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 erection of a domestic garage over two floors with ancillary accommodation at first floor level, 78 Fountainhall Road Aberdeen, 180369/DPP.

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 Lynsey McBain as regards the procedure to be followed and also, thereafter, by Mr Gavin Evans 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.  She emphasised that the officer would not be asked to express any view on the proposed application.

The Local Review Body was then addressed by Mrs McBain, 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 certain more general aspects relating to the procedure.

In relation to the application, the LRB had before it (1) a delegated report by Mr Gavin Clark, Senior Planner; (2) the decision notice dated 19 April 2018; (3) copies of the plans showing the proposal; (4) links to the planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (5) and the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant along with accompanying submissions.

The LRB was then addressed by Mr Evans who advised that the submitted Notice of Review was found to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.

Mr Evans explained that the site subject to the review was a residential plot, incorporating a two storey mid-terrace property of traditional granite character, along with associated garden grounds and outbuildings. The building was within the Albyn Place/Rubislaw Conservation Area, but was not listed.  The property faces onto Fountainhall Road, whilst a rear lane runs along the foot of the back garden and that lane serves properties on Blenheim Place to its west side, and Fountainhall Road to the east.  Mr Evans advised that an existing garage sits at the bottom of the back garden, facing directly onto the rear lane. The report of handling estimates this to be approximately 4.7m wide by 5.3m deep, with a pitched roof measuring 3.9m to ridge level. The garage is oriented so that the roof slope faces the lane, and a painted timber gate and a small section of the traditional granite boundary wall would remain.

The rear lane is characterised by the presence of many such garages, which vary in their design, scale, age and materials.

Mr Evans indicated that the application 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 (circa 7.4m wide) and would reach 5m in height, with its gables oriented to face onto the adjacent plots. The proposed garage would also be deeper than the existing one, at 8.1m compared to 5.3m.  The additional height would allow for upper floor storage accommodation.  Mr Evans also stated that on the garden elevation, the central part of the garage wallhead was built up above the roofslope to offer additional headroom in a manner similar to the construction of a dormer window, but instead of being built entirely within the slope of the roof, this comes directly up from the wall below to protrude above the roof slope.  The garage roof would be constructed using natural slate, with a membrane on the flat-roofed section. Walls would be in a light coloured smooth render, with bricks exposed around the opening, and painted timber cladding above the roller shutter door. Guttering would be black UPVC.

Mr Evans 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:-  

The proposed garage fails 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 design, scale, massing and height, which would result in an obtrusive structure within the street scene, out of keeping with that of the locale thereby having a detrimental impact on the character and amenity of the surrounding residential area. 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).

In regards to consultees and objections, Mr Evans advised that no letters of objection were received and there was consultation with Roads Development Management, but no objection.

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

Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017

• D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design: Requires development to be of a high standard of design, which demonstrates an understanding of its context.
• H1 – Residential Areas: Householder Development should particularly:
  • Not result in an unacceptable impact on the character and amenity of the surrounding area;
  • Comply with Supplementary Guidance.

• D4 – Historic Environment: ACC will protect, preserve and enhance the historic environment in line with SPP, SHEP and its own SG and CA Character Appraisals and Mgmt Plan.
•  

Householder Supplementary Guidance

• Section 3.1.6 includes content relating specifically to outbuildings

In relation to the Notice of Review, the applicant highlighted that (a) there was a wide range of garage styles and sizes in the area; (b) the pitch of the garage roof would match the pitch of the house; (c) the photographs taken by the original case officer may have unfairly influenced the outcome of the application and (d) it was likely that the trend for bigger garages with useful accommodation at first floors, would likely to continue as owners add value to their main asset but also to increase security which is becoming a greater problem.

The Local Review Body then asked questions of Mr Evans in regards to the application.

The Local Review Body thereupon agreed unanimously 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 Evans 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. 

Members agreed unanimously 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 garage fails 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 design, scale, massing and height, which would result in an obtrusive structure within the street scene, out of keeping with that of the locale thereby having a detrimental impact on the character and amenity of the surrounding residential area. 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).