Agenda item

Finally, the Local Review Body then considered the third request for a review.  The Chairperson advised that the LRB would now be addressed by Mr Robert Forbes and again reminded members that Mr Forbes 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.  Mr Forbes would not be asked to express any view on the proposed application.

Mr Forbes explained that the application which was the subject of the review was for the replacement of the existing flat roof on the front porch of the property at 8 Turnberry Gardens (151183) with a pitched roof which would extend the full width of the dwelling.  The application site was located in a small residential cul-de-sac off Braehead Way.  The property in question was a modern semi-detached two storey dwelling located on the east side of Turnberry Gardens.  The south side of the property had been extended with a two storey extension and to the front of the property was a small flat roof front porch finished in red brick.  Planning permission was sought to replace the existing flat roof on the front porch with a new lean-to tiled roof which would extend the full width of the front elevation to form a canopy. 

Mr Forbes explained that he had checked the submitted Notice of Review and found it to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.  He advised the appellant did not consider that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the street scene.

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

Development Plan – Aberdeen Local Development Plan

Policy D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design – all development must ensure high standards of design and have a strong and distinctive sense of place which was the result of context appraisal, detailed planning, quality architecture, craftsmanship and materials.

Policy H1 – Residential Areas – within existing residential areas and within new residential developments, proposals for new development and householder development would be approved in principle if it:

·         Did not constitute over-development;

·         Did not have an unacceptable impact on the character or amenity of the surrounding area

·         Did not result in the loss of valuable and valued areas of open space; and

·         Complied with Supplementary Guidance.

Mr Forbes added that the Supplementary Guidance on Householder Development should also be considered.

Mr Forbes advised that the stated reason for refusal of planning permission was as follows:-

The proposed pitched roof and extended canopy did not comply with Aberdeen Local Development Plan Policy D1 (Architecture and Placemaking) and H1 (Residential Areas) and with the related Householder Development Guide as the design and appearance would not make a positive contribution to the setting and would have an unacceptable impact on the character or amenity of the surrounding area.  By virtue of this, the application did not comply with Policy D1 and H1 in the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan.

The Local Review Body then asked a number of questions of Mr Forbes.

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.

The Local Review Body therefore 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:-

The proposed pitched roof and extended canopy did not comply with Aberdeen Local Development Plan Policy D1 (Architecture and Placemaking) and H1 (Residential Areas) and with the related Householder Development Guide as the design and appearance would not make a positive contribution to the setting and would have an unacceptable impact on the character or amenity of the surrounding area.  By virtue of this, the application did not comply with Policy D1 and H1 in the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan.

- RAMSAY MILNE, Chairperson