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 a proposed dwelling house with associated parking at 25-29 Queen’s Road, Aberdeen.

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would again be addressed by Mr Paul Williamson and reminded those in attendance 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 Ms Jane Forbes, Planner; (2) the decision notice dated 13 September 2016; (3) plans showing the proposal; (4) links to the planning policies referred to in the delegated report; and (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent along with an accompanying statement.

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

Mr Williamson provided a brief description of the application and advised that the appeal relates to the refusal of planning permission for a proposed dwelling house with associated car parking at the rear of 25-29 Queen’s Road.  The existing property is Category C Listed, within the Albyn Place/Rubislaw Conservation Area, and of traditional construction.  The main dwelling is split into three flats, and following a grant of planning permission (Ref: 151798) is currently in the process of being extended by two storeys to the rear to form an additional 2 flatted properties.  The wider curtilage of the existing property extends to some 1800 square metres, while the site area for the appeal site is approximately 206 square metres

Mr Williamson referred to the delegated report and indicated that the proposals sought to erect a single storey mews style dwelling of two bedrooms within the south east most corner of the site.  The development would be accessed from Queens Lane South, with a 1.8 metre high traditional rubble boundary wall forming the southern boundary of the site.  The western boundary would be formed by another rubble wall varying between 1.1 and 1.4 metres in height, and two car parking spaces would be located to the north of the proposed dwelling.  In respect of materials, external walls would be of natural granite, with roof clad in slate.  Windows would be aluminium frames painted dark grey, with stone cills.

Mr Williamson then referred to the Decision Notice and advised that the application was refused on the grounds that the proposed development would result in the subdivision of an existing residential plot, which would not be in keeping with the established density and pattern of development in the area.  The Planning Authority considered that the proposal would constitute backland development, and would fail to provide a public face to a street, with uncertainty surrounding long term access arrangements.  As a result, the Authority considered that the proposal would also be significantly harmful to the wider Conservation Area. 

Mr Williamson intimated that it was noted in the reason for refusal that the general design, scale and finishing were suitable, that those elements did not outweigh the issue of the principle of the development.  As such, the proposal was considered to be contrary to Policies D1 Architecture and Placemaking; D2 (Design and Amenity); BI3 West End Office Area; D5 Built Heritage of the Local Development Plan.  In additional it was also considered to contravene Scottish Planning Policy, and the Supplementary Guidance relating to the sub-division and redevelopment of residential curtilages.

Mr Williamson then referred to the matters raised in the supporting statement to the Notice of Review which advised:-

• that the appellant considers that the concerns regarding the redevelopment of a residential curtilage are not relevant in this instance, as the site relates to a redundant two storey garage;
• that the proposed replacement low level development along an established building line is in keeping with the character of the area, with no objection from the Roads Department;
• that the Conservation Area appraisal identifies that there is a low-level building line along Queen’s Lane South, thus it does have a public face to the street;
• that concerns over long term access have been addressed, and a right of access would be reserved; and
• that the proposals shall replace a dilapidated garage with a single storey mews property of sensitive design and materials, which shall have a positive impact on the character of the area, which would be seen against the backdrop of the modern flatted extension.

Mr Williamson advised that the relevant considerations were (1) the Development Plan – Aberdeen Local Development Plan (2012), Policy BI3 (West End Office Area),

Policy D1 (Architecture and Placemaking), Policy D2 (Design and Amenity), Policy D5 (Built Heritage); (2) the Supplementary Guidance relating to the Sub-division and Redevelopment of Residential Curtilages; and (3) the Albyn Place/Rubislaw Conservation Area Appraisal.

In conclusion Mr Williamson advised that the LRB needed 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 the Sub-division of Residential Curtilages and the Conservation Area appraisal for Albyn Place/Rubislaw.  The principle considerations in this instance are whether the proposal would constitute an acceptable form of development, and whether it would sub-divide an existing residential feu or part of an original planned development layout.  Furthermore, consideration must also be given to the form of development and whether it would comply with the requirements of Policy D2 in having a public face to the street, and the other requirements of the aforementioned Supplementary Guidance relating to Sub-division, and ultimately the impact on the character and layout of the wider area including the Conservation Area. 

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

The LRB thereupon agreed that the review under consideration should be determined without further procedure.  The members of the Local Review Body therefore agreed that a site visit, a hearing session nor further written representations were required, as members felt they had enough information before them.

The LRB did not agree that there was problems surrounding long term access arrangements to the development.

Members unanimously upheld the decision of the appointed officer to 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 in which the Local Review Body based this decision were as follows:-

The proposed development would result in the subdivision of an existing residential plot, and would not be in-keeping with the established density and pattern of development in the area. Constituting backland development, it would fail to provide a public face to a street. The impact of such development would not only be considered inappropriate for its residential context, but would be significantly harmful to that of the wider Albyn Place/ Rubislaw Conservation Area. Whilst the proposal offers suitable individual merits by way of design, scale and finishing, these are not considered of exceptional quality to outweigh the issue of principle in this instance. As such, the principle of development fails to comply with Policy D1 (Architecture & Placemaking), Policy D2 (Design & Amenity) and Policy BI3 (West End Office Area) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012; the Council's Supplementary Guidance on the Subdivision of Residential Curtilages; Scottish Planning Policy and Historic Environment Scotland policy and guidance with respect of development within Conservation Areas; and subsequently Policy D5 (Built Heritage) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012. Approval of such development may set an undesirable precedent for future applications of a similar nature, which could lead to the fundamental erosion of the character and amenity of the surrounding area. There are no material considerations identified, including evaluation under the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2016, that would outweigh the above policy position or justify approval of the application.

-       COUNCILLOR RAMSAY MILNE, Convener