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 three 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 Lynsey McBain, as regards the procedure to be followed and also, thereafter, by Mr Gareth Allison, 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 McBain 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 Allison explained that the application which was the subject of the review was for the erection of a single storey extension to the front of an existing dwelling house on the corner of Birch Road and Rowan Road.  Mr Allison explained that he had checked the submitted Notice of Review and found it to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.

Mr Allison advised that the site referred to comprised a 2 storey end-terraced dwellinghouse  and the corner-plot nature of the site means that the dwelling is slightly unorthodox in that it has a dual-frontage onto both streets and does not have a rear garden area, with both its southern and western elevations being bound by adjoining terraced properties.  The front garden area is entirely paved with lock-block paving stones and the dwelling has an existing porch and front access door on its northern principal elevation.

Mr Allison explained that permission is sought for the erection of a conservatory extension to the eastern elevation of the dwelling and the extension would project 3.99m out from the existing dwelling with a width of 3.98m.  the extension would have a hipped, glazed roof with a ridge height of 3.9m and an eaves height of 3m.  it would be predominantly glazed on each of its three elevations and would be finished with brick walls.

It was noted that planning permission was granted in 1992 for the erection of a front porch on the dwelling’s northern elevation and for the erection of garden walls.

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

Policy H1 – Residential Areas

Within existing residential areas (H1 on the Proposals Map) and within new residential developments, proposals for new residential development and householder development will be approved in principle if it (1) does not constitute over development, (2) deos not have an unacceptable impact on the character of amenity of the surrounding area and (3) complies with the Supplementary Guidance on Householder Development.

Supplementary Guidance – Householder Development Guide

Rear and side extensions – Grouped Terraces – extensions should not project forward of any established building line

Front extensions/porches – the Council has developed the practice, when considering proposals for porch extensions in front of a formal building line, of limiting such structures to the minimum size necessary for protection from storms.

Daylight/sunlight calculations – where a proposal is not able to satisfy the requirements of the relevant test, it will then be appropriate for officers to consider other factors relevant to the likely impact on amenity.

Privacy – assessment of privacy within adjacent dwellings will therefore focus upon the context of a particular development site, taking into account various factors.

Proposed Aberdeen Local Plan

Policies D1 and H1 of the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan substantively reiterate the above policies of the Adopted Local Plan.

Sections 25 and 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) required that were, 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.

Mr Allison advised that one letter of objection was received and no comments were received from statutory consultees.

Mr Allison explained that the stated reason for refusal was as follows:-

            By virtue of extending beyond the eastern elevation of the

dwelling, which forms part of a uniform building line, the proposed

extension would disrupt the uniformity and integrity of the terrace

and would therefore have a significant detrimental impact on the

visual character of the area and result in the overdevelopment of the

site. On the basis of the above, the proposal fails to demonstrate due

regard for its context. It is clear that the proposal is contrary to

Policies D1 (Architecture and Placemaking) and H1 (Residential Areas)

of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan and there are no material

considerations which otherwise override the relevant policies. The

proposed development would be contrary to the relevant supplementary

guidance as contained within the Council's Householder Development

Guide as it would result in an extension which projects beyond an

established building line. It would create an unacceptably adverse

impact upon visual amenity and character of the street scene.

Members then asked a number of questions of Mr Allison.

At thie 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.

Members unanimously agreed that the proposal was contrary to Policy H1 of the Local Development Plan and to the Supplementary Guidance Householder Development Guide.  The Local Review Body therefore agreedy unanimously to uphold the decision of the appointed officer and refuse the applcation.

In coming to their decision, the Local Review Body had regard to the provisions of the Development Pla 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 proposal is contrary to Policies D1 (Architecture and Placemaking) and H1 (Residential Areas) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan and there are no material

 considerations which otherwise override the relevant policies. The proposed development would be contrary to the relevant supplementary guidance as contained within the Council's Householder Development Guide as it would result in an extension which projects beyond an established building line. It would create an unacceptably adverse impact upon visual amenity and character of the street scene.  Also by virtue of extending beyond the eastern elevation of the dwelling, which forms part of a uniform building line, the proposed extension would disrupt the uniformity and integrity of the terrace and would therefore have a significant detrimental impact on the visual character of the area and result in the overdevelopment of the site. On the basis of the above, the proposal fails to demonstrate due regard for its context.