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 garage/hobby workshop to the rear of 24 Rubislaw Den South, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 180328DPP.

 

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, Mr Mark Masson with regards to 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, 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.

 

The Local Review Body was then addressed by Mr Masson, 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 more general aspects relating to the procedure.

 

In relation to the application, the LRB had before it (1) a delegated report by Sheila Robertson, Planning Technician; (2) the application dated 7 March 2018; (3) the decision notice dated 9 May 2018 (4) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report; and (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the applicant along with an accompanying statement with further information relating to the application.

 

The LRB was then addressed by Mr Evans who advised that the review had been submitted with all necessary information within the time limit of three months following the decision of the appointed officer, however he then indicated that new evidence presented by the applicants in relation to the condition of the boundary wall had been submitted and therefore required approval from the LRB to accept the letter as part of the proceedings.

 

Mr Templeton, Legal Advisor indicated that the new information, which was not before the planning officer, could only be taken into account where (a) that the matter could not have been raised before that time; or (b) that it not being raised before that time was a consequence of exceptional circumstances.

 

The Local Review Body agreed to accept the new evidence in to the proceedings as they were satisfied that the information could not have been submitted earlier.

 

Mr Evans then described the site advising that it was a detached 2 storey dwelling, constructed in grey granite and situated on the northern side of Rubislaw Den South within a large feu. The rear garden extended to more than 40m and adjoins Rubislaw Den itself, to which access is afforded only to residents of the surrounding properties. The building was Category B listed and lies within the Albyn Place/Rubislaw Conservation Area.

 

He indicated that an extension to the rear and gable was currently under construction and an outbuilding, described as a ‘potting shed’ sits in the North East corner of the rear garden, extending to approximately 25sq.m, constructed in black painted timber with a brick basecourse and a pitched roof.

 

In terms of the proposal, Mr Evans intimated that the application proposed a single storey outbuilding within the rear garden, described as a garage/hobby workshop. The proposed outbuilding extended to circa 36sqm, and would be sited to the rear of the house, circa 7.5m from the rear extent of the extension that was under construction at the time of the appointed officer’s decision. It would directly abut the boundary wall, and would open onto an area of new paving between the recent extension and the outbuilding (circa 28sqm).

 

Mr Evans explained that due to the ground levels rising towards the rear of the garden, a degree of excavation (circa 1m) was proposed in order to form a level surface for the building and reduce its visual impact from neighbouring feus.

 

He advised that the building would measure 2.6m to eaves, with an overall height of 4m. It was proposed that the outbuilding be constructed with a red brick base course, black painted vertical timber linings and a slate roof, to match the styling of the potting shed at the far end of the garden. The Garage to the eastern gable of the building had doors both front and back that would allow for vehicles to gain access to the proposed area of new paving and outbuilding.

 

In relation to the appointed case officer’s decision, Mr Evans advised that the reasons for refusal made reference to the following factors:-

·         Conflict with Policies D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and D4 (Historic Environment) in that the proposal had not been designed with due consideration for its context and setting;

·         Negative impact on the setting of the Listed Building by reason of its scale, siting, materials and design;

·         Although the proposal would impact on the historical pattern of development, any adverse impact on the visual character and amenity of the Conservation Area would be limited since the structure would not be readily visible from any public area;

·         The excavations could undermine the existing boundary wall and affect the fabric of the listed wall; and

·         Contrary to the provisions of Scottish Planning Policy, Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statement, Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Setting and by extension with Policy D4 (Historic Environment) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan.

 

In relation to the appellant’s case, Mr Evans indicated that the submission contends as follows:-

·         It supports the achievement of the vision and aims of the Strategic Development Plan in relation protecting and improving the historic environment, catering for the needs of the whole population and creating a high quality of life;

·         Was in accordance with the relevant Local Development Plan policies specifically, Policies H1, D1, and D4;

·         Complied with the requirements of Supplementary Guidance: Householder Development Guide in terms of dimensions and style;

·         Would have no adverse impact on the setting of the listed building by virtue of the quality and nature of both the design and the materials proposed, as well as the proposed garage/workshop being set back from the existing building by a distance of over 7 metres;

·         Would not undermine the existing boundary wall and affect the fabric of the listed wall;

·         Would allow for greater enjoyment of the historic environment through the provision of greater residential amenity for the residents of the listed building at 24 Rubislaw Den South; and

·         Was consistent with the principles of Scottish Planning Policy and the Historic Environment Policy Statement in terms of allowing for positive change in the historic environment. 

