Agenda item

Members, please note that the relevant plans can be viewed online:-

https://publicaccess.aberdeencity.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P0ZYGWBZHX100

The Local Review Body (LRB) of Aberdeen City Council met 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 erection of a 1.5 storey garage with storage space at upper level at 83 Blenheim Place, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 171486.

Councillor Boulton, as Chairperson, gave a brief outline of the business to be undertaken.  She indicated that the LRB would be addressed by the Assistant Clerk, Mrs Dunsmuir, as regards the procedure to be followed and also thereafter by Mr Evans, who would be acting as the Planning Adviser to the Body in the case under consideration.

The Chairperson 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 LRB only.  She emphasised that the officer would not be asked to express any view on the proposed application.

The LRB was then addressed by Mrs Dunsmuir, the Assistant Clerk, as regards the procedure to be followed, at which time reference was made to the procedure note circulated with the papers calling the meeting and to certain more general aspects relating to the procedure.

In relation to the application, the LRB had before it (1) a report of handling by Mr Gavin Clark, Senior Planner; (2) the decision notice dated 16 April 2018; (3) links to plans showing the proposal; (4) links to planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (5) a letter of support in relation to the application; and (6) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant’s agent along with an accompanying statement, documents and initial planning application.

In respect of the review, Mr Evans advised that he had checked the submitted Notice of Review and had found it to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.

Mr Evans advised that the site under consideration was a residential plot, incorporating a two storey mid-terrace property of granite character, along with associated garden grounds and outbuildings.  The building lay within the Albyn Place / Rubislaw Conservation Area but was not listed.  The property faced onto Blenheim Place, with a rear lane running along the foot of the back garden which served properties on Blenheim Place to the west side, and Fountainhall Road to the east.  Mr Evans explained that the rear garden was enclosed by boundary walls of around 1.8 metres in height, and included an existing pitched roof garage, sited in the north-western corner of the garden, which opened directly onto the lane.  The western boundary onto the lane also included painted timber gates.  Mr Evans advised that the rear lane was characterised by the presence of many such garages, which varied in design, scale, age and materials.

Mr Evans explained that the planning application subject to review sought permission for the construction of a new, larger garage on the site of the existing structure.  The proposed garage would occupy the full width of the plot and would reach 5 metres in height, with its gables oriented to face onto the adjacent plots.  The additional height would allow for upper floor storage accommodation.

The new structure would be finished with Siberian larch timber cladding, a natural slate roof and a smooth grey render basecourse.  Windows and doors to the garden elevation would be in white UPVC, with gutters and downpipes in black UPVC.  The overhead roller garage door would be in steel and coloured grey.

Mr Evans outlined that the 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:-

That the proposed garage failed to comply with the guidelines contained in Section 3.1.6 “Outbuildings” of the Supplementary Guidance: Householder Development Guide, and with Policies H1 (Residential Areas) and D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan, by virtue of its roof profile and orientation, which would exacerbate its massing within the streetscape, resulting in a dominant and obtrusive structure out of keeping with the locale, thereby having a detrimental impact on the character and visual amenity of the surrounding residential area.  Approval would risk setting an unwelcome precedent for further unsympathetic replacement garages within the site’s part of the Conservation Area, contrary to the aims of the Albyn Place / Rubislaw Conservation Area Character Appraisal and which, if replicated, could lead to a significant cumulative erosion of the Conservation Area’s character and appearance. Furthermore, it would fail to demonstrate due regard for its context and would have a negative impact on the character of the Albyn Place / Rubislaw Conservation Area, contrary to Policy D4 (Historic Environment) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan, Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statement (HESPS) and Scottish Planning Policy (SPP).  It had therefore been considered that the proposal did not accord with the provisions of the Development Plan and that there were no material planning considerations that would warrant approval of the application.

Mr Evans advised that in the Notice of Review Grounds of Appeal statement, the applicant had disputed that the roof profile and orientation would dominate the streetscape; contended that the roof profile and orientation were not foreign to the area; highlighted the variety of roof forms and orientations and queried the insistence of the planning authority on a gable-fronted roof form given the variety and presence of similar structures in the locality; and highlighted the approval of a similar recently approved garage at 58 Fountainhall Road which was orientated with the roof slope facing the lane.

In regard to consultations and objections, Mr Evans advised that no consultations had been undertaken and a letter in support of the application had been received, included in the agenda before Members.  Mr Evans also highlighted that additional letters of support had been provided as part of the applicant’s Grounds of Appeal statement.

Mr Evans then highlighted that the applicant had asked that the review procedure include a site visit, and explained that the LRB was required to consider whether it had sufficient information before it to determine the review today.

At this point, the LRB considered whether they had sufficient information before them to proceed to determine the review.  The Chairperson stated that she was content to continue without further procedure.  Councillors MacKenzie and Mason advised that they wished a site visit to be held prior to determining the review.  The Local Review Body then agreed that the review under consideration should be adjourned in order for a site visit to be conducted in due course.