How can we help you...

Agenda item

8 Woodburn Gardens Aberdeen - 231043

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 231043

Minutes:

The LRB then considered the third 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 Detailed Planning Permission for the erection of replacement dwelling house with integrated garage, formation of external stairs with handrail, alterations to boundary wall, erection of boundary fence, formation of hard surfacing/parking and associated works, at 8 Woodburn Gardens Aberdeen, planning reference 231043.

 

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 23 August 2023 (3) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (4) general responses from Roads Development Management Committee and the Waste and Recycling Service, (5) one letter of objection and one neutral representation and (6) the Notice of Review submitted by the agent. 

 

Ms Greene then described the application site and noted that it extended to 809m2 , was located within an established residential area and accommodated a one-and-a-half-storey detached dwelling with an attached garage of granite construction, along with its front, side and rear curtilage. The footprint of the existing dwelling and garage extended to 102m2 with other areas of development, i.e. hardstanding and external stairs extending to 177m2 , the remainder of the site was garden ground.

 

The site sat to the north of Woodburn Gardens, characterised by granite faced dwellings with hipped and pitched roofs, chimney stacks and large rear gardens. The site itself was split level with the dwelling sitting at what was effectively road level and the rear curtilage sitting between 1.6m and 3m higher than the dwelling, increasing in height as you move towards the north east. Access to the rear garden was via an existing set of steps. To the south of Woodburn Gardens lay an area of open space and Walker Dam, designated as Green Space Network and a Local Nature Conservation Site (Walker Dam and Rubislaw Link) and to the south east and north west sits 6 and 10 Woodburn Gardens, respectively.

 

In terms of the proposal, Ms Greene indicated that Planning Permission was sought for the erection of a one-and-a-half storey, 5 bedroomed, detached, ‘T’ shaped dwelling with an integral garage, which would see the existing dwelling and garage demolished. The proposed dwelling would measure 7.7m in height to the ridge, 3.1m to the eaves and 13.7m in width. In terms of its length the main part of the dwelling would be 11.7m, however the rear projecting wing, which would sit perpendicular to the dwelling, would be a further 8.4m in length, resulting in a total length of 20m. The height of the rear wing would sit slightly below that of the main part of the dwelling at 7.5m, but the eaves would sit higher with a difference of 1.3m between the two.

 

With respect to the mutual boundaries, the main dwelling would sit between 0.6m and 1.5m off the north west boundary, this distance increasing as you moved into the site. The south east corner of the dwelling would sit on the respective boundary, with the distance increasing to 2m as you move into the site. The rear wing, owing to its siting, would sit 2.5m and 5.6m from the north west and south east boundaries respectively. Given the level of development proposed, outwith the existing dwelling’s footprint, there would be a requirement for extensive excavation of part of the rear curtilage.

 

The ground floor would accommodate a vestibule, three bedrooms (one of which could also be utilised as an office/study), a bathroom and plant/server room, while the rear projecting element would provide a three car garage. The first floor would accommodate two further bedrooms, one of which would be the master with en-suite and walk in wardrobe, a living room and guest WC, while the rear projecting element would accommodate a larder, formal dining room/TV room, kitchen/living area and a dog room. The dwelling had been designed so that the living accommodation had access directly into the rear garden ground with an area of decking leading directly from the kitchen/living room.

 

As well as an internal stair case, access between the ground and first floor would also be provided via a proposed lift. Access to the garage to the rear would be via a pend leading to an area of hardstanding, which sat below part of the first floor accommodation. Two sets of external steps were also proposed which would allow access between the new lowered ground level to the remainder of the rear garden. In terms of site coverage, the proposed dwelling extended to 200m2 , this included the covered pend area as it formed part of the development. The other areas of development proposed, which included all areas of hardstanding, decking, steps and paths extended to 241m2 , with the whole developed area extending to 441m2 of the 809m2 site.

 

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

 

The proposed replacement dwellinghouse represented over development of the site, both in terms of building footprint and massing and its siting is deemed to be inappropriate, overwhelming and does not lend itself to ensuring the relationship with the neighbouring properties is maintained and offers a jarring contract with the remainder of Woodburn Gardens. The design was inappropriate when considering the character of the surrounding area and would result in a significant impact on the street scene. This was due to the overall height, the development spanning effectively the entire width of the feu, the presence of the pend and inappropriately designed dormers.