 

Mr Evans intimated that consultations were undertaken with the Council’s Roads Development Management team and no concerns were raised. There were no representations/objections received.

 

Mr Evans advised that the applicant had expressed the view that no further procedure was required (e.g. hearing or site visit), and that the review could be concluded based on a review of the information provided.

 

The Chairperson and Councillors Copland and Donnelly all indicated in turn that they each had enough information before them and therefore agreed that a site visit was not required and that the review under consideration should be determined without further procedure.

 

Mr Evans outlined the relevant policy considerations, making reference to the following in the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017:-

-       H1 – Residential Areas: Householder Development should particularly;

-       D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design;

-       D4 – Historic Environment; and

-       Supplementary Guidance (Householder)

 

In terms of material considerations, Mr Evans advised that in determining the appeal, members should take into consideration any material considerations they feel are relevant to the application that would point to either overturning the original decision or dismissing the review.

 

He explained that in addition to the relevant policies from the development plan, the following would be material considerations:-

·         Scottish Planning Policy (re Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas);

·         Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statement; 

·         ACC Albyn Place & Rubislaw Conservation Area Character Appraisal and the overarching Management Plan for Aberdeen’s Conservation Areas;

·         HES Managing Change guidance on ‘Setting’ and ‘New Design in Historic Settings’;

·         New evidence presented by the applicants in relation to the condition of the boundary wall and its ability to withstand construction of the proposed outbuilding.

 

He made reference to Scottish Planning Policy, specifically regarding listed buildings and the conservation area and Policies P9, P18 and P49.

 

He indicated that should members wish to overturn the decision of the appointed officer, consideration should be given to any conditions which would be appropriate in order to make the proposal acceptable, however all conditions must meet the six tests set out by Scottish Government policy and I can go through these if necessary.

 

He suggested that an appropriate condition could be that no development to which this planning permission related shall take place unless details of the finishing materials of the proposed dormer was submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development should be constructed in accordance with the agreed details. The reason being, to ensure that the extension would be architecturally compatible in terms of design and scale with the original dwelling and the surrounding area.

 

The Local Review Body then asked questions of Mr Evans, specifically regarding materials being used, whether there was rear lane access and whether the proposal could be seen from the front of the property.

 

The Convener and Councillor Donnelly made reference to the scale and design of the proposal, specifically in terms of the conservation area and advised that it was acceptable, and that no objections had been received.

 

Councillor Copland supported the appointed officer’s reasons 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 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) and other material considerations in so far as these were pertinent to the determination of the application.

 

Members agreed by majority to overturn the decision of the appointed officer and to approve the application subject to the following conditions:-

 

(01) Construction Methodology

 

The proposed development shall not be commenced unless a methodology statement relating to the construction of the outbuilding has been submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the planning authority. This methodology statement shall include particular reference to the relationship between the construction works and the historic boundary wall. Thereafter, all works shall be carried out in accordance with any methodology statement so agreed – in the interests of protecting the historic boundary wall from damage related to the construction of the approved outbuilding.

 

(02) Materials/Finishes

 

No development shall be undertaken unless further details of the materials to be used in the construction of the approved building (including physical samples) have first been submitted to and agreed in writing by the planning authority. Thereafter all works shall be carried out in accordance with the materials so agreed – in order to ensure that materials are of a standard appropriate to the setting of a Listed Building.

 

Reason: In order to ensure the external finishes of the proposed extension are suitable for its location within the Great Western Road Conservation Area.

 

More specifically, the reasons on which the Local Review Body based this decision was as follows:-

The outbuilding was of an appropriate scale and would not result in an over-development of the rear curtilage. It would not be unduly prominent by virtue of its location to the rear of the listed building, with screening offered by the existing boundary walls. Its design, which incorporates natural slate and other materials to match the existing outbuilding to the rear of the plot, was considered to demonstrate due regard for its context as required by policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and would not result in any adverse impact on the special interest of the Listed Building or its setting. For these reasons, the proposal was also found to comply with policies H1 (Residential Areas) and D4 (Historic Environment), as well as the associated Householder Development Guide Supplementary Guidance, as it related to outbuildings. It was not considered that the proposal would result in any adverse impact on the character or appearance of the Albyn Place/Rubislaw Conservation Area.