Agenda item

The LRB 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 application for the erection of fence to the front (retrospective) of 6 Parkhill Avenue, Aberdeen, Planning Reference number 211481/DPP. 

The Chairperson advised that Ms Lucy Greene would again be acting as the Planning Adviser to the Body in the following case under consideration this day and reiterated that although the Planning Adviser was employed by the planning authority, she 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 the Appointed Officer, Aberdeen City Council; (2) an application dated 13 October 2021; (3) the decision notice dated 23 November 2021; (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 applicant’s agent; and (6) letters of representation submitted by neighbouring properties.

The LRB was then addressed by Ms Greene who advised that the review had been submitted with all necessary information within the time limit of three months following the decision of the appointed officer.

Ms Greene then described the site advising that it was a semi detached house with front and rear curtilage. The principal elevation faced south, away from Parkhill Avenue with front gardens facing onto an area of open space and the Far Burn running immediately adjacent to the garden boundary.

Ms Greene advised that there was no relevant planning history and the proposal for Detailed Planning Permission which was sought retrospectively for the erection of the approximately 1.8m high timber fence around the front garden. Supporting posts were on the outer side, with panels facing into the garden.

She indicated that the Appointed Officer’s reasons for refusal stated in the decision notice was as follows:-

• that the height and scale of the fence was wholly out of character with the characteristics of the surrounding area;
• that it had a detrimental impact on visual amenity; and
• it was contrary to Policy H1 (Residential Areas), Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) in addition to the Council’s Supplementary Guidance ‘Householder Development Guide’.

Ms Greene outlined the key points from the appellant’s Notice of Review as follows:-

• that there were 5 other properties with similar fences on Parkhill Avenue – photos were submitted of fences at numbers 26, 36, 38, 40 and 44. Precedent was already set;
• that in view of the above, the fence was not out of character with the area;
• that No. 6 was around 100m from a public footpath, with a variety of buildings and uses beyond, such as industrial buildings, petrol station and hotel car park, as well as a busy road. All of these were less visually appealing than a timber fence;
• that the fence complied with the Householder Supplementary Guidance in terms of assessment of lighting in relation to residential amenity;
• that the fence protected a young child from straying towards the Far Burn, which flows faster and deeper during heavy rain;
• that the previous low fence left the garden exposed to public view; and
• that the fence cuts down noise from the busy Riverview Drive, increasing enjoyment of the garden.

In terms of consultee responses, Ms Greene advised that no response had been received from Dyce and Stoneywood Community Council.

There were two letters of representation submitted from number 4 and number 2 Parkhill Avenue, including additional comments made by number 4 to the LRB. These related to the following:-

·       the loss of a view from neighbouring property windows;

·       the loss of light to neighbouring garden ground;

·       the fence enclosed a front garden, was unsightly and spoiled the look of the area; and

·       the proposal, if approved, would set a precedent.

Ms Greene advised that the applicant had expressed the view that the review may proceed on the basis of the information provided.

The Chairperson and Councillors Allan and Mason all indicated in turn that they each now had enough information before them and therefore agreed that the review under consideration should be determined without any further procedure.

In terms of relevant policy considerations, Ms Greene referred to the following in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017:-

• H1: Residential Areas;
• D1: Quality Placemaking by Design; and
• Supplementary Guidance – Householder Development Guide.

Ms Greene responded to questions from members in relation to the permitted height of a fence to the rear and frontage of properties.

The Chairperson and Councillors Allan and Mason each advised in turn and by a majority of two to one, agreed to reverse the appointed officer’s earlier decision and to grant the planning permission conditionally.

The Chairperson and Councillor Allan indicated that they believed that in this instance and due to the layout of the property, the fence was not contrary to Policy H1 as outlined in the Appointed Officer’s reasons for refusal and if stained green would not have a detrimental impact on visual amenity. They both were supportive for it to remain, particularly as it provided protection for a young child from straying towards the Far Burn.

Councillor Mason agreed with the appointed officer’s decision 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:-

In this particular instance, due to the layout of the residential plot and outside areas, it is considered that the fence would provide privacy to the occupiers and security to children, as private garden area for the house. It is considered that the green staining of the fence would mitigate the visual impact of the structure when viewed from the open space and street to the south. The fence would thereby accord with Policy H1 – Residential Areas, in the adopted Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017 and the Householder Development Guide Supplementary Guidance.

CONDITION

That the fence shall be painted in green stain within three calendar months of the date of this permission and thereafter shall only remain in place if stained green.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.