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 250366.

The LRB then considered the second 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 two storey extension to rear at 148 Victoria Street, Dyce, Aberdeen, AB21 7BE. Planning Reference Number 250366.

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.  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 by the Appointed Officer, Aberdeen City Council; (2) an application dated 7 April 2025; (3)  the Decision Notice dated 4 September 2025; (4) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report; and (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant/agent.

Ms Greene then described the site, provided information on planning history and outlined the appellant’s proposal for detailed planning permission.

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

·       Due primarily to its disproportionate scale as a 2-storey extension on a 1½-storey dwellinghouse, the proposed plain box form cutting into most of the roof, and the elevational treatment which would exaggerate the harmful effects of scale and form, the proposed extension would dominate the existing dwellinghouse at its prominent corner site when viewed from Gladstone Place, failing to be subordinate to it and harming its character and that of the surrounding area. This was particularly given the architectural merit of the traditional dwellinghouse and its rear elevation, which currently made a positive contribution to the character of the area; and

·       The development would therefore be contrary to the first General Principle of Aberdeen Planning Guidance: Householder Development Guide and against the design principles of Policies 14 (Design Quality and Place) of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and D1 (Quality Placemaking) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2023 (ALDP), in particular the requirements to be distinctive and welcoming. Likewise, the development would be contrary to Policy 16 (Quality Homes) of NPF4, which supported householder development only where it did not have a detrimental impact on the character of the home in terms of size, design and materials, and Policy H1 (Residential Areas) of the ALDP, which did not support development which would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of an area.

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

·       the extension design was a distinct and separate element. Old and new;

·       contemporary and subordinate – not exceeding ridge height;

·       sympathetic to surroundings which contained a mix of styles and ages of property, including range of extensions and alterations;

·       the granite frontage would remain unaltered;

·       no undue impact – privacy, overshadowing and separation distance;

·       supported sustainability with adaptability and usability of house;

·       the granite would be reused from removal of rear block;

·       Not listed nor in Conservation Area; and

·       Photographs of various properties were submitted.

In terms of procedure by which the review would be conducted, Ms Greene advised that the applicant had expressed the view that the case may proceed without the need of a site visit or further hearings,  however it was for members to consider whether any further procedures were required.

The Chairperson and Councillors Cooke, Macdonald and Thomson indicated in turn that they each had enough information before them, the Committee 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.

Members each advised in turn and unanimously agreed to uphold the appointed officers earlier decision. Planning permission was therefore refused.

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 –

Due primarily to its disproportionate scale as a 2-storey extension on a 1½-storey dwellinghouse, the proposed plain box form cutting into most of the roof, and the elevational treatment which  would exaggerate the harmful effects of scale and form, the proposed extension would dominate the existing dwellinghouse at its prominent corner site when viewed from Gladstone Place, failing to be subordinate to it and harming its character and that of the surrounding area. This is particularly given the architectural merit of the traditional dwellinghouse and its rear elevation, which currently make a positive contribution to the character of the area.

The development would therefore be contrary to the first General Principle of Aberdeen Planning Guidance: Householder Development Guide and against the design principles of Policies 14 (Design Quality and Place) of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and D1 (Quality Placemaking) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2023 (ALDP), in particular the requirements to be distinctive and welcoming. Likewise, the development would be contrary to Policy 16 (Quality Homes) of NPF4, which supports householder development only where it does not have a detrimental impact on the character of the home in terms of size, design and materials, and Policy H1 (Residential Areas) of the ALDP, which does not support development which would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of an area.