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 application for the erection of a fence to the front and rear at 7 Airyhall Terrace Aberdeen, planning reference 190128/DPP.

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would again be addressed by Mr Gavin Evans and reminded Members that although Mr Evans 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 LRB had before it (1) a delegated report by Mr Roy Brown, Planning Technician; (2) the application dated 25 January 2019; (3) the decision notice dated 8 March 2019 (4) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the agent along with an accompanying statement and (6) copies of letters of representations. 

The Local Review Body then heard from Mr Evans, who explained that the review had been submitted with all necessary information within the time limit of three months following the decision of the appointed officer.

Mr Evans then described the application site and explained that the site contained a 1½ storey semi-detached dwelling with associated front and rear gardens and the site was triangular and located on a corner plot at the junction of Airyhall Place and Airyhall Gardens.

Mr Evans noted that a fence varying between 2m and 2.2m in height had been erected without planning permission on the northeast, north and west boundaries. Prior to its erection, there was an original approximately 0.6m high concrete boundary wall on these boundaries and a hedge along the building line of the principal elevation to the northwest of the elevation, which divided the front curtilage with the private rear curtilage.

In regards to the proposal, Mr Evans advised that detailed planning permission was sought for the erection of a timber fence to the front and side of the dwelling enclosing the garden to the side of the house and separating it from the driveway/off-street car parking at the front.  The short section that was flush with the front wall of the house would be 1.9m in height and would sit on top of a 0.3m existing masonry wall, which would result in an overall height of 2.2m.  The remainder of the fence, which enclosed the side garden and abuts the pavement, would measure 1.5m in height.

Mr Evans outlined the appointed Officer’s reasons for refusal as follows:-

·         The fence was incongruous in design, siting, scale and height when considered in the context of the dwelling and the surrounding area;

·         There was an adverse impact on the street scene, to the detriment of the character of the area;

·         There was the potential for adverse precedent for other such high fences on the streetscape; and

·         It conflicted with D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and H1 (Residential Areas), as well as the guidance contained in the Householder Development Guide Supplementary Guidance. 

In relation to the appellants case, Mr Evans highlighted the following:-

·         The boundary fence was intended to allow for the rear/side garden to be a safe and private place for the applicants’ children to play; and

·         Notes that other corner sites along Airyhall Place had a combination of walls and fences of comparable or greater height.

In relation to consultee responses, Mr Evans advised that no objections were received, however the Braeside and Mannofield Community Council asked that there be a reduction in height from the previous application and requested that sightlines be maintained after erection of the fence.  There were 25 letters of objections in regards to the application.  The reasons stated included the following:-

·         There would be a negative impact on road and pedestrian safety, specifically visibility splays when turning right from Airyhall Gardens onto Airyhall Place. Airyhall Place was highlighted as being a thoroughfare for children walking to Airyhall Primary School;

·         The application was not in compliance with recommended planning regulations of being 1m in height, given its proximity to the road;

·         The existing fence had been allowed to remain for the past 6 months without recourse;

·         Request that the Roads authority undertake an assessment of the height of the fence relative to road and pedestrian safety and visit the site; and

·         requested that the Planning Development Management Committee (PDMC) visit the site.

Mr Evans then advised that the applicant had expressed the view that further procedure should take place by way of a site visit.

The Chairperson and Councillors Mason and Wheeler advised in turn that they each had enough information before them and agreed that no further procedure was required and that the review under consideration should be determined without further procedure.

Mr Evans outlined in detail, the relevant policy considerations, making reference to the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017, namely policy H1 (Residential Areas: Householder Development) and D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design).  Mr Evans provided details on specific content on boundary enclosures and noted that in all instances, the scale and form of boundary enclosures should be appropriate to their context and should not detract from the street scene as a result of inappropriate visual impact, and also proposals for boundary enclosures would not be permitted where they would result in an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of neighbouring dwellings.

The Chairperson and Councillors Mason and Wheeler advised in turn and unanimously agreed to uphold 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 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) and other material considerations in so far as these were pertinent to the determination of the application.

More specifically, the reasons on which the Local Review Body based this decision were as follows:-

The proposed fence would be incongruous in design, siting, scale and height to the original building and the surrounding area. Because of its height, the proposed fence would have a detrimental impact on the street scene which would have an adverse impact on the character of the surrounding area. The grant of planning permission for such a proposal could also set a negative precedent for similar development which would be significantly detrimental to the character of the surrounding area. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies D1 - Quality Placemaking by Design and H1 - Residential Areas of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan; and the Supplementary Guidance: 'The Householder Development Guide'. There are no material planning considerations that warrant the grant of planning permission in this instance.

-       Councillor Marie Boulton, Convener