Agenda item

The Local Review Body then considered the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to refuse planning permission for the erection of a garage, with ancillary accommodation at upper level at 111 Malcolm Road, Peterculter (P131381).

Councillor Milne, as Chairperson, advised that the Local Review Body would be addressed by Mr Paul Williamson, who would be acting as the Planning Adviser to the Body in the case under consideration this day.

The Chairperson stated that although the Planning Adviser was employed by the planning authority he 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.

The Planning Adviser explained that the decision which was the subject of the review was for the erection of a garage, with ancillary accommodation at upper level at 111 Malcolm Road, Peterculter (P131381).  Mr Williamson addressed the Body and explained that he had checked the submitted Notice of Review and found it to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.

Mr Williamson explained that the applicant asked that further procedures take place, these being: holding one or more hearing sessions.  However Mr Williamson explained that it was for members to determine the requirement for further procedures, including: site inspection(s) and hearing session(s), if they deem them necessary.

Mr Williamson explained that the refused application related to the erection of a double garage with ancillary accommodation towards the north west corner of the site, on the site of an existing monopitch garage bothy building which was constructed with granite rubble, some rendered walls, and a slate roof.  He further explained that the house was set back approximately 50 metres from Malcolm Road, on the access road to Crombie Park, the home of Culter Football Club.

Mr Williamson advised that the application sought to demolish the existing garage of approximately 49 square metres, and replace it with a double garage, with further ancillary accommodation above.  The ground floor would comprise two single garages, a gym, shower room, and stairs leading to the first floor which would comprise a snooker room, pantry bar, and an entertainment space.  The proposed footprint would be approximately 98.6 square metres.  The new building would be 6.5 metres to the highest roof ridge level, and 5.6 metres to the adjoining wing projecting eastwards.  Proposed materials included granite quoins to the corners, a granite eastern facing gable, brown roughcast to the remaining walls to match the dwellinghouse, a slated roof, and timber barge boards.

He explained that there appeared to have been considerable dialogue between the planning officer and the agent as part of the process.  The plans were revised as part of the application process, in that the scale and design of the proposal were reduced.

Mr Williamson outlined the relevant considerations relating to the application as follows:

Development Plan – Aberdeen Local Development Plan (2012)

Policy D1 (Architecture and Placemaking) outlines that to ensure high standards of design, new development must be designed with due consideration for its context, and make a positive contribution to its setting.

He explained that the Report of Handling outlined that the Supplementary Guidance relating to Householder Developments was also relevant in this instance.  However the most relevant parts relating to domestic garages stated that they should not overwhelm or dominate the original form or appearance of the dwellinghouse.  It also outlined that proposals should be architecturally compatible with the design and scale of the original house and the surrounding area.

Mr Williamson explained that the City Council have outlined why they considered elements of the design and scale to be inappropriate, and have cross referred to Policy and Supplementary Guidance.

Mr Williamson explained that the appellant considers that the changing stance of the planning authority with regard to the likely recommendation, and the time taken was unacceptable.  They considered that the proposal has been designed with due consideration for its context, with the scale, design and materials being appropriate after lengthy discussion.

At this point, the Local Review Body considered whether they had sufficient information before them to proceed to determine the review.

The Local Review Body thereupon agreed that the review under consideration should be determined without further procedure and agreed that a site visit was not required.

The Local Review Body then proceeded to ask detailed questions of Mr Williamson.

Councillor Lawrence expressed the view that the height of the development had been reduced from the original proposal and the applicant would have difficult lowering it any further.  He was of the opinion that the application be approved and that suitable conditions be attached to ensure that the development was ancillary to the main building and could not be sold separately.

Councillor Crockett expressed his views that he was concerned about the scale and domineering appearance of the development and that he supported the reasons why the application had been refused.

The Chairperson expressed his views that the application represented over development of the site and that he has concerns regarding the scale of the proposal.  He also agreed with the reasons for refusal as detailed in the report.

Therefore by a majority decision the Local Review Body agreed 2 Members to 1 that the application be refused (as detailed in the original report of handling).

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 proposed garage and ancillary accommodation was considered inappropriate as it did not reflect domestic scale.  The design, scale, massing, domineering appearance and materials would be detrimental to the visual character and residential amenity of the original property and the surrounding area and was therefore contrary to the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012, Policy D1 (Architecture and Placemaking) and with the general principles contained in the Householder Development Guide.

- RAMSAY MILNE, Chairperson