Agenda item
Detailed Planning Permission for the erection of single storey extension to the side and rear, formation of dormer to rear and formation of roof terrace on rear extension - 63 Grove Crescent Aberdeen
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 231029
Minutes:
The Chairperson stated that although the Planning Adviser for the LRB 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 and decision notice by the Appointed Officer, Aberdeen City Council; (2) an application dated 19 August 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 agent.
Ms Greene then described the site and outlined the appellant’s proposal. The application site was situated within the residential area of Cornhill, located to the north west of Aberdeen City Centre. The application property comprised of a one storey semi-detached property which holds a north facing principal elevation which overlooks a double driveway. The rear, south facing, elevation overlooks a large curtilage, where a single storey garage is situated to the south east of the curtilage, accessed via Grove Crescent to the south. A side curtilage to the west of the dwelling allows access from the front curtilage into the rear amenity space. The dwelling adjoins 61 Grove Crescent to the east and shares its boundary with neighbouring 65 Grove Cresent to the west.
In regards to the proposal, detailed planning permission was sought for multiple components of development which would be set within the side and rear curtilage. Firstly, permission was sought to erect a single storey extension, projecting 4.5 metres from the south, rear, elevation, spanning the entire 6.5 metre width of the existing dwelling, with an approximate height of 2.9 metres. A window opening was proposed on its west elevation and double glazed sliding doors and an glazed paned are proposed for the south elevation, which would measure 2 metres high and 5.4 metres wide. The west and south elevation would be harled to match the existing property. A roof terrace was proposed on the roof of the extension, accessed via the proposed dormer extension. A glazed balustrade was proposed along the perimeter of the terrace, which would measure 1.1 metres in height, resulting in an extension with a total height of 4 metres. The proposed plans received detail that the proposed terrace/roof of the rear extension would be tiled to finish.
The dormer extension was proposed for the south elevation of the existing roof plane and would have a depth of 4.4 metres and a width of 3.4 metres. Finally, a side extension was proposed which would project 4 metres from the west facing gable and would measure 5.3 metres in length. The proposed side extension would sit 3 metres behind the north facing principal elevation and would measure 3 metres in height where the total floorspace would measure approximately 21.5 sqm. The north, south and west elevations would be harled to match the existing dwelling where a horizontal window would be located on the south elevation, measuring 3 metres wide and 500mm in height. The north facing elevation of the side extension would have an access door and window, where the flat roof would be finished in Sarnafil single ply membrane.
Ms Greene indicated that the appointed officer’s reasons for refusal outlined in the report of handling was as follows:-
The combined effect of the rear and side extensions, along with the proposed roof terrace and dormer extension would significantly overwhelm the dwelling and results in overdevelopment and therefore the proposal does not adhere to the relevant criteria of Policy H1 (Residential Areas) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2023 (ALDP). The overall design and scale of all aspects of the proposal would alter the overall aesthetics of the dwelling as well as affecting its character and resulting in an unbalance of the symmetry between the application site and the adjoining property at 61 Grove Crescent.
Furthermore, the projection of the rear extension does not adhere with Council guidance, as set out in the Householder Development Guide Aberdeen Planning Guidance. As such, the character of the area would be affected by this development and overall, the proposal fails to comply with Policy H1 (Residential Areas) and Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking) of the ALDP, the Householder Development Guide Aberdeen Planning Guidance and with Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) and Policy 16 (Quality Homes) of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4). Page 130 Application Reference: 231029/DPP Page 9 of 9 The proposed dormer and roof terrace do not comply with the criteria outlined in the Householder Development Guide Aberdeen Planning Guidance, in that they would significantly impact on the existing level of residential amenity for neighbouring residents in terms of loss of privacy.
Furthermore, the rear extension would result in an adverse daylight and sunlight impact for 61 Grove Crescent. Therefore, the proposal fails to comply with Policy H1 (Residential Areas) and Policy D2 (Amenity) of the ALDP, the Householder Development Guide Aberdeen Planning Guidance and with Policy 16 (Quality Homes) of NPF4.
Ms Greene outlined the key points from the appellant’s Notice of Review as follows:-
• The area was mixed use including residential;
• The proposal takes account of context, including nearby properties, and were in keeping and no worse in design, size, scale and design;
• The property would not be adversely compromised by changes, essential characteristics and appearance would be improved;
• A precedent had been created by neighbouring properties;
• A site visit would be merited;
In terms of Consultations, no letters of representation were received and no consultee comments.
Ms Greene advised that the applicant had expressed the view that a site visit should take place before determination. It was also noted that the applicant had said that no new matters were introduced with the Notice of Review however new drawings were submitted. 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 these drawings would not be considered during determination of the application.
In terms of the further procedure, the Chairperson and Councillors Copland 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 various questions from members.
Members each advised in turn and by majority they agreed to uphold the officers earlier decision and 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 were as follows:-
The combined effect of the rear and side extensions, along with the proposed roof terrace and dormer extension would significantly overwhelm the dwelling and results in overdevelopment and
therefore the proposal does not adhere to the relevant criteria of Policy H1 (Residential Areas) of
the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2023 (ALDP).
The overall design and scale of all aspects of the proposal would alter the overall aesthetics of the dwelling as well as affecting its character and resulting in an unbalance of the symmetry between the application site and the adjoining property at 61 Grove Crescent.
Furthermore, the projection of the rear extension does not adhere with Council guidance, as set out in the Householder Development Guide Aberdeen Planning Guidance. As such, the character of the area would be affected by this development and overall, the proposal fails to comply with Policy H1 (Residential Areas) and Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking) of the ALDP, the Householder Development Guide Aberdeen Planning Guidance and with Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) and Policy 16 (Quality Homes) of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4).
The proposed dormer and roof terrace do not comply with the criteria outlined in the Householder Development Guide Aberdeen Planning Guidance, in that they would significantly impact on the existing level of residential amenity for neighbouring residents in terms of loss of privacy.
Furthermore, the rear extension is would result in an adverse daylight and sunlight impact for 61 Grove Crescent. Therefore, the proposal fails to comply with Policy H1 (Residential Areas) and Policy D2 (Amenity) of the ALDP, the Householder Development Guide Aberdeen Planning Guidance and with Policy 16 (Quality Homes) of NPF4.
- Councillor Ciaran McRae, Chairperson