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 Carport to the Gable of 1 Woodburn Place, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 180643DPP.

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 Ms Sheila Robertson, Planning Technician; (2) the planning application dated 24 April 2018; (3) the decision notice dated 22 June 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 a supporting statement with further information relating to the application.

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 described the site, advising that the application site was located on the western site of Woodburn Place, occupying a corner plot at its junction with Woodburn Gardens. The site contained a detached, 1.5 storey dwelling of a hipped-roof design, which includes an integral garage. The dwelling had been previously extended in the past, with the addition of a single-storey extension to the rear (garden elevation) and more recently, the construction of a 1.5 storey extension on its south elevation facing onto Woodburn Gardens. This later extension allowed for the formation of an integral garage with internal accommodation above, within the roofspace. The site extended to approximately 970sqm, of which the extended property occupies a footprint of roughly 220sqm.The site was at the time of the officer’s report, enclosed by high leylandii hedging to its southern and eastern boundaries (onto Woodburn Gardens and Woodburn Place respectively. Woodburn Place rises northwards from Woodburn Gardens, and as a result the dwelling was slightly elevated when seen from Woodburn Gardens.

In relation to the proposal, Mr Evans indicated thatthe application proposed the erection of a single-storey structure from the southern elevation of the property (closest to Woodburn Gardens). The car-port/canopy type structure would be open to the front (east), but would present a solid granite face to its side (southern) elevation and part of the rear (west) elevation, with the finish described as being similar to that of the garage. The structure would be topped by a hipped roof, similar to that of the recent extension but at a much shallower pitch and lesser height. The roof ridge level would sit slightly above the wall head level of the recent extension, and just below its south-facing dormer. Its depth (at approx. 7.7m) was slightly less than that of the recently constructed extension, and its width would taper from 4.7m at the front to 2m at the rear, running parallel to the southern boundary. The officer’s report indicated that the structure would be sited approximately 1.1m off that southern boundary.

Mr Evans outlined the appointed officer’s reasons for refusal which made reference to the following points:-

• The proposal had not been designed with due consideration for its context;
• The cumulative effect of this further extension would result in an elongated frontage, which would dominate and overwhelm the original dwelling house and result in a dwelling that would be out of character with surrounding properties;
• This would be contrary to the advice contained in the Householder Development Guide Supplementary Guidance;
• By virtue of its prominent location and close proximity to Woodburn Place, this further extension would be visually intrusive and incongruous to the established pattern of development in the surrounding area; and
• Based on these factors, the proposal was considered to result in an unacceptable impact on the existing residential character and visual amenity of the streetscape and a negative impact on its setting, contrary to Policies D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design) and H1 (Residential Areas) and the associated Supplementary Guidance: Householder Development Guide.

Mr Evans advised that the applicant’s agent expressed the opinion that the proposed carport was not detrimental to the style of the existing house and would have little or no impact on its surroundings, noting that the structure would barely be seen from out with the site.

Mr Evans made reference to further details provided in a separate supporting statement which added the following points:-

• Highlighted the private and enclosed nature of the site, with significant screening offered by leylandii hedging and the driveway/access secured by an electronically-operated gate;
• Noted the applicant’s desire to have a further covered area for a car and refuse/recycling bins storage;
• Contended that the structure had been designed to fit into the awkward-shaped area of garden to the south of the house, and that its finishes and roof style had been chosen to reflect the style of the existing house;
• Noted also that the structure would be 1.5m back from the boundary, and eaves height had been kept as low as possible to keep below the level of the existing dormer window;
• Stated that the footprint of the dwelling (with car port) would be only 24% of the total site area, and therefore did not constitute overdevelopment, nor would it be out of keeping with its surroundings; and
• Contended that the minor and sympathetic extension would not dominate the appearance of the dwelling.

Mr Evans intimated that there were No consultations, however one representation had been received which raised the following points:-

• The proposal was an extension to a recently added extension;
• The car port came closer to the houses opposite;
• With minimal alteration the car-port could become part of the internal accommodation, increasing its footprint further;
• Expressed the view that this represented overdevelopment of the plot; and
• Noted that whilst there was leylandii hedging present currently, the construction work and close proximity of the car port may cause this hedge to die.

Mr Evans indicated that the applicant had stated their satisfaction that no further procedure was required (site inspection or hearing session(s)), and that the Review may proceed on the basis of a review of the written submissions.

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 then outlined the relevant policy considerations, making reference to the following:-

·         Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017 - D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design and H1 – Residential Areas: Householder Development; and

·         Householder Supplementary Guidance, particularly the ‘General Principles’.

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

He explained that it would appear that the material considerations were primarily:-

·         Policy H1, in terms of establishing whether the proposal would have an adverse effect on amenity and its relationship to relevant Supplementary Guidance;

·         Policy D1  – which required high standards of design and the creation of a strong sense of place relative to the local context.

Mr Evans explained that in relation to the Householder Supplementary Guidance, there were general principles which related to householder developments and in this case, the Council’s decision expressed a view that the proposed extension would, in conjunction with the various earlier extensions to the property, result in the original dwelling appearing overwhelmed. The appointed officer also considered that the structure would, as a result of its prominent corner location, elevated position and closeness to the site boundary, be ‘visually intrusive’ and out of keeping with its surroundings.

Mr Evans concluded by indicating 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.

Members asked Mr Evans a number of questions, particularly relating to the proposed Carport’s open door design and dimensions, other house extension designs in the area and the proposed materials that would be used.

Members agreed unanimously that the proposal was acceptable and therefore the Local Review Body’s decision was to overturn the decision of the appointed officer and approve 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 Local Review Body expressed satisfaction that the design of the proposed extension is consistent with the style of the existing house, and that it demonstrates due regard for its context, as required by policy D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design). It was also noted that the car port would be afforded a degree of screening due to the presence of high hedging enclosing the site, would not represent overdevelopment of the site, and would not result in any adverse impact on residential amenity, consistent with policy H1 (Residential Areas). It was recognised that there is some variety in house types and styles in the surrounding area, and on that basis the proposed extension was not considered to be incongruous.