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.

In relation to the application, the Local Review Body had before it (1) a delegated report by Ms Robertson, Planning Officer, dated 15 April 2016; (2) the decision notice dated 5 May 2016; (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 along with an accompanying statement.

In respect of the Review, Mr Easton advised that he had checked the submitted Notice of Review and had found it to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.  Mr Easton explained that the Local Review Body was required to consider whether it had sufficient information before them to determine the review today.

Thereafter, Mr Easton referred to the delegated report wherein a description of the site was provided, along with detail of the proposal, relevant planning policies and reason for refusal was provided.

Mr Easton advised, as detailed within the delegated report, that the design and opening mechanism of the windows and fixed glazing to the front elevation would generally replicate existing windows, but with planted on astragals rather than true astragals. The lower windows would be converted to French doors. To the rear the replacement windows would fully replicate existing in terms of design and dimensions. The entrance door would be replaced by a composite door with a vertical glazed panel and letterbox at low level. He also explained that the property was located within the Marine Terrace Conservation Area and referred to the relevant planning policies, namely: Policy D5 – Built Heritage and Policy H1 - Residential Areas of the current Aberdeen Local Development Plan, Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP); Technical Advice Note: The Repair and Replacement of Windows and Doors; ‘Windows’ guidance note from Historic Scotland’s ‘Managing Change in the Historic Environment’ series; Marine Terrace Conservation Area Appraisal and the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan.

Mr Easton advised that no letters of representation or consultation responses had been received.

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.

Members asked questions of Mr Easton regarding the proposal, namely: clarification of the Council’s policy in respect of UPVC windows and the potential impact on the character of the conservation area.

Following discussion, Members unanimously agreed that the proposal was contrary to Scottish Planning Policy, Scottish Historic Environment Policy and Policy D5 of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012 as it neither preserved nor enhanced the character of the Conservation Area. The proposed window design was insensitive and its detailing would impact negatively on the current uniform fenestration of the terrace and the wider character of the Conservation Area, contrary to the guidance contained in the Technical Advice Note – The Repair and Replacement of Windows and Doors and with Historic Scotland’s guidance - Managing Change in the Historic Environment Document.  Approval of the application could create an undesirable precedent for similar proposals resulting in further erosion of the character of the Conservation Area.

The Local Review Body therefore unanimously agreed to 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.

- COUNCILLOR RAMSAY MILNE, Convener