Agenda item

The Local Review Body of Aberdeen City Council met this day to review the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to refuse two requests for planning permission.

Councillor Milne, as Chairperson, gave a brief outline of the business to be undertaken.  He indicated that the Local Review Body would be addressed by the Assistant Clerk, Mrs Stephanie Dunsmuir, as regards the procedure to be followed and also, thereafter, 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 Local Review Body was then addressed by Mrs Dunsmuir as regards the procedure to be followed, at which time reference was made to the procedure note circulated with the papers calling the meeting and to certain more general aspects relating to the procedure.

Mr Williamson explained that the application which was the subject of the review was for the reinstatement of two basement flats to habitable studio apartments in relation to 73 Charlotte Street (Planning Reference 141535).  Mr Williamson advised that he had checked the submitted Notice of Review and had found it to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.  He noted that the applicant had requested that the LRB undertake a site visit.

He explained that the property at 73 Charlotte Street was a three storey tenement style building split into six flats.  The building was constructed of granite rubble and had a slated roof with dormers on the front and rear elevation.  The rear basement elevation was exposed, with a 1.3m deep trench along its length and two window openings.  The rear garden of the property had been turned into a parking area, with only a small amount of amenity space which was enclosed by a low metal fence near the building.  Planning consent was sought for the conversion of the rearmost part of the basement to two two-roomed studio flats.  The resultant flats would be accessed from the existing rear door and would make use of the two existing windows in the rear elevation.  The accommodation would consist of a small living / sleeping / kitchen area with a separate bathroom.

In relation to documents which the members of the Local Review Body should consider, Mr Williamson outlined that all of the following documents were accessible via web links and available as set out in the papers:-

Development Plan – Aberdeen Local Development Plan (2012);  D1 (Architecture and Placemaking) – new development must be designed with due consideration for its context and make a positive contribution to its setting; D2 (Design and Amenity) – in order to ensure the provision of appropriate levels of amenity, the following principles would be applied:- (a) privacy shall be designed into higher density housing; (b) residential development shall have a public face to a street and a private face to an enclosed garden or street; (c) all residents shall have access to sitting-out areas; and (d) individual flats or houses shall be designed to make the most of opportunities offered by the site for views and sunlight; and H1 (Residential Areas) – in principle, residential development would be acceptable in residential areas if :- (a) it did not constitute over development; and (b) it did not have an unacceptable impact on the character or amenity of the surrounding area.

Sections 25 and 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) required that where, in making any determination under the planning acts, regard was to be had to the provisions of the development plan and that determination should be made in accordance with the plan, so far as material to the application, unless material considerations indicated otherwise.

In relation to the proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan, no new issues had been raised in terms of this application.

Mr Williamson added that the Supplementary Guidance on Householder Development was also a relevant consideration, as although the proposal was not for an extension, the techniques for assessing impact on amenity were still relevant in assessing whether the proposed studio flats would be afforded sufficient amenity, daylight and privacy.

In relation to consultations, Mr Williamson explained that no comments had been received from statutory consultees, and no letters of objection or support had been received. 

Mr Williamson further explained that it was important to point out that within the Statement of Reasons, submitted with the notice of review, the applicant had included correspondence with the Planning Officer and had stated that the property in question had previously been apartments and therefore they could see no reason for the application to have been refused.  Mr Williamson reported that no evidence had been provided which demonstrated previous use of the flats for residential purposes.  The applicant had also included correspondence with the Planning Officer as part of their submission.

Mr Williamson advised that the stated reason for refusal was as follows:-

That the two studio flats, especially the flat on the right had side of the rear elevation, were considered not to receive a sufficient level of natural light, amenity or privacy.  This was due to the location of the single window serving the proposed studio flat which was located behind a raised bank and was severely overshadowed by an existing single storey extension at the neighbouring property of 71 Charlotte Street; limited outlook; and likely impingement on privacy within the single living space as a result of persons accessing the existing flats in the upper floors.  The proposal was therefore considered to be contrary to Policy D2 (Design and Amenity) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan and Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) of the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan.

Members then asked a number of questions of Mr Williamson. 

At this point, the Local Review Body considered whether it had sufficient information before it to determine the review.  Members thereupon agreed that the review under consideration be determined without further procedure.

Following discussion of the application, Members unanimously agreed that the proposal was contrary to Policy D1 and D2 of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan, citing concerns about the level of amenity, sunlight and privacy afforded to any potential residents of the property if the application were to be approved.  The Local Review Body therefore unanimously agreed to uphold the decision of the appointed officer and refuse the application.

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(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) which required that where, in making any determination under the planning acts, regard was to be had to the provisions of the development plan and that determination should be made in accordance with the plan, so far as material to the application, unless material considerations indicated otherwise.

More specifically, the reasons on which the Local Review Body based this decision were as follows:-

That the two studio flats, especially the flat on the right had side of the rear elevation, were considered not to receive a sufficient level of natural light, amenity or privacy.  This was due to the location of the single window serving the proposed studio flat which was located behind a raised bank and was severely overshadowed by an existing single storey extension at the neighbouring property of 71 Charlotte Street; limited outlook; and likely impingement on privacy within the single living space as a result of persons accessing the existing flats in the upper floors.  The proposal was therefore considered to be contrary to Policy D2 (Design and Amenity) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan and Policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) of the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan.  The Local Review Body also considered that the Supplementary Guidance on Householder Development was of relevance in relation to the assessment of whether the proposed flats would be afforded sufficient amenity, daylight and privacy.