Agenda item

The Local Review Body then considered the third request for a review to evaluate the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to refuse the request for planning permission for the erection of two storey rear extension, replacement garage, raised platform and driveway to the rear of ‘Kimberley’ 97 North Deeside Road, Aberdeen (160097).

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would now be addressed by Mr Paul Williamson and again 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.

In relation to the application, the Local Review Body had before it (1) a delegated report by Mr Tom Walsh, Planning Officer, dated 31 March 2016; (2) the decision notice; (3) plans showing the proposal; (4) planning policies referred to in the delegated report; and (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent.

Mr Williamson advised that the submitted Notice of review was found to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.

Mr Williamson indicated that the appeal related to the refusal of planning permission for the erection of a two storey rear extension, replacement garage, raised platform and driveway at 97 North Deeside Road, Bieldside, which was a detached dwelling with two storeys of accommodation, and an existing rear wing.  The existing property was of granite construction with a slate roof.  It has a floor area of approximately 121 square metres and the overall site area was approximately 610 square metres.

Mr Williamson advised that the proposals sought to erect an extension across the full width of the dwelling, sitting perpendicular to that of the existing roof form.  The extension would also be sited on a raised platform to maintain a consistent floor level throughout the living area.  The roof would also incorporate projecting eaves, at the southern gable.  The floor area of the proposal would be approximately 72 square metres.  Materials would include the use of zinc external cladding for side elevations and the roof, with glazing to the south elevation.  The decking area would be formed by timber and granite.  The proposed garage would be a granite façade towards Marchbank Road, timber cladding to the remaining walls, and a slate roof.

In respect of neighbouring extensions, number 19 to the west has an extension which projects 3m, from the rear boundary.  There is no extension at No. 15, which is the end terrace property to the east.

The report advised that the application was refused on the grounds that the proposal fails to comply with Policies D1 and H1 of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan, in addition to the Supplementary Guidance relating to the Householder Development Guide as elements of the proposal relating to scale, massing and prominence have not be designed to respect the scale and form of the existing dwelling and impact on adjoining properties, with a resultant impact on the existing visual and residential amenity of the area.

Mr Williamson made reference to the matters raised in the Notice of Review statement which included:-

• The inclusion of a palette of high quality materials, including re-used granite is appropriate for this proposal and ensures the best possible appearance for the development;
• Contest that the scale is too big or dominant for its surroundings;
• The proposal does not breach the rear building line, nor does it over-shadow any principle elevation of adjoining property;
• The resultant site coverage would remain low at approximately 22.5%
• Reference was made to another application at 5 Golf Road Bieldside from 2012 which was approved unconditionally
• Some minor amendments were submitted by the applicant but were not considered by the Planning Officer
• The proposals also incorporate best practice in relation to energy efficiency and maximizing solar gain;
• The proposals will not impact upon public viewpoints or panoramas; and
• An offer is made to reduce the ridge height by 600mm, however Members must make their assessment on the basis of the plans considered at the time by the Case Officer.

Mr Williamson also referred to relevant considerations including all the following documents which were accessible via web links, as set out in the papers before the Review Body as follows:-

Development Plan – Aberdeen Local Development Plan (2012):

Policy H1 (Residential Areas) and Policy D1 (Architecture and Placemaking); and the Supplementary Guidance Householder Development Guide

Mr Williamson concluded by intimating that the Local Review Body need to assess the proposal against the policies of the Development Plan, and the other material considerations identified such as the Councils Supplementary Guidance relating to Householder Developments.  The principle considerations in this instance, is whether the proposal would have any adverse impact upon neighbouring residential amenity, and the visual amenity of the wider area. 

At this juncture, the Chairperson asked if members were happy to proceed with determining the application.  Members felt that they had sufficient information in order to reach a decision and did not require a site visit. 

Following discussion of the application, all three Members agreed that the proposal did not comply with the relevant policies of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012, namely Policies D1 (Architecture and Placemaking) and H1 (Residential Areas) in addition to the Council’s Supplementary Guidance: Householder Development Guide in that elements of the proposal relating to its scale, massing and prominence have not been designed to respect the scale and form of the existing dwelling and impact on adjoining properties. In addition there would be significant detrimental impact on the existing visual and residential amenity of the area. On the basis of the above, and following on from the evaluation under policy and guidance, it is considered that the application warrants refusal. The Local Review Body therefore agreed unanimouslyto 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.

COUNCILLOR RAMSAY MILNE, Convener