 

As such, the proposal failed to comply Policy H1 (Residential Areas) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2023 (ALDP) as the principle policy, as well as the associated Aberdeen Planning Guidance The Sub-division and Redevelopment of Residential Curtilages and Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking) of the ALDP and Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4). Based on the information available, there will be an significant impact on the residential amenity of 6 and 10 Woodburn Gardens due to additional sunlight and daylight impacts caused by the proposed development at different times of the day on 20th March and October, as well as an impact on 12 Woodburn Gardens during the morning in October.

 

Further to this, there would also be harm caused to the amenity of 6 Woodburn Gardens due to the siting of the proposed dwelling on the application site and its closeness to the mutual boundary. There were also significant concerns that the proposed dwelling would result in a change to privacy and overlooking. Therefore, the proposal fails to comply with Policy H1 (Residential Areas) and Policy D2 (Amenity) of the ALDP and the associated Amenity & Space Standards Aberdeen Planning Guidance. Finally, the application has not satisfied Policy 1 (Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises), Policy 2 (Climate Mitigation and Adaption), Policy 9 (Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings) and Policy 12 (Zero Waste) of NPF4, with respect to the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of its replacement. No information had been provided to justify the proposal in this regard and therefore the proposal cannot be considered to comply with the aforementioned policies.

 

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

       The proposal was for an energy efficient home;

       They required a house to accommodate elderly parents who required assistance and a home that was suitable for family needs;

       It would be more cost effective and efficient to demolish the existing dwelling and replace it, reusing materials where possible;

       There were no objections from the next door neighbouring properties;

       Less than 33% of the site would be developed and the proposed house was 163 metres squared; and

       The slope of the site allowed for garages to be cut in.

 

In terms of Consultations, one letter of objection was received and one neutral representation. General comments were received from the Waste and Recycling Service. 

 

Ms Greene advised that the applicant had expressed the view that a site visit should take place before determination. 

 

In terms of further procedure, the Chairperson and Councillors Clark, Greig 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.   Councillor Boulton asked that a site visit be undertaken, however Members agreed by majority to proceed 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 unanimously 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 proposed replacement dwellinghouse represented over development of the site, both in terms of building footprint and massing and its siting is deemed to be inappropriate, overwhelming and does not lend itself to ensuring the relationship with the neighbouring properties is maintained and offers a jarring contrast with the remainder of Woodburn Gardens. The design was inappropriate when considering the character of the surrounding area and would result in a significant impact on the street scene. This was due to the overall height, the development spanning effectively the entire width of the feu, the presence of the pend and inappropriately designed dormers. As such, the proposal fails to comply Policy H1 (Residential Areas) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2023 (ALDP) as the principle policy, as well as the associated Aberdeen Planning Guidance The Sub-division and Redevelopment of Residential Curtilages and Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking) of the ALDP and Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4).

 

Based on the information available, there would be a significant impact on the residential amenity of 6 and 10 Woodburn Gardens due to additional sunlight and daylight impacts caused by the proposed development at different times of the day on 20th March and October, as well as an impact on 12 Woodburn Gardens during the morning in October. There would also be harm caused to the amenity of 6 Woodburn Gardens due to the siting of the proposed dwelling on the application site and its closeness to the mutual boundary. There were also significant concerns that the proposed dwelling would result in a change to privacy and overlooking.  Therefore, the proposal failed to comply with Policy H1 (Residential Areas) and Policy D2 (Amenity) of the ALDP and the associated Amenity & Space Standards Aberdeen Planning Guidance.

 

The application had not satisfied Policy 1 (Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises), Policy 2 (Climate Mitigation and Adaption), Policy 9 (Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings) and Policy 12 (Zero Waste) of NPF4, with respect to the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of its replacement. Insufficient information had been provided to justify the proposal in this regard and therefore the proposal cannot be considered to comply with the aforementioned policies.

-       Councillor McRae, Chairperson