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 the proposed replacement windows and doors to a dwelling house at 29 King’s Gate Aberdeen.

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would now be addressed by Mr Robert Forbes 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 Charlotte Watson, Trainee Planner; (2) the decision notice dated 9 December 2016; (3) plans showing the proposal; (4) links to the 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.

Mr Forbes advised that the submitted Notice of Review was found to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.

Mr Forbes provided a description of the application and advised that the appeal relates to the proposed replacement of timber sash and case windows to the front and rear with top-opening Upvc windows to the rear and Upvc sash and case windows to the front.  The proposal also sought the replacement of the existing white timber door and fanlight to be replaced by a new Upvc door and fanlight.

Mr Forbes then referred to the Decision Notice and advised that the application was refused on the grounds that the proposal fails to comply with Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking and Design), D4 (Historic Environment) and H1 (Residential Areas).  The proposal fails to demonstrate due regard for its context within the Albyn Place/Rubislaw Conservation Area, where the retention and reinstatement of traditional windows and doors, or suitably sympathetic alternatives, is necessary to maintain and enhance the character of the Conservation Area.  Mr Forbes also noted that a reason for refusal was that should the application be approved it would set a precedent for further unsympathetic window and door replacement within the Conservation area.

Mr Forbes then referred to the matters raised in the Notice of Review statement which advised that there were a number of cases where Upcv sash and case applications were granted on the front elevation and it was felt that it was unfair to refuse this application based on precedent.  Mr Forbes advised that the previous applications mentioned in the Notice of Review had all been approved prior to the Implementation of the Supplementary Guidance.

In regards to planning policies, Mr Forbes indicated that policies D1, Quality Placemaking by Design, D4, Historic Environment and H1, Residential Areas were all relevant.  Also Historic Environment Scotland’s “Managing Change in the Historic Environment” guidance note series “Windows and Doorways” and the Supplementary Guidance Technical Advice Notes “The Repair and Replacement of Windows and Doors.”

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

Councillor Milne suggested that Planning Officer’s write to CR Smith to provide them with links to the newly adopted Local Development Plan and Supplementary Guidance for future reference.

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 a site visit, 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 officer 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 proposal does not comply with Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking and Design), D4 (Historic Environment) and H1 (Residential Areas) as the proposal fails to demonstrate due regard for its context within the Albyn Place/Rubislaw Conservation Area, where the retention and reinstatement of traditional windows and doors, or suitably sympathetic alternatives, is necessary to maintain and enhance the character of the Conservation Area.  Whilst acknowledging that the wider visual impact of the proposal in isolation is limited, the replacement of traditional timber windows and door with upvc would risk setting an unwelcome precedent for further unsympathetic window and door replacement within the Conservation Area, which, if replicated, could lead to a cumulative erosion of its character and appearance.

The proposal also fails to comply with the requirements of the Council’s relevant TAN, Historic Environment Scotland’s Managing Change guidance, and Scottish Planning Policy due to the loss of historic fabric and the proposal’s resultant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.  The proposed windows also conflict with the TAN’s Supplementary Guidance on “The Repair and Replacement of Windows and Doors” in which the replacement of windows within Conservation Areas are to be a “like for like” replacement in design, method of opening and materials in order to maintain the character and amenity of the Conservation Area.

-       Councillor Ramsay Milne, Chairperson