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 230652.

The Local Review Body (LRB) of Aberdeen City Council met on this day to review the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation for the non-determination of application for the erection of balcony with external stairs and formation of door from an existing window opening to rear at 36 Albyn Place, Aberdeen.

 

Councillor McRae as Chair for the meeting, gave a brief outline of the business to be undertaken, advising that the LRB would be addressed by the Assistant Clerk, Mr Mark Masson with regards to the procedure to be followed and thereafter, by Ms Lucy Greene who would be acting as the Planning Adviser to the Body in the following case under consideration this day.

 

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.

 

The Local Review Body was then addressed by Mr Masson, Assistant Clerk in regard to the procedure to be followed, at which time reference was made to the procedure note circulated with the papers calling the meeting and to more general aspects relating to the procedure.

 

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 26 May 2023; (3) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report; and (4) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant.

 

Ms Greene then described the site and outlined the appellant’s proposal which sought planning permission for the erection of balcony with external stairs and formation of door from an existing window opening to rear.

 

Ms Greene indicated that the appointed officer’s reasons for refusal outlined in the report of handling was as follows:-

·       Door opening generally compliant, no justification for loss and re-use of granite, or for loss of original window – however, principle acceptable in terms of HES and LDP guidance/policy on Windows and Doors.

·       the excessive scale, inappropriate design and limited detail on material would an adverse effect on the built environment, contrary to NPF4 Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) & Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking) of the LDP.  Proposed balcony would have a significant negative impact on integrity, character and special architectural interest of the listed building and its overall setting and oversized scale and the height at which the balcony would be fixed, it would be clearly visible from outwith the application site - neither preserving nor enhancing the character of the conservation area.

·       External fixtures Guidance (HES) requires consideration of scale and method of fixing; balcony is of inappropriate scale and materials and fixing method unknown; and

·       Contrary to:-

-       NPF4 Policy 7 (Historic Assets and Places);

-       LDP Policy D6 (Historic Environment);

-       Historic Environment Policy for Scotland;

-       Historic Environment Scotland’s Managing Change in the Historic Environment Guidance - External Fixtures; and                   

-       LDP Policy VC6 (West End Office Area) - requires all development proposals to respect the special historic and architectural character of the West End.

 

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

·       Detailed history of building and residential use in past;

·       Cat C listed and was in Conservation Area (CA);

·       Detailed ownership of car parks to rear;

·       Noted that no.35 was a vacant office building and no.37 had a large extension to rear;

·       Building would revert to family home, and original balcony fell into disrepair and was removed;

·       Described history of applications at the site, contacts with Planning Authority and amendments made (scale, design, shape and material);

·       Stated applicant’s commitment to property and desire for residential use;

·       There were no objections from neighbours or consultees;

·       Distance to rear lane would hide balcony from view;

·       Balcony would help maintenance;

·       Focus of report was balcony, other aspects were acceptable;

·       No issue with principle of balcony as there was one originally;

·       Question was whether balcony complied with policy;

·       Statement of Special Interest – referred to details on front – front unaffected;

·       CA Appraisal noted exemplars, which did not include no.36. Further noted changes in back gardens, with many large extensions behind high walls;

·       In terms of impact on CA, natural screening was relevant, and 2m fence approved in garden. Fleeting views only. No impact on CA, also taking into account the rear extension next door;

·       Balcony would not affect special features;

·       Proposal would comply with Policy D8 (may mean D6: Historic Environment);

·       Design: not possible to replicate original balcony, due to Building Regulations (proportions, spiral stair, material and handrails) – complied with D1;

·       Justification for doorway provided;

·       Proposal informed by understanding of significance and would allow future enjoyment;

·       External fixtures – designed to reflect original and matches width. Accorded with guidance: secondary elevations can often accommodate new fixtures without significant impact; and

·       Non-ferrous – steel was necessary and would be hot galvanised.

 

Ms Greene advised that the applicant had expressed the view that a site visit should be undertaken.

 

The Chairperson and Councillors Farquhar, Macdonald and Radley 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 National Planning Framework 4 and the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2023.

 

Ms Greene also made reference to:-

·       APG – Repair and replacement of Windows and Doors;

·       Historic Environment Policy for Scotland (HEPS);

·       Historic Environment Scotland’s Managing Change in the Historic Environment Guidance (MCHE):  Windows, Doors, External Fixtures and Setting; and

·       Albyn Place and Rubislaw Conservation Area Character Appraisal

 

Ms Greene responded to various questions from members which included whether there had been consultation with Historic Environment Scotland and the scaling and extension of the balcony.

 

Members each advised in turn and by majority, agreed to overturn the appointed officer’s earlier decision to refuse the planning permission and to therefore approve the application conditionally.

 

The Chairperson and Councillors Farquhar and Radleyagreed to overturn the appointed officer’s earlier decision to refuse the planning permission.

 

Councillor Macdonald upheld the appointed officer’s earlier decision to refuse the planning permission.

 

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 are as follows:-

The Review Body took into account the location of the balcony on a rear secondary elevation of the building, that the proposed structure is of similar width to the original balcony, the implications of technical and safety requirements of the materials and design of the structure, relative proximity of the nearest public street, Albyn Lane, as well as the surrounding context including large extensions on neighbouring historic and listed buildings. It is considered that the proposal would be acceptable in its impact on the character and setting of the listed building, and would preserve the character of the Albyn Place Conservation Area. It would therefore comply with policies VC6: West End Area, Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking), Policy D6 (Historic Environment) policies 7 (Historic Assets and Places) and 14 (Design, Quality and Place) in National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4).

 

In terms of the works proposed to enlarge an opening to create a doorway, the proposal would also comply with policies D7 (Our Granite Heritage) and D8 (Windows and Doors).

 

Conditions

This permission is granted subject to the following conditions.

 

(01) Duration of Permission

 

The development to which this notice relates must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date of this notice. If development has not begun at the expiration of the 3-year period, the planning permission lapses.

 

Reason - in accordance with section 58 (duration of planning permission) of the 1997 act.

 

(02) Fixings

 

That no development shall take place unless there has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the planning authority, details of any fixing of the balcony structure into the building. The details should include the location, material and method of fixing into the building. Any fixings shall be installed only in accordance with the details as so agreed.

 

Reason: In the interests of protecting the fabric of the listed building.