Agenda item

Members, please note that all plans and supporting documents relevant to the review can be viewed online here and by entering the application reference number 211766.

The LRB then considered the fourth 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 installation of bi-fold doors and formation of side door opening (retrospective) at 35 Carden Place, Aberdeen, Planning Reference number 211766/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 14 December 2021; (3) the decision notice dated 11 February 2022; (4) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report; and (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent.

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 Category B listed building within the Albyn Place and Rubislaw conservation area.

Ms Greene made reference to the planning history of the site and in terms of the appellant’s proposal, she advised that consent was granted in August 2020 for the erection of a replacement single storey rear extension, as well as a number of other works and alterations, which had since been completed. The extension projected 3.3m from the rear of the existing 1½ storey extension and measured 5.2m in width, as per the approved plans. Consent was granted for glazing to be located on the south and west elevations, comprising c.3.2m wide sliding doors and a c.1m wide full height window, respectively. Windows within the proposal were stated to be timber framed and no details were provided regarding the framing material of the bi-fold door. Thus, the consent was granted subject to these conditions, one of which stated ‘that no development shall take place unless details of the material for the proposed bi-folding doors had been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority and thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the details so agreed’. No such details were submitted to, or approved by, the Planning Authority. Currently installed are c.3.8m wide bi-fold doors framed in uPVC on the south elevation and a c.1m wide single entrance door framed in uPVC on the west elevation. Therefore, Detailed Planning Permission was sought retrospectively for the installation of the uPVC bi-folding doors on the south elevation, and the formation of a door opening and the installation of a single uPVC entrance door on the west elevation, of the recently constructed single storey rear extension.

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

·       The impact on Category B listed building;

·       The impact on character and appearance of Conservation Area; and

·       It was contrary to Scottish Planning Policy; Historic Environment Policy for Scotland; the Managing Change Guidance; Policies D4 (Historic Environment), H1 (Residential Areas) and D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) of the adopted Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017; associated Supplementary Guidance; and Policies D6, H1 and D1 of the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2020.

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

·       The new extension was granite block, whilst the old extension was harled brick

·       The original extension was an eye sore, which detracted from the listed building and conservation area;

·       The new uPVC doors blend in with the existing uPVC window in mezzanine bedroom;

·       The uPVC doors would not be seen once full width garage is completed;

·       Precedent existed for use of uPVC at rear of listed buildings, including both immediate neighbours;

·       The proposal was not contrary to the national and local policies quoted;

·       The impact of enforcement action would be to require disposal of uPVC doors and windows, which had an environmental impact.

In terms of consultee responses, Ms Greene advised that no response had been received from Queen's Cross and Harlaw Community Council and there were no letters of representation received.

Ms Greene advised that the applicant had expressed the view that the review should proceed on the basis of a site visit, in addition to the information provided.

The Chairperson and Councillors Bell and Mason all indicated in turn that they each 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;
• D4: Historic Environment;
• Supplementary Guidance – Householder Development Guide; and
• Scottish Planning Policy;
• Historic Environment Policy for Scotland (HEP 2 and HEP 4); and
• Albyn Place Consultation Area - Character Appraisal

Ms Greene responded to questions from members in relation to whether the rusted doors at the rear of the property were being removed if the application was to be approved; the view from the rear of the office buildings; and the materials to be used.

The Chairperson and Councillors Bell 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.

The Chairperson and Councillor Bell indicated that in this instance they were comfortable with the proposal, noting that the modern extension including the bi-fold doors which was obscured by the double garage and would therefore not have a detrimental impact on the character of the area.

Councillor Mason agreed with the appointed officer’s decision to refuse the application.

All members of the LRB expressed their discontent that the applicant did not comply with the conditions for installation.

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, the uPVC bi-fold doors and single door are installed within a modern extension and to the rear of the property in a location which is not readily open to public view. It is therefore considered that they are acceptable in terms of their impact on amenity and the character of the listed building, preserving the character of the conservation area and that this complies with Policy H1: Residential Areas, in the adopted Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017 and outweighs tension with Policy D5: Historic Environment.

-                 COUNCILLORS JENNIFER STEWART AND MARIE BOULTON, Chairpersons