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 and door with external alterations to door opening at 2 Colsea Road, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 161506.

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would now be addressed by Mr Kristian Smith 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 Karla Mann, Planning Technician; (2) the decision notice dated 21 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. Smith advised that the submitted Notice of Review was found to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.He also indicated that the appellant had requested that the LRB undertake a site inspection.

Mr. Smith provided a description of the application and advised that the application related to proposed replacement windows and a door within a single storey traditionally styled cottage, with rear extension.  He indicated that the property sits within a street of traditional cottage properties and the surrounding properties were listed and located within a conservation area. He explained that the existing windows were of timber casement style, coloured brown and the front door was also of timber construction. He advised that it was proposed to replace the timber framed windows and door in the front elevation with uPVC framed windows and the front door with a composite material door, within a uPVC frame.  The windows and the door were also to be replaced in the rear extension. He indicated that it would appear that the current timber windows were fitted in 2002, with the benefit of planning permission.

In terms of representations, Mr. Smith advised that Cove and Altens Community Council commented that they expect that the proposals to be in keeping with the location within a Conservation Area, without elaborating as to what they expected.  Thus the refusal did not require to be presented to Committee, given it was the officer’s view that the proposals were not in keeping, thus in alignment with the Community Council’s comments.

Mr. Smith outlined the relevant considerations in relation to Scottish Planning Policy, the Aberdeen City and Shire Structure Plan and Aberdeen Local Development Plan and advised that at the time of the delegated decision it was the 2012 Local Development Plan which was in place, and the prime consideration.  He explained that since that time the 2017 Plan has come into effect, although it was advised that there are minimal differences between the two plans when it comes to the consideration of this case.

Mr. Smith then referred to the Decision Notice and advised that the application was refused and stated that the proposed changes to the rear extension would be acceptable as these would not materially affect the character of the Conservation Area, however the proposed changes to the public elevation, by way of introducing PVCu and a composite front door would not comply with Local Development Plan Policies D1 (Architecture and Placemaking), D5 (Built Heritage) and H1 (residential Areas) nor would it comply with the Technical Advice Note created by Aberdeen City Council or guidance set by Historic Environment Scotland, as these changes would significantly affect the character of the Conservation Area and the residential and visual amenity of the street.

Mr Smith then referred to the matters raised in the Notice of Review statement which advised that the decision could have been split to approve the works to the rear extension, as they were acceptable, and refuse the works to the front. In regards to the front, it was felt by the appellant that as there were other examples of pVCU in Colsea Road and some surrounding streets, there was precedence and a few more would not diminish the character of the Conservation Area.

The Local Review Body then asked a number of questions of Mr Smith, specifically relating to the type of windows and whether the officer had discussed this with the appellant.

The members of the Local Review Body agreed that there was no requirement for a site visit, a hearing session, or further written representations, as they felt they had enough information before them. The Local Review Body thereupon agreed that the review under consideration should be determined without further procedure. 

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 proposed changes to the rear extension would be acceptable as these would not materially affect the character of the Conservation Area, however the proposed changes to the public elevation, by way of introducing PVCu and a composite front door would not comply with Local Development Plan Policies D1 (Architecture and Placemaking), D5 (Built Heritage) and H1 (residential Areas) nor would it comply with the Technical Advice Note created by Aberdeen City Council or guidance set by Historic Environment Scotland, as these changes would significantly affect the character of the Conservation Area and the residential and visual amenity of the street.