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 230143.

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 a 1.5 storey extension with raised decking and a balustrade to the rear at 10 Woodhill Place Aberdeen.

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 by the Appointed Officer, Aberdeen City Council; (2) an application dated 6 February 2023; (3) the decision notice dated 8 June 2023 ; (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) a letter of representation received. 

Ms Greene then described the site and outlined the appellant’s proposal which sought planning permission for the erection of a part two storey, part single storey rear extension which would span the full width of the rear elevation of the property. It would project 4.0m alongside the shared boundary with 8 Woodhill Place. The development would be constructed with a fyfestone side south elevation and plinth, and a horizontal cladding which had not been specified, but would be timber or timber effect horizontal cladding as shown on the 3d visualisation. In addition, it is proposed to erect a raised deck with privacy screen to the rear of the proposed extension.

The single storey element would have a 4.0m projection and would be 3.6m wide with a sliding bifold door facing eastwards over the proposed deck. The total height of the single storey element which abuts the shared boundary would be 4.3m. The two-storey element which was located on the northern 3/5s of the rear elevation would have eaves above that of the main house at 6.1m on the

south elevation and eaves which slope down to the same level as that of the existing eaves level on the northern elevation. The ridge height of the two-storey element matches that of the host property and would be 8.1m.

The asymmetric roof would have a 1st floor Juliet balcony in the east facing gable elevation. The south facing elevation of the proposed 2 storey element would have eaves higher than that of the main house. The north elevation would have a roof profile which drops to the level of the existing eaves. The ground floor and first floor would be clad in timber or timber effect cladding as shown

on the 3D visual drawings.

The proposed deck would project a further 2.5m from the proposed 4.0m rear extension spanning the full width of the rear of the dwelling and proposed extension in the form of an elevated platform. The deck would be directly alongside the shared boundary with 8 Woodhill place. The total projection alongside the boundary would be 6.5m. The proposal was amended to include a 1.8m screen on the south elevation of the deck which is directly adjoining the shared boundary.  The total height of this deck and boundary screen would be 3.37m when taken from the ground level. No screen had been included on the north elevation to protect the amenity of 12 Woodhill Place.

Ms Greene indicated that the appointed officer’s reasons for refusal outlined in the decision notice was as follows:-

•      Design & material.  They were inappropriate and incongruous in the area and out of keeping with the scale and character;

•      Overlooking and loss of privacy.  A raised deck, Juliet balcony would increase intensity of the use at an elevated level and would impact on residential amenity of the neighbouring property; and

•      Contrary to policies on design, residential areas and amenity in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan and National Planning Framework 4

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

·         The proposed extension was, in part, a replacement of an existing extension to the rear of the property;

·         The footprint of the dwelling would be increased by only 17sqm. The resultant plot ratio would be 25% developed;

·         Proposals were to the rear of the property and not visible from street frontage;

·         The proposed extension tied in with the existing roof profile; eaves and ridges levels, pitch and hipped gable end.

·         The proposed extension matched the existing dwelling roof finish of natural slate;

·         They were open to discussing and amending external finishes of the proposals to where there were concerns over external wall materials and extent of cladding proposed;

·         The majority of dwellings in the vicinity were 1 and half storey and a number of these had storey and half, full property width extensions to the rear;

·         the existing rear extension included a conservatory with south facing glazing which overlooed 8 Woodhill Place.  The proposal would remove the direct line of sight with windows all to face the private garden to the east;

·         numbers 10 and 12 Woodhill Place along with others in the street share driveway access to the rear garden which resulted in reduced privacy between dwellings;

·         proposals were amended to incorporate a privacy screen to the boundary of the proposed raised decking to limit overlooking to 8 Woodhill Place;

·         the “Juliet Balcony” was full height glazed window with an external protective barrier;

Ms Greene advised that the applicant had expressed that no further procedure should take place before determination.

The Chairperson and Councillors Bouse, Clark, Cooke 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 the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017, the proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan (2020) / Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2022 and also National Planning Framework 4.

Ms Greene responded to various questions from members which related mostly to the proposed materials to be used, questioning whether a condition could be added to stipulate the finished materials. 

Members each advised in turn and unanimously agreed to uphold 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 proposed timber finishing material for the rear extension due to its extent of coverage would be out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area and it was considered that it would have an adverse impact on visual and residential amenity.

Therefore the proposal was considered to be contrary to the provisions of Policy D1 (Placemaking and Design) and failed to comply with Policy H1 (Residential Areas) in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2023 and Policy 16 (Quality Homes) (g)(i) of the National Planning Framework 4.

-       Councillor Ciaran Mcrae – Chairperson