Agenda item

The Local Review Body then considered the third 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 Attic Floor Flat, 69 Hardgate, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 170683.

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would again be addressed by Mr Andrew Miller and reminded members 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.  She 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 Roy Brown, Planning Technician; (2) the decision notice dated 8 September 2017; (3) plans and photos showing the proposal; (4) links to the planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (5) the application and Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent.

Mr. Miller 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 and consider further written submissions and a hearing session as further procedures.

Mr Miller indicated that the site subject to this review was an attic floor flat in a 2.5 storey traditional granite built terrace that backs on to Hardgate, fronting towards Bon Accord Terrace Gardens, to the north of Union Glen. He explained that it was within the Bon-Accord Crescent/Crown Street Conservation Area.

Mr Miller advised that the application sought consent for the replacement of all timber sash-and-case windows at attic floor level with white PVCu sash and case windows. The proposed windows would have plant on astragals and trickle vents.

Mr Miller intimated that the request sought the review of the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application under delegated powers. In refusing the application, the reasons given were as follows:-

•           Insufficient information provided with the application (no window condition survey provided that demonstrates the existing windows are beyond economical/practical repair).

•           Inappropriate features (plated astragals and trickle vents).

•           Creation of precedent for similar proposals.

It was therefore considered to be contrary to policy H1, D1, D4, Windows and Doors Supplementary Guidance, Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statement (HESPS) and Scottish Planning Policy (SPP).

Mr Miller made reference to the appellant’s case advising that the Notice of Review Statement outlined that the replacement windows would match the existing windows and there were other examples of precedent (PVCu) windows at ground floor level at 65 Hardgate, Aberdeen in the past six months.

In relation to consultations and objections, Mr Miller advised that no letters of objection had been received. Environmental Health had requested that a Noise Impact Assessment be undertaken, Roads Development Management had no objections and the Flooding Team had no objections following provision of additional information.

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

Mr Miller then outlined the relevant Policy considerations as follows:-

H1 – Residential Areas:

•           Residential development was acceptable in principle on basis it complied with Supplementary Guidance and did not result in an adverse impact on established residential amenity;

D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design:

•           Required all development to be of a high standard of design;

D4 – Historic Environment:

•           The Development should comply with SPP, HESPS – All development should either preserve or enhance the character of conservation areas; and

Windows and Doors Supplementary Guidance – Required evidence to prove that existing windows were beyond economic repair. Windows on public elevations in Conservation Areas should not be PVCu, astragals should go through the window and trickle vents must not be visible.

Mr Miller explained that in determining the appeal, members should also take into consideration any material considerations they feel were relevant to the application that would point to either overturning the original decision or dismissing the review.

Mr Miller advised that should members wish to overturn the decision of the appointed officer, consideration should be given to any conditions which would be appropriate in order to make the proposal acceptable. However all conditions must meet the six tests set out by Scottish Government policy.

Finally, Mr Miller intimated that if members were minded to overturn the decision, then he would not advise placing any conditions.

The Local Review Body then asked questions of Mr Miller, specifically regarding the nearby ground floor property which had been granted planning permission for replacement windows following review.

Members agreed by majority to uphold the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application.

Councillors Cameron, Copland and Nicoll voted to uphold the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application. The Chairperson and Councillor John voted to overturn the decision of the appointed officer and approve 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:-

There is insufficient information to confirm if the principle of the replacement of the existing traditional timber framed sash and case windows would be acceptable as it has not been demonstrated if these windows are beyond economic / practicable repair. The proposal would replace traditional one-over-one and two-over-two timber framed sash and case windows on readily visible public elevations with windows of an inappropriate modern design, which would be framed with white uPVC, have planted astragals and visible ventilators. The grant of planning permission would set a precedent for similar development in the surrounding area, which would be significantly detrimental to the architectural integrity of the original dwelling and the historic character and appearance of the Bon-Accord and Crown Street Conservation Area. The proposal would therefore conflict with the aims of Scottish Planning Policy; Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statement; Policy D4 - Historic Environment and D1 - Quality Placemaking by Design of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan; the Supplementary Guidance: 'The Repair and Replacement of Windows and Doors'; the aims of the Bon-Accord and Crown Street Conservation Area Character Appraisal; and Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Windows'. There are no material planning considerations which would warrant the approval of planning permission in this instance.

The Local Review Body emphasised that a Window Condition Survey should be submitted in any future window replacement application.

-       COUNCILLOR JENNIFER STEWART, Chairperson