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, Mr Mark Masson, as regards the procedure to be followed and also, thereafter, by Mr Robert Forbes, who would be acting as the Planning Adviser to the Body in the case under consideration this day.

The Chairperson advised that a letter of representation dated 19^th February 2016, had been received by Dyce and Stoneywood Community Council (a statutory consultee) after the decision to refuse the application had been taken by the appointed officer. It was acknowledged that late submissions would not normally be considered by the Local Review Body unless there were exceptional circumstances, however it was agreed that on this occasion it would be considered as part of today’s proceedings as they were a statutory consultee, although he indicated that officers would write to all Community Council’s advising them that they must submit representations timeously or they would not be considered in future.

The Chairperson advised that Mr Robert 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 construction of a 1.5 storey extension to replace an existing extension and outbuilding at Knowsie, 10 Cordyce View, Dyce.  Mr Forbes explained that he had checked the submitted Notice of Review and found it to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.

The report advised that the application site was located on the north side of Cordyce View, a small cul de sac to the immediate north of Aberdeen Airport’s East Terminal, and was occupied by a detached, hipped roofed, single storey dwelling house finished with render and a slate roof. The original dwelling house, which was ‘L’ shaped and positioned towards the east of the plot, had been substantially extended to the rear and western elevation by several single storey extensions, eventually linking with a lean to outbuilding located 1.4m off the western boundary. There was a small outhouse to the extreme north west of the rear garden which abutted an area of amenity space to the north planted with semi mature trees.  The front garden currently provided parking for several cars and was screened by a low wall to the street elevation backed by 1.8m high hedging.  The principal elevation of the dwelling house had open views towards the airport grounds.  Mr Forbes intimated that the footprint of the existing dwelling house, including the previous extensions, resulted in a built site coverage of approximately 28% of the 860 sq m plot. Cordyce View was characterised by a variety of detached and semi detached dwelling houses, both single and 1.5 storey, of varying design, materials and age, all located to the north side.

The report indicated that planning permission was sought to erect a 1.5 storey extension to the west of the original dwelling house and involving the removal of an existing hipped roof extension, a lean to entrance porch/utility room and an adjoining outhouse.  The new extension would be 8.8m wide x 9.6m deep, its rear elevation would sit flush with the existing building line while its front building line would sit 1m forward of the front building line of the original dwelling house, 200mm forward of the projection of the original outbuilding.  The roof would be pitched, with straight gables to both front and rear elevations. The roof ridge height would be 6.8m, 2.6m higher than the roof ridge of the original dwelling house and some 3.7m higher than the extension to which it would abut.  The eaves height would be 800mm above the adjoining extension, but match that of the original dwelling house.  To ground floor level, the extension would provide a new lounge/dining room, storage room, W.C., rear vestibule and a staircase to the upper floor which would function as a games room/storage area with a W.C.  Finishing materials would include grey wet dash render and slates.  To the front (south) elevation, there would be a glazed door and triple windows to the ground floor and 2 triangular windows at upper level, while to the rear there would be a single glazed door, a set of triple glazed doors and a single window to the ground floor and 2 triangular windows at upper level. 

In relation to the 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:-

In relation to the Aberdeen Local Development Plan the report advised:-

Policy D1 – Architecture and Placemaking - 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. Factors such as siting, scale, massing, colour, materials, orientation, details, the proportions of building elements, together with the spaces around buildings, including streets, squares, open space, landscaping and boundary treatments, will be considered in assessing that contribution;

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 overdevelopment;
2. Does not have an unacceptable impact on the character or amenity of the surrounding area; and complies with Supplementary Guidance contained in the Householder Development Guide.

In relation to Supplementary Guidance - Householder Development Guide:-

Rear/side extensions - There is no specific guidance relating to extensions to detached dwelling houses. Such development is assessed on their own merits on a site specific basis however all alterations should be architecturally compatible in design and scale with the original house and its surrounding area. Materials used should be complementary to the original building. Any extension or alteration proposed should not serve to overwhelm or dominate the original form or appearance of the dwelling.

In relation to the proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan, the following policies substantively reiterate policies in the adopted local development plan:- D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design(D1 – Architecture and Placemaking in adopted LDP)

All development must ensure high standards of design and have a strong and distinctive sense of place which is a result of context appraisal, detailed planning, quality architecture, craftsmanship and materials; H1 – Residential Areas (H1 – Residential Areas in adopted LDP). Within existing residential areas (H1 on the Proposals Map) and within new residential developments, proposals for new development and householder development will be approved in principle if it:

1.  Does not constitute over development;

2.  Does not have an unacceptable impact on the character or amenity of the surrounding area;

3.  Does not result in the loss of valuable and valued areas of open space. Open space is defined in the Aberdeen Open Space Audit 2010; and

4.  Complies with Supplementary Guidance.

National Policy and Guidance – 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 consultations, Mr Forbes explained that no objections were received from Environmental Health or Roads Development Management Service. 

In relation to representations, it was noted that one letter of objection had been received.

In relation to consultations, Mr Forbes advised that no objections had been received from Environmental Health or the Roads Development Management Service.

Mr Forbes advised that the street was characterised by a range of dwelling types, forms and heights.

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

The proposed extension would breach both Policy D1 (Architecture and Placemaking) and the relevant Supplementary Guidance contained in Policy H1 (Residential Areas) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012, as its design would overwhelm and dominate the original form and appearance of the dwelling house which would have a significant detrimental impact on the existing visual and residential amenities of the area by virtue of its overall height and massing. No material considerations have been identified that would warrant determination other than in accordance with the Development Plan. The proposal, if implemented, could establish an undesirable precedent for similar applications, potentially leading to a cumulative erosion of residential character, to the detriment of the visual and residential amenity of the area.

Mr Forbes referred Members to large scale plans of the proposed development.

The Local Review Body then asked a number of questions of Mr Forbes and the Chairperson confirmed that Members had taken into consideration all of the documents which were before them today in respect of this review.

At this point, the Local Review Body considered whether it 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. 

Members unanimously agreed that the proposal was contrary to Policy (1) D1 of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan, which advised that high standards of design, new development must be designed with due consideration for its context and make a positive contribution to its setting.  Factors such as siting, scale, massing, colour, materials, orientation, details, the proportions of building elements, together with the spaces around buildings, including streets, squares, open space, landscaping and boundary treatments, would be considered in assessing that contribution; and (2) D5 of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan, which advised that that proposals affecting Conservation Areas or Listed Buildings will only be permitted if they complied with Scottish Planning Policy.

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:-

The proposed extension would breach both Policy D1 (Architecture and Placemaking) and the relevant Supplementary Guidance contained in Policy H1 (Residential Areas) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012, as its design would overwhelm and dominate the original form and appearance of the dwelling house which would have a significant detrimental impact on the existing visual and residential amenities of the area by virtue of its overall height and massing. No material considerations have been identified that would warrant determination other than in accordance with the Development Plan. The proposal, if implemented, could establish an undesirable precedent for similar applications, potentially leading to a cumulative erosion of residential character, to the detriment of the visual and residential amenity of the area.