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 the partial removal of the boundary wall and installation of an electric gate and formation of driveway at 14 Forest Avenue Aberdeen, 180699/DPP.

The Chairperson advised that the LRB would again be addressed by Mr Gavin Evans and reminded members that although Mr Evans 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 Ms Jacqui Thain, Planning Technician (2) the decision notice dated 12 July 2018; (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 Evans advised that the site subject to the review was a residential plot, incorporating a two storey semi-detached property of traditional granite character, along with associated garden grounds. The building lies at the junction of Forest Avenue and Annfield Terrace, within the Great Western Road Conservation Area, but is not listed.  Mr Evans explained there was no rear lane access to the property, however as it sits on a corner site, the granite boundary wall beyond its side elevation runs along Annfield Terrace.

Mr Evans explained that the planning application subject to review sought permission for the removal of a 4metre section of the existing boundary wall in order to form an access to the rear garden. New hard surfacing within the plot would allow for the parking of 3 vehicles, with the opening secured by a sliding gate formed in horizontal timber cladding within a galvanised steel frame.

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 reason for refusal was as follows:-  

The removal of part of the boundary wall, installation of an electronic gate and formation of hardstanding in order to accommodate three vehicles would be detrimental to the character and amenity of the surrounding area. The proposals have not been designed with due consideration for their context and would not respect the character, appearance and setting of the existing historic property, would be detrimental to its specific historic character and have an adverse impact on the overall historic environment and surrounding Conservation Area. The proposal therefore fails to comply with Scottish Planning Policy, Historic Environment Scotland's Policy Statement (HESPS), Policies H1: Residential Areas, D1: Quality Placemaking by Design, D4: Historic Environment and D5: Our Granite Heritage of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan. There are no material planning considerations which would warrant approval of consent in this instance.

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

Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017

• H1 – Residential Areas: Householder Development should particularly:
  • Does not constitute overdevelopment
  • Not result in an unacceptable impact on the character and amenity of the surrounding area;
  • Comply with Supplementary Guidance

• D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design: Requires development to be of a high standard of design, which demonstrates an understanding of its context.

• 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.

• D5 – Our Granite Heritage

Transport and Accessibility Supplementary Guidance

• It states that openings should be around 3.5m wide (4m in this instance), and later states that 3m is minimum acceptable width for driveway itself;
• Materials matching the original should be used in any alterations to boundary walls;
• When creating new openings, as much of the original wall should be retained as possible;
• Permission won’t normally be granted if a driveway for 1 car would remove on-street parking;
• Distance from junction – normally 15m, but 10 may be ok in some circumstances;
• Must be a minumum 5m long, and if more than 7m, must achieve 10m to avoid overhanging of footway;
• Must be internally drained.

In relation to the Notice of Review, the applicant highlighted that (a) one on-street parking space would be lost, but three off-street spaces would be provided by the proposal, (b) the width of the new opening, which is described as 4metres wide in a granite wall of some 25m length, equated to approximately 16% loss of historic fabric and (c) the contemporary design and high quality of the design was appropriate.

Mr Evans then answered various questions from members.

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 was as follows:-

The removal of part of the boundary wall, installation of an electronic gate and formation of hardstanding in order to accommodate three vehicles would be detrimental to the character and amenity of the surrounding area. The proposals have not been designed with due consideration for their context and would not respect the character, appearance and setting of the existing historic property, would be detrimental to its specific historic character and have an adverse impact on the overall historic environment and surrounding Conservation Area. The proposal therefore fails to comply with Scottish Planning Policy, Historic Environment Scotland's Policy Statement (HESPS), Policies H1: Residential Areas, D1: Quality Placemaking by Design, D4: Historic Environment and D5: Our Granite Heritage of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan. There are no material planning considerations which would warrant approval of consent in this instance.

Councillor Marie Boulton, Chairperson