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 250516.

The LRB then considered the second 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 straightening of both hipped gables, erection of two storey extension with balcony to rear, and erection of replacement garage, at 20 Westholme Avenue Aberdeen.

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 20 May 2025 (3) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (4) the decision notice dated 15 August 2025 (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the agent and (6) one letter of objection. 

Ms Greene then described the site and outlined the appellant’s proposal.   The site comprised the curtilage of a traditional, mid-20th century one-and-a-half storey detached dwelling situated on the north-eastern side of Westholme Avenue. The grey granite walled dwelling had a hipped slate roof with front and rear dormers. A single-storey garage with lean-to roof was attached to the side (southern) elevation and adjacent boundary wall. The garage extended beyond the rear (eastern) elevation of the dwelling. A small single-storey extension projected from the northern end of the rear elevation. The site was bound on either side (north and south) by neighbouring detached dwellings of a similar style, with long rear curtilages bound by a mid-level granite wall. The rear of the property was bound by a narrow lane. The area surrounding the application site along Westholme Avenue featured similarly designed detached dwellings. The north-eastern side of Westholme Avenue featured a consistent row of similarly designed, one-and-a-half storey, hipped roof mid-20th century dwellings. Some dwellings of alternative ages and designs were also present in the vicinity, namely four late 20th century two storey pitched roof dwellings with front-facing gables to the south of the application property (on the opposite side of the street) and two late 20th -century one-and-a-half storey dwelling’s with front facing gables are sited to the west, adjacent to the North Burn of Rubislaw and with Westholme Crescent North.

In terms of the proposal, Ms Greene advised that Detailed Planning Permission was sought for the following:

·       Hip-to-gable roof extensions to both side elevations of the original dwelling;

·       Erection of a two-storey extension that would project from the full width of the rear elevation, with a pitched roof, rear gable end, and Juliet balcony; and

·       Erection of a replacement garage and extension to the side. 

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

The proposed hip-to-gable extensions of the dwelling, which was sited within a long line of relatively unaltered, traditionally designed mid-20th century granite 1½ storey hip-roofed dwellings, would introduce an overwhelming and dominating scale and roof form that would contrast significantly with the prevailing character of the streetscape on Westholme Avenue. The proposed development would therefore have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of both the application dwelling and the surrounding area, and was thus contrary to Policies 14 (Design, Quality and Place) and 16 (Quality Homes) of National Planning Framework 4, Policies D1 (Quality Placemaking) and H1 (Residential Areas) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2023, and the Aberdeen Planning Guidance: Householder Development Guide.

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

·       The proposal was sympathetic with the existing house, through careful design and it integrated with the existing house and did not overwhelm it;

·       Westholme Avenue contained a number of house types, many had been altered and extended over time;

·       There wouldn’t be an unacceptable impact on neighbouring properties in terms of privacy, overshadowing and appropriate separation;

·       The house was not listed or within a Conservation Area;

·       Extension was required to accommodate family living and there would be no impact on privacy, sunlight, daylight and no overdevelopment of the plot.

In terms of consultation responses, one letter of objection was received.

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

The Chairperson and Councillors Alphonse, Clark, Copland and Farquhar 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 then answered various questions from Members. 

Members each advised in turn and unanimously  agreed to overturn the appointed officers decision and grant planning permission 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 were as follows:-

That the proposed extension would be acceptable in terms of its impact on the character of the area and visual amenity in the streetscape. There were a variety of house types within the surrounding area, including formerly hipped roofs that have been modified. The house was detached and the proposal involved both sides of the roof being altered, ensuring symmetry. The rear extension would not be highly visible from the public road. The proposed works would ensure the future proofing of the property for the occupants by way of expanding the accommodation.  Taking these factors into account the proposal was considered acceptable and to comply with Policy H1: Residential Areas and D1: Quality Placemaking in the adopted Aberdeen Local Development, Policy 16: Quality Homes and Policy 14: Design, quality and place in National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), as well as the Aberdeen Planning Guidance: Householder Development Guide.

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) GRANITE SAMPLE

That no granite shall be used on the development hereby approved other than in accordance with a) a sample and b) a photograph of the sample together with the existing granite of the house, that have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority.

Reason – in the interests of visual amenity and the character of the area.

-       Councillor Ciaran McRae, Chairperson