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 230595.

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 installation of a replacement roof to an existing sun room and formation of raised decking with an external stairs and balustrade to rear at First Floor Right, 13 Fraser Road, 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 10 May 2023; (3) the Decision Notice dated 25 September 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/agent; and (6) a letter of representation from Councillor Marie Boulton and Councillor Duncan Massey.

 

As a preliminary matter, the LRB heard from the Council’s Legal Adviser, Fiona Closs who explained that the letter of representation at (6) above was not before the Appointed Officer when determination of the planning application was made. She explained that new matters could not be raised unless that party could demonstrate:-

(a)      that the matter could not have been raised before that time; or

(b)      that it was not being raised before that time was a consequence of exceptional circumstances.

 

She indicated that the LRB required to consider whether the new matter raised should be taken into account in this review.

 

The Chairperson and Councillors Bouse and Copland unanimously agreed in turn, not to accept the additional information/correspondence into the proceedings.

 

Ms Greene then described the site and outlined the appellant’s proposal for detailed planning permission to replace a section of roof associated with the sunroom, located to the south west of the dwelling, measuring approximately 8.5 sqm. The replacement roof would be Cure-IT roofing resin. In addition, a raised decking was proposed which would extend from the rear elevation of the property to a length of 5 metres and width of 6.5 metres, sitting 2.6 metres above ground level, with a proposed footprint of 34 sqm. All measurements were approximate. The raised decking would be finished in uPVC non-slip boards, dark grey in colour, where a 1.1 metre high safety baluster of steel balustrades with glass infill would be situated on the south and east side. The west side would have a 1.6 metre glazed opaque screen installed. Finally, stairs were proposed on the eastern side, allowing external access from the garden ground. The proposed steps would extend some 3.5 metres, accommodating 15 steps with a rise of 250 mm, would run parallel with the raised deck and be finished with steel balusters and handrail measuring approximately 800mm in height. Additional works detailed on the plan included window and door replacement, however, these works were deemed as permitted development and therefore did not form part of the assessment.

 

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

·       Negative impact on amenity in surrounding area - overlooking and loss of privacy of decking – especially no. 29 Cairn Road; and

·       Contrary to policies on design, residential in local plan and NPF4

 

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

·       The policies 14 and 16 from NPF4 were more relevant to housing developments and not applicable to the application;

·       Roof replacement did not detract from the area;

·       Land falls southwards with storey heights difference; existing views across the neighbouring sites with low level shrubs to no. 29 – open views;

·       Boundary with no. 25 was planted with high hedge and trees – not overlooking;

·       Existing patio at lower ground level, not suitable due to access - proposal allows direct access to decking from dining area and kitchen;

·       Decking follows line of patio underneath;

·       Case Officer suggested reducing width and length of decking, further from boundary - balustrade would conflict with opening door;

·       No objection from neighbour, as existing there was visibility from both houses across both gardens;

·       Included photos of views from house across gardens;

·       Proposal amended to install 1.6m high panels;

·       Altering size of decking was unnecessary as there would be no additional impact on overlooking. Insufficient space for outside dining with space nearly halved;

·       Hedging could be planted and would form screening;

·       Policy H1 – proposal complies and ‘public’ only from rear lane;

·       Design: decking would align with side elevation and would look unbalanced if reduced, ruining aesthetics of rear elevation. Proposal would result in improvement to appearance of street and would match facilities of neighbours;

·       Policy 14 (Design) – did not apply to private areas;

·       Policy 16 (Quality Homes) – applied only to new developments; and

·       Proposal did not affect parking, garden space, light, noise or air quality and worked with existing landscape.

 

In terms of Consultations, Ms Greene advised that there was no response from Cults, Milltimber and Bieldside Community Council and there were no representations submitted.

 

Ms Greene advised that the applicant had expressed the view that a site visit should be undertaken in order to evaluate the site and understand the existing relationship between the applicant’s garden and neighbours gardens areas.

 

The Chairperson and Councillors Bouse and Copland 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 various questions from members relating to the proposed development.

 

Members each advised in turn and unanimously agreed toreverse the appointed officer’s earlier decision. Planning permission is therefore granted. Any conditions attached to this permission would be set out below.

 

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 proposal in view of its design, including the screening, and position on the building, would not have a significantly detrimental impact on the amenity of the neighbours with privacy not being  significantly impacted. The proposed decking would be at the rear of the house out of view from the main public street.

 

The proposal would therefore comply with Policy H1 – Residential Areas and D2 - Amenity in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2023 and Policy 16: Quality homes in National Planning Framework 4.

 

 

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) SCREENING TO DECKING

 

That the decking shall not be used unless there is in place screening to the south west side of the decking as shown on the approved drawings, or such others as may be subsequently agreed with the planning authority.

Reason - to obscure the outlook from the raised deck area in order to protect the privacy of neighbours.

 

(03) PLANTING ON BOUNDARY

 

That the decking shall not be brought into use unless there has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the planning authority, details including a layout plan showing the location, number, species and size at planting of the plants and trees to be planted along the garden boundary with no. 29 Cairn Road. Thereafter the planting shall take place within the planting season immediately after the completion of the development.

Reason – in order to screen views of the supporting structure to the decking from across the rear garden of no. 29 Cairn Road.