Agenda item

The Local Review Body (LRB) of Aberdeen City Council met on this day to review the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to refuse the request for planning permission for the proposed single storey extension and replacement window to rear of dwelling house at 100 Fountainhall Road, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 160501.

Councillor Milne as Chairperson gave a brief outline of the business to be undertaken.  He indicated that the LRB would be addressed by the Assistant Clerk, Mr Mark Masson with regards to the procedure to be followed and also, thereafter, by Mr Andrew Miller 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 hehad 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 Mr Masson, Assistant Clerk in regards to the procedure to be followed, at which time reference was made to the procedure note circulated with the papers calling the meeting and to more general aspects relating to the procedure.

In relation to the application, the LRB had before it (1) a delegated report by Ms Sheila Robertson, Planning Technician; (2) the decision notice dated 14 November 2016; (3) copies of the 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.

The LRB was then addressed by Mr Miller who advised that the submitted Notice of Review was found to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes. He also indicated that the appellant had requested that the LRB undertake a site inspection and assess the information submitted as part of the appeal.

Mr Miller advised that the site was located at the northern end of Fountainhall Road, close to its junction with King’s Gate and comprises a semi-detached 2.5 storey traditional granite villa and is located within the Albyn Place and Rubislaw Conservation Area. He explained that detailed Planning Permission was sought for the proposed development and subsequently refused by officers under delegated powers. The existing single storey rear wing would be demolished and a new extension would be provided in place of the current rear wing and would protrude some 8.4 metres from the rear wall of the house (with current rear wing removed). This would protrude about 3.65 metres beyond the current rear wing. There would be a protruding gable feature door on the north elevation. It would have a mono pitched roof and would be finished in rendered walls, granite walls to the north elevation. The roof would be finished in slate to match the existing house whilst and windows and doors would be white PVCu.

Mr Miller advised that there were no representations received from neighbours, although there were comments received from the Planning’s Conservation Team expressing concerns regarding the proposed design.

Mr Miller made reference to the Notice of Review and indicated that the appellants had indicated that the decision was inconsistent with others in the conservation area and that the extension would have less of an impact on the conservation area compared to recently approved builds.

Mr Miller also made reference to the relevant planning considerations, specifically relating to the Local Development Plan 2017, Interim Planning Advice – Householder Development Guide relating to guidance on Rear extension to semi-detached dwellings and The Replacement of Windows and Doors. He advised that in assessing this proposal the LRB should consider whether the design and massing of the extension is acceptable, with reference to policies H1 and D1, as well as associated Supplementary Guidance (Currently Interim Planning Advice). If the extension would preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area, paying regard to Scottish Planning Policy, HESPS and policy D4 of the ALDP and are there any other material considerations that would lend support to the application or point towards refusal.

The delegated report advised that the stated reason for refusal of planning permission was as follows:-

The proposal fails to comply with the relevant policies of Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012, namely Policies D1 (Architecture and Placemaking) and H1

(Residential Areas), the Council’s Supplementary Guidance: Householder Development Guide and with the relevant corresponding policies in the Proposed Aberden Local Plan, in that the proposed design respects neither the character and architecture of the existing dwelling house nor of the surrounding area. Approval of the application would be detrimental to and thus neither preserve nor enhance the character of Conservation Area 4 (Albyn Place/ Rubislaw) contrary to the provisions of Scottish Planning Policy, Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statement and thereby with Policy D5 of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan. On the basis of the

above, and following on from the evaluation under policy and guidance, it is considered that there are no material planning considerations – including the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan – that would warrant approval of the application.

The Local Review Body then asked a number of questions of Mr Miller, specifically regarding the materials being used for the extension, the location of the conservation area, whether similar extensions have been built in the area and views from Beechgrove Terrace.

The members of the Local Review Body agreed that there was no requirement for a site visit, a hearing session, or further written representations, as they felt they had enough information before them. The Local Review Body thereupon agreed that the review under consideration should be determined without further procedure. 

Members did not feel that the proposed design of the extension and window replacement would be out of character with the existing dwelling house or the surrounding area.

Members unanimously agreed that the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application be reversed and that the application be approved subject to the following condition:-

CONDITION

That no development shall commence unless a sample of the proposed external finishes (walls, door and window frames and roofing) of the development hereby granted is submitted and approved by the Council (as planning authority). Thereafter, the development shall be completed in accordance with the details agreed.

Reason – in order to ensure the development is finished in materials suitable for its context, in the interests of the character of the surrounding conservation area.

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.