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 240225.

The LRB then considered the third request 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 single storey extension to front at 26 Spey Road, Aberdeen, AB16 6SE.

The Chairperson advised that Ms Lucy Greene would again be acting as the Planning Adviser to the Body in the following case under consideration this day and reiterated 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.  She 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 27 February 2024; (3) the decision notice dated 3 May 2024; (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) correspondence from Aberdeen City Council’s Roads Development Management Team, Norma Anderson (neighbour) and Mastrick Community Centre Management Committee

Ms Greene then described the site and outlined the appellant’s proposal.

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

• Design, scale and size of extension would disrupt building line;
• Extension was not modest subordinate porch extension  and would include living accommodation, not being substantially glazed – and thereby contrary to the Householder Development Guide;
• Would set precedent for full width front extensions, resulting in loss of building line and impact on front elevations of terraces;
• Together with rear extension and outbuilding, would result in substantial development of plot (though not over 50% of front or rear area nor double original footprint);
• Contrary to NPF4 policies 14 – Design, 16 Quality Homes and LDP policies H1 – Residential Areas, D1 – Quality Placemaking;
• Solid side walls would impact negatively on neighbours, no. 28 would be impacted to front and rear within single room, due to extension; and
• Contrary to LDP Policy D2 – Amenity, in addition to above.

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

• Area contains other examples of front extensions breaking building line;
• Also examples of extending the canopies over doorways with roofs with 1m projection;
• The row of terraces was unique in area for long front gardens and small rear gardens, therefore modest front extension would not impact garden space or neighbours;
• Neighbours both sides supportive and considering similar – letter submitted by no. 24 – overshadowing would be minimal; and
• Referred to letter from Mastrick Community Centre submitted by applicant.

The Council’s Roads Team had no objection as driveway would remain over 10 metres; there were no comments submitted by the Community Council and no representations were received.

Ms Greene advised that the applicant has expressed the view that the review may proceed on the basis of the information submitted.

At this point in the proceedings, the LRB considered whether they had sufficient information before them to proceed to determine the review.

Councillors Copland, Cooke and Lawrence 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 National Planning Framework 4 and the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2023.

Ms Greene responded to various questions from members relating to the front of the property and the materials being used.

Members each advised in turn and unanimously agreed to reverse the appointed officer’s earlier decision. Planning permission was therefore granted conditionally.

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 layout of the application house and neighbours, in particular the long length of driveways, mean that the front extension proposed would not be overly dominant within the streetscene, nor would it have an unduly detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbours. The proposal was therefore considered acceptable in terms of Policy H1: Residential Areas and Policy D1: Quality Placemaking in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2023. Whilst there are tensions with the Aberdeen Planning Guidance: Householder Guide, the distance from public viewpoint was a material consideration that indicated the acceptability of the proposal.

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.

-                COUNCILLOR CIARAN MCRAE, Chairperson