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 221096.
Minutes:
The LRB 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 Detailed Planning Permission for the erection of a fence and gate to the front (retrospective) at 13 Powis Crescent Aberdeen, planning reference 221096.
The Chairperson stated 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. He 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 and decision letter by the Appointed Officer, Aberdeen City Council; (2) an application dated 5 September 2022, (3) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (4) the Notice of Review submitted by the agent and (5) two letters of objection.
Ms Greene then described the site and outlined the appellant’s proposal. The application site comprised a ground floor flatted property within a traditional 2 storey granite block of 4 flats where the front and side curtilage is grass with mature shrubs and trees and shared between the application property and neighbouring Flat C. The remaining shared curtilage of the block of flats was enclosed along the length of its boundary by 1m high metal fencing. Timber fencing rising to a height of between 0.6m and 1.9m and incorporating 2 x 1.9m high gates had been erected along the front and side boundaries of the application site, fully enclosing the garden ground shared with Flat C. The fencing had been erected without planning permission and was therefore unauthorised in terms of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended.
In terms of the proposal, Ms Greene explained Planning permission was sought retrospectively for the erection of timber fencing along the front and side boundary of the application site. The 1.9m high fencing and associated gates fully enclosed the front garden area along the eastern boundary which fronts onto Powis Crescent and along the southern boundary which extends the length of the shared path serving the main entrance to the property. Along the northern boundary of the site the fencing had been fixed to an existing boundary wall resulting in a combined height of between 1.9 to 2.25m as it extends east to west with the exception of a 1.8m long section where it drops to a height of some 0.8m then links with the 1.9m high fencing which has been erected along the front of the site. A rise in ground level from south to north between the application site and the neighbouring garden ground to the north was such that the metal fencing which delineates the southern boundary of the neighbouring site rose some 0.5 to 1m above the top of the boundary wall which related to the northern boundary of the application site.
Ms Greene indicated that the appointed officer’s reasons for refusal outlined in the report of handling was as follows:-
The proposed development which was retrospective is considered inappropriate in terms of the material finish, scale and siting of the fence and associated gates in the context of the residential curtilage and the surrounding area. Taking into account the height and location of the fence where it extended forward of the principal elevation of the flatted property and along the length of the site boundary with Powis Crescent, it was considered particularly intrusive within the streetscene, resulting in a significant adverse visual impact on the character and amenity of the residential area.
Furthermore, its approval would set an undesirable precedent for similar applications being granted under current policy and guidance which would further erode the visual amenity of the surrounding area. The proposal does not accord with the requirements of sub-section (g) of Policy 16 (Quality Homes) of National Planning Framework 4. It was deemed to be contrary to the requirements of Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and Policy H1 (Residential Areas) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017 and fails to address the expectations of the Council’s Supplementary Guidance on Householder Development. There are no material planning considerations of sufficient weight, including evaluation under the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2020, that would warrant approval of the application in this instance.
Ms Greene outlined the key points from the appellant’s Notice of Review as follows:-
· The fence provided a safe and private amenity space for occupants of flats A and C for family and young child;
· The communal rear garden was used extensively by the remaining occupants of the flats and their dogs and as such not suitable or safe for the family and young child to use;
· The fence also prevented vandalism, noise and unauthorised access which had happened in the past;
· Street bins were located adjacent to the front garden and the fence provided a visual barrier;
· Planting within the garden extended much higher than the fence;
· Other properties had hedges higher than the fence;
· The fence did not impede visibility for vehicles and the local Community Council did not object;
· They thought it was not unreasonable to wish to protect the property with a fence;
· The previous fence did not fulfil security or privacy requirements;
· The fence was not overdevelopment and did not have unacceptable impact or result in loss of open space or impede traffic.
· Visual impact of unfinished larch could be improved by painting the fence green;
· Applicant willing to reduce the fence to 1.5 metres in height.
In terms of Consultations, Ms Greene advised that two letters of objection were received.
Ms Greene advised that the applicant had expressed the view that a site visit should take place before determination.
The Chairperson and Councillors Alphonse, Blake, Boulton and McRae 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 proposed National Planning Framework 4 and the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017, as well as the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2023.
Ms Greene responded to questions from members.
Members each advised in turn and unanimously agreed to uphold the appointed officers previous decision. Planning permission was therefore refused.
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 development which was retrospective was considered inappropriate interms of the material, finish, scale and siting of the fence and associated gates in thecontext of the residential curtilage and the surrounding area. Taking into account theheight and location of the fence where it extends forward of the principal elevation ofthe flatted property and along the length of the site boundary with Powis Crescent, itis considered particularly intrusive within the streetscene, resulting in a significant adverse visual impact on the character and amenity of the residential area.
Furthermore, its approval would set an undesirable precedent for similar applications being granted under current policy and guidance which would further erode the visual amenity of the surrounding area.
The proposal does not accord with the requirements of sub-section (g) of Policy 16 (Quality Homes) of National Planning Framework 4. It was deemed to be contrary to the requirements of Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and Policy H1 (Residential Areas) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017 and fails to address the expectations of the Council's Supplementary Guidance on Householder Development. There are no material planning considerations of sufficient weight, including evaluation under the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2020, that would warrant approval of the application in this instance.
- Councillor Henrickson, Chairperson