Agenda item

The Local Review Body then considered the second 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 proposed formation of a two storey extension to form three new additional dwellings at 108 Bonnymuir Place, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 161363.

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would again be addressed by Mr Andrew Miller and reminded members 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.  She 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 Sepideh Hajisoltani, Trainee Planner; (2) the decision notice dated 2 March 2017; (3) plans and photographs showing the proposal; (4) links to the planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (5) letters of representation; and (6) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent along with an accompanying statement.

Mr. Miller 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 not requested that the LRB undertake a site inspection.

Mr. Miller advised that the site in question formed a traditional granite built detached house on the corner of Bonnymuir Place with Westburn Road. A Garage to the rear is accessed from a lane to Westburn Road. The property is situated within a residential area comprising generally older granite built dwellings and flats. Mr Miller explained that detailed planning permission was sought for the erection of a two storey extension to the building and a change of use to form 4 flats. Parking for four cars would be provided to the rear of the site accessed from the lane.

Mr Miller made reference to the Notice of Review submitted by the appellant, in which, it outlined the following:-

• the site coverage in the report was inaccurate (37% rather than 35% as is correct, marginally over the 33% general coverage rule in Supplementary Guidance). Some properties at 50%;

• the flats at Bonnymuir Court have no external amenity;
• that there was economic considerations;
• the house was in neglect; and
• the proposal would provide flats close to hospital and a bus route.

Mr Miller explained that the circumstances of the appellant outlined in page 100 of the agenda were not for the LRB to consider as the information was not a material consideration.

Mr Miller indicated that there were two objections received, which made reference to (1) the impact on trees; (2) the impact on a stone wall boundary to the south of the site (lane); and (3) concerns relating to the gable end wall and the proposed car parking that might create a high risk of collision into the house.

Mr Miller also made reference to the relevant planning considerations, as follows:-

• H1 – Residential Areas

-       Does it constitute overdevelopment?

-       Does it result in an unacceptable impact on residential amenity?

-       Does it result it comply with the Supplementary Guidance?

• Sub-division and Redevelopment of Residential Curtilages Supplementary Guidance

-       Does the proposal follow established pattern of development in surrounding area (plot size, ratio and general character/built form?)

-       What is the impact on the amenity of neighbours (overlooking, overshadowing, loss of light/daylight)?

-       Do the proposals proivdesufficient suitable external amenity space?

• D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design

-       Are the proposals of a high standard of design?

• NE5 – Trees and Woodland

-       Will there be an adverse impact on trees?

Finally, Mr Miller explained that the LRB should consider if there were any material considerations that should be taken into consideration in the determination.

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 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 proposal fails to comply with policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and Policy H1 (Residential Areas) of Aberdeen Local Development Plan (2017) and the Interim Planning Advice on Sub-Division and Redevelopment of Residential Curtilages. The excessive scale and massing of the extension (in relation to the existing dwelling and also the general built form in the surrounding area) and the proposed garden ground with insufficient amenity for future residents would represent overdevelopment of the site and would result in an unbalanced and visually dominant street frontage.

In terms of impact on trees, it is considered that subject to appropriate protection and mitigation measures the proposal could sufficiently comply with policy NE5 (Trees and Woodlands).

-       Councillor Marie Boulton, Chairperson