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 a proposed erection of a single storey extension on the rear (south east) elevation at Murtle Den House, 171007/DPP.

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would again be addressed by Mr Andrew Miller and reminded members that although Mr Miller 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 LRB had before it (1) a delegated report by Mr Roy Brown, Planning Technician; (2) the decision notice dated 14 November 2017; (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.

Mr Miller explained that the site subject to the review was for a replacement single storey conservatory to the rear of the dwelling house. The projection of the proposed conservatory would be double that of the existing conservatory, as it would project approximately 6m from the southeast elevation of the dwelling and it would have a length of approximately 12.4m.  Mr Miller advised that the finishing details of the existing conservatory would broadly be replicated in the proposed conservatory, as it would have similar timber columns, timber windows and doors, and the existing slates would be reused and new slates would match the existing tiles. The patterned cast iron rainwater goods on the existing conservatory would be re-used on the proposed extension and similar rainwater goods which have been salvaged from previous works on the property would be incorporated in the proposed extension.

Mr Miller outlined thatthe request sought the review of the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application under delegated powers and the stated reasons for refusal were as follows:-  

Whilst there are aspects of this proposal which would comply with the Supplementary Guidance: 'The Householder Development Guide' and Policy D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan in terms of materials, the 6m projection from the southeast elevation would be significant in terms of its scale and massing and would serve to dominate the original form and appearance of the southeast elevation. The proposed extension would therefore not be architecturally compatible with the design and scale of the original building in its setting. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the principles of Scottish Planning Policy; Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statement; Policies D1 - Quality Placemaking by Design and D4 - Historic Environment of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan; the Supplementary Guidance: 'The Householder Development Guide'; and 'Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Extensions'.  Although the proposed extension would comply with (a) - (d) of Policy NE2 – Green Belt of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan, the proposal would thus not be of a

scale and design which would be of the highest quality, and which would be suitable to the character and setting of this part of the green belt. The proposal would therefore fail to comply fully with Policy NE2 - Green Belt of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan. There are no material planning considerations which would warrant the approval of planning permission in this instance.

In regards to consultees and objections, Mr Miller advised that no letters of objection were received, however comments were from Historic Environment Scotland in respect of associated Listed Building Consent.

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

• NE2 – Green Belt: Creates a presumption against development though there are exceptions. Development associated with existing activities in the green belt will be permitted if:
  • It is within the boundary of the existing activity
  • It is small scale
  • The intensity of the activity is not significantly increased
  • Any proposed built construction is ancillary to what exists.
• D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design: Requires development to be of a high standard of design.
• D4 – development should comply with SPP and HESPS.
• HH SG – general principles.
• SPP and HESPS – Development should preserve and enhance the special interest of LBs.
• Managing Change in Historic Environment: Extensions

In relation to the Notice of Review, the applicant highlighted that the reason for refusal was considered to be an unrealistic overreaction to comments made from Historic Environment Scotland who advised that in their response that the proposals did not raise historic environmental issues of national significance and therefore did not object.

There were no questions for Mr Miller from the Local Review Body.

The Local Review Body 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.

Mr Miller highlighted that whendetermining the appeal, members should take into consideration any material considerations they feel would be relevant to the application that would point to either overturning the original decision or dismissing the review.  He also highlighted a separate appeal to Scottish Ministers in respect of the associated Listed Building Consent for these works (ref 171006/LBC).

Members agreed by majority to overturn the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application and therefore approve the application conditionally.  Councillors Jennifer Stewart and Donnelly voted to approve the application conditionally, and Councillor Sandy Stuart voted to uphold 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 replacement conservatory would be of a suitable scale and design and would not overwhelm the appearance of the category B listed building, itself a large detached house set in generous grounds. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to comply with Policy D1 - Quality Placemaking by Design of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017 (ALDP), as well as policies NE2 - Green Belt and D4 - Historic Environment. The proposal preserves the character of the listed building, in line with the requirements of Scottish Planning Policy and Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statement.

CONDITIONS

1.    No development shall take place unless a scheme detailing all external finishing materials to the roof and walls of the development hereby approved has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the planning authority and thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the details so agreed - in the interests of visual amenity.