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 230825.

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 refusal of the application for the erection of replacement dwelling house with integrated garage, associated site works and hard surfacing/parking at 32 Hillview Crescent Aberdeen, planning reference 230825.

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, Mrs Lynsey McBain 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 Mrs McBain, 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 and decision letter by the Appointed Officer, Aberdeen City Council; (2) an application dated 6 July 2023, (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) letters of representation from the Aberdeen City Council’s Roads Development Management Team, and North East Scotland Biological Records Centre. 

Ms Greene then described the site and outlined the appellant’s proposal.   The application  site lay within a suburban residential area opposite Cults academy. It comprised a detached 3 bedroom bungalow with integral garage and associated private garden ground / parking. There was a significant change in levels across the site with the site having a southerly aspect, such that the house was elevated above street level and the rear garden was elevated above the floor level of the house. The house had a dual pitched asymmetric roof with ridge running perpendicular to the street and the walls were clad with render and blockwork. Adjacent houses were of detached form and varied design and materials and the land to the north of the site, beyond a public path, was designated as a local nature conservation site (LNCS) and green space network and includes ancient woodland.

In terms of the application, Ms Greene advised that the application was for the erection of a replacement detached house with associated site works, and the existing house would be demolished entirely. The proposed house would front onto the street and would have 1 ½ storeys. It would have similar footprint and siting to the existing house, but would be marginally recessed from the street relative to the existing house siting and would be marginally closer to the house to the west of the site. The upper floor would accommodate 4 bedrooms and a study and would have a substantial box dormer with pitched roof occupying the majority of the rear roof area. The front roof slope would be pitched at 40 degrees and would accommodate 2 traditional dormers. The existing access and driveway would be retained and a 6m wide integral garage would occupy the east part of the ground floor. The house would have a total of 5 en-suite bedrooms and a separate utility room. The main lounge / dining area would be located on the north (rear) elevation. Solar panels were proposed on the upper part of the front roof.

It was noted that amendments had been made to the application and these were that the extent of parking and hard surfacing proposed at the site frontage had been reduced and a proposed SUDS feature indicated in the front garden.  Also the design and extent of the rear dormer was increased.

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

1.    Lack of Information

Insufficient information had been provided in order to enable full analysis of the potential impact of the development in relation to impact on and/or protection of trees, biodiversity enhancement and landscaping, energy and water saving measures, surface water drainage, sunlight impact assessment on adjacent private gardens. Thus it had not been demonstrated that the proposal complies with policies 1 (Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises), 2 (Climate Mitigation and Adaptation); 3 (Biodiversity); 6 (Forestry, Woodland and Trees); 22 (Flood Risk and Water Management) within National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and policies NE3 (Our Natural Heritage), NE4 (Our Water Environment), NE5 (Trees and Woodland), D2 (Amenity), D5 (Landscape Design) and R6 (Low and Zero Carbon Buildings and Water Efficiency) within the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2023 (ALDP).

2.    Amenity / Overdevelopment

The scale and positioning of the proposed house relative to adjacent houses, such that it would exceed the existing wall-head and ridge heights, would have a substantially enlarged roof form that would occupy an increased width of the curtilage, is considered to be indicative of overdevelopment of the site. The proposal has an adverse impact on existing amenity by reason of the potential overlooking of adjacent private gardens from the upper floor rear windows. The scale, form and massing of the proposed house would adversely affect the streetscape. It would also result in an uneasy relationship with the neighbouring properties due to the significantly higher wall-head and ridge heights, the proximity to the side boundaries and excessive size of the proposed rear dormer. It is therefore considered that the proposal conflicts with the amenity and design quality objectives of NPF4 Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) and ALDP policies H1: Residential Areas, H2: Amenity and D1: Quality Placemaking.

3.    Precedent

Approval of the application would result in the creation of an adverse precedent for similar proposals in the vicinity which would have further adverse effects on the street scene and amenity by reason of the scale and massing of the proposed house relative to the prevailing character.

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

•       There was no impact on the existing landscape as the proposed house was built on the same footprint as the existing house;

•       There were a variety of house types in the area and the house was not considered to be out of character with the surrounding properties;

•       There would be no impact of overshadowing on the adjacent properties;

•       A connection to the combined sewer was achievable via a filter trench;

In terms of Consultations, Ms Greene advised that the Council’s Roads Team and the North East Scotland Biological Records Centre, made comments but had no objections; and there was no response received from the Cults, Bieldside and Milltimber Community Council.

Ms Greene advised that the applicant had expressed the view that no further procedure should take place before determination.  It was also noted that new details had been submitted with the Notice of Review.  This was classed as new information and therefore it was for Members to decide whether to accept these or not.  Members agreed unanimously not to accept the new information and this information would not be considered during determination of the application, but only the information that was before the appointed officer when the decision was made.

The Chairperson and Councillors Alphonse, Copland, Farquhar and Macdonald 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 National Planning Framework 4 and the 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 decision and refuse the planning application. 

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:-

Amenity / Overdevelopment

The scale and positioning of the proposed house relative to adjacent houses, such that it would exceed the existing wall-head and ridge heights, would have a substantially enlarged roof form that would occupy an increased width of the curtilage, is considered to be indicative of overdevelopment of the site. The proposal had an adverse impact on existing amenity by reason of the potential overlooking of adjacent private gardens from the upper floor rear windows. The scale, form and massing of the proposed house would adversely affect the streetscape. It would also result in an uneasy relationship with the neighbouring properties due to the significantly higher wall-head and ridge heights, the proximity to the side boundaries and excessive size of the proposed rear dormer. It was therefore considered that the proposal conflicts with the amenity and design quality objectives of NPF4 Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) and ALDP policies H1: Residential Areas, H2: Amenity and D1: Quality Placemaking.

Precedent

Approval of the application would result in the creation of an adverse precedent for similar proposals in the vicinity which would have further adverse effects on the street scene and amenity by reason of the scale and massing of the proposed house relative to the prevailing character.