Fife Planning Review Body
FPRB Reference J8.36.180
Review Decision Notice
______________________________________________________________
Decision by Fife Planning Review Body (the FPRB)





Site address: 13 Pierhead, North Queensferry
Application for review by Mr Francis McDonald against the decision by an
appointed officer of Fife Council
Application 13/03942/FULL for planning permission for 13/03942/FULL
Application Drawings:
01
Location Plan
02
Existing and Proposed Elevations
No Site Inspection took place
Date of Decision Notice: 3rd October, 2014
_________________________________________________________________________
Decision
The FPRB upholds the determination reviewed by them and refuses Planning
Permission for the reason outlined below in section 4.0.
1.0
Preliminary
1.1
This Notice constitutes the formal decision notice of the Local Review Body as
required by the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local
Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013.
1.2
The above application for planning permission was considered by the FPRB at its
meeting on 15th September 2014. The Review Body was attended by Councillor
Elizabeth Riches (Chair), Councillor Kay Morrison, Councillor Dorothea Morrison,
and Councillor John Wincott .
2.0
Proposal
2.1
The application proposal involves the installation of replacement white upvc windows
in an unlisted, first floor, flat in a sandstone and slate, terraced property located in a
prominent, harbour-side location within the North Queensferry Conservation Area.
3.0
Reasoning
-23.1
The determining issue in this review was the impact of the new windows on the
existing building and the character of the Conservation Area. The FPRB considered
the terms of the Development Plan which comprises the SESplan Strategic
Development Plan 2012 and the Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan 2012. The
FPRB also considered the terms of the Council’s supplementary planning guidance
on Windows in Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas.
3.2
The FPRB considered the policy context for developments within a Conservation
Area and noted the design elements of policies E2 and E4 of the Local Plan and the
specific policy requirement of E7 relating to developments in Conservation Areas.
These policies sit within the overall legislative context for assessing Conservation
area developments which stipulate that special attention should be paid to the
desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area.
3.3
The FPRB noted that the terrace of flatted properties had been altered in the past
and that there were a mix of window types both within the terrace itself and the
surrounding properties. Indeed the application site itself already has a range of
white, aluminium and brown double glazed windows on the front and rear elevations.
The main window on the front elevation of each flatted property in the terrace is a
pair of windows divided by a masonry mullion and the application property has
already had the masonry mullion removed and a new wider casement window
installed.
3.4
The Council’s guidelines on Windows in Listed Buildings and Conservations do not
support the use of upvc or modern opening methods in traditional buildings
especially if the appropriate windows should be timber sash and case fitments. The
FPRB considered the relative prominence and quality of the front and rear elevations
of the terraced building and found that the rear elevation was of little merit and had
been extensively altered in the past. The FPRB agreed with the appointed officer’s
assessment on this matter. This indicated that the introduction of white casement
upvc windows on the rear elevation, despite being contrary to the guidelines, would
not detrimentally affect the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.
3.5
The FPRB remained concerned regarding the impact of the proposed window type
and material on the front elevation facing the historic pier head area at North
Queensferry. It was regrettable that the original masonry mullion had already been
removed (circa 1993) but installing new windows at this time offered an opportunity
to make an improvement to the appearance of the front elevation. The FPRB felt
that the proposed window type (a large single casement with a fixed narrow lower
pane) would be significantly worse than the existing fitment and agreed with the
appointed officer’s actions to request an improvement to the proportions of the
proposed window. It was noted that the applicant had resisted the advice regarding
the improvements to the design of the main front window that would have allowed a
favourable decision. The FPRB therefore concluded that the development would not
comply with the guidelines and more importantly would not preserve or enhance the
appearance of the building itself or the character and appearance of the
Conservation Area. The appointed officer’s decision was therefore upheld.
4.0
Reason for Refusal
4.1
The FPRB decided that planning permission should be refused as outlined below.
-31.
The proposal is contrary to Policies E2, E4 and E7 of the Adopted
Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan (2012), and Fife Council's Approved Planning
Customer Guidelines on Windows in listed buildings and conservation areas, in that
the proposed front elevation windows in terms of their design and proposed material
would not make a positive contribution to its immediate environment nor preserve or
enhance the traditional character, appearance and setting of the property itself and
the wider streetscene and outstanding conservation area in general.
………….………………………………………….
Iain Matheson,
Chief Legal Officer
-4-
NOTICE TO ACCOMPANY REFUSAL ETC.
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997
Notification to be sent to applicant on refusal of planning permission or
on the grant of permission subject to conditions
NOTICE TO ACCOMPANY REFUSAL ETC.
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997
Notification to be sent to applicant on determination by the planning authority of an
application following a review conducted under section 43A(8).
1.
If the applicant is aggrieved by the decision of the planning authority (a)
(b)
(c)
to refuse permission for the proposed development;
to refuse approval, consent or agreement required by a condition imposed on
a grant of planning permission; or
to grant permission or approval, consent or agreement subject to conditions,
the applicant may question the validity of that decision by making an application to
the Court of Session. An application to the Court of Session must be made within 6
weeks of the date of the decision.
2.
If permission to develop land is refused or granted subject to conditions and the
owner of the land claims that the land has become incapable of reasonably
beneficial use in its existing state and cannot be rendered capable of reasonably
beneficial use by the carrying out of any development which has been or would be
permitted, the owner of the land may serve on the planning authority a purchase
notice requiring the purchase of the owner of the land’s interest in the land in
accordance with Part V of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.