Agenda item

The Local Review Body then considered the third request for a review to evaluate the decision taken by an appointed officer under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to refuse the application for the erection of a two storey dwelling house and erection of a separate double garage at Balgranach, 269 North Deeside Road Aberdeen, planning reference 180974/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 Mr Jamie Leadbeater, Planner; (2) the application dated 2 July 2018; (3) the decision notice dated 3 October 2018 (4) links to the plans showing the proposal and planning policies referred to in the delegated report; (5) the Notice of Review submitted by the agent along with an accompanying statement and (6) copies of letters of representations. 

The Local Review Body then heard from Mr Evans, who explained that the review had been submitted with all necessary information within the time limit of three months following the decision of the appointed officer.

Mr Evans then described the application site and explained that the site comprised a shared driveway and an area of extended garden ground within the curtilage of a large detached dwellinghouse on the southern side of North Deeside Road at Milltimber. Access onto the shared driveway was taken directly off North Deeside Road, with the driveway dissecting large detached 269A to the east and 271 to the west.

In regards to the proposal, Mr Evans explained that planning permission was sought for the subdivision of residential curtilage and the erection of a new two storey detached sheltered dwellinghouse with integrated garage at first floor level, the erection of a detached garage, extension of existing shared driveway and associated landscaping.  The proposed dwellinghouse would incorporate a highly contemporary design built into the existing garden slope and finished with a flat green roof.  The principal elevation would be largely glazed at both floor levels with a large wraparound first floor outdoor terrace finished with glass balustrade facing southwards over the Deeside Way and beyond.  The main exterior would be finished in a natural timber cladding with black Alu Clad windows and doors. 

Mr Evans outlined the appointed Officer’s reasons for refusal as follows:-

·         The principle of a third house within the original feu of 269 North Deeside Road was not considered acceptable, and was seen to conflict with the established pattern of development. Associated conflict with policy D1 and the Supplementary Guidance on Sub-division and redevelopment of residential curtilages;

·         Considered to be overdevelopment of the site. The additional garage was seen as being superfluous and noted that the plot for the new dwelling would be considerably smaller than those of neighbouring dwellings;

·         The proposed garage adjacent to Balgranach would result in noise from passing vehicles, to the detriment of residential amenity at Balgranach;

·         The shared driveway arrangement would introduce noise impact on other neighbouring residents from traffic movements;

·         There would be a threat to long-term prospects of a tree to the east of the site, contrary to policy NE5; and

·         The visual impact of the dwelling on the public route at the Deeside Way – conflicted with policies D1 and D2 (Landscape) as well as H1.

In relation to the appellants case, Mr Evans highlighted the following:-

·         Contended that the proposal does comply with development plan policies;

·         Stated that the new garage was not superfluous and would simply replace the existing garage serving Balgranach;

·         The garden sizes would still be substantial;

·         Disputed that vehicle movements would adversely affect residential amenity, given the scale of movements consistent with residential character of the area and given existing movements associated with residential properties;

·         Considered that the Tree Survey addendum gave no reason to anticipate threat to long-term preservation of existing tree;

·         The new dwelling would be a positive addition and would not harm the visual amenity from Deeside Way; and

·         Notes lack of objection from statutory consultees.

In relation to consultee responses, Mr Evans advised that Aberdeen City Council’s  Roads Development Management Team  had no objection to the proposal and advised there was an acceptable level of car parking and the garages were of adequate dimensions.  There was also no objection form the flooding team.  Cults, Bieldside and Milltimber Community Council did not object to the proposal but raised the following points:

·         Most feus in the area around 269 North Deeside Road had been subdivided, including the feu at 269.  The proposal could set an adverse precedent for larger feus along North Deeside Road;

·         The proposal could set an adverse precedent for housing to be situated in too close a proximity to the Deeside Way;

·         Should the application be approved, the Community Council asked that a condition be applied which prohibits use of the Deeside Way for construction traffic and materials storage.

Mr Evans also indicated that two letters of objections had been received.

Mr Evans then advised that the applicant had expressed the view that no further procedure was required before determination. 

The Chairperson and Councillors Cooke and Donnelly advised in turn that they each had enough information before them and agreed that no further procedure was required and that the review under consideration should be determined without further procedure.

Mr Evans outlined in detail, the relevant policy considerations, making reference to the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017, namely policy H1 (Residential Areas: Householder Development), D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design), T2 (Managing the Transport Impact of Development);  NE5 (Trees and Woodlands); NE6 (Flooding Drainage and Water Quality); R6 (Waste Management Requirements for New Developments); R7 (Low and Zero Carbon Buildings, and Water Efficiency) and CI1 (Digital Infrastructure).  Mr Evans also highlighted the following Supplementary Guidance:-

·         Householder Development Guide

·         Resources for New Development

• The Sub-division and Redevelopment of Residential Curtilages; and
• Trees and Woodlands

Members then asked a number of questions of Mr Evans. 

The Chairperson and Councillors Cooke and Donnelly advised in turn and unanimously agreed to overturn the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application and therefore approve the application conditionally. 

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.

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

The Local Review Body was satisfied that the proposed development would accord with its context, would not represent overdevelopment, and would accord with policies D1 (Quality Placemaking by Design), D2 (Landscape) and NE5 (Trees and Woodlands) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan. The proposed dwelling was considered to be of a high-quality contemporary design, incorporating a 'green roof' to mitigate landscape/visual impact, and would not result in any significant adverse impact on landscape character or existing trees and woodlands. The LRB considered that there would be no adverse impact on amenity beyond minor temporary disruption related to construction works, and it was noted that the character of the area has changed over time due to numerous earlier feu splits.

CONDITIONS

1.    that access for construction vehicles and associated deliveries shall not be taken other than from North Deeside Road, unless the applicant has demonstrated in writing that this is not practicable and had obtained written agreement from the planning authority - in the interests of protecting residential amenity and avoiding undue impact on the Deeside Way recreational route.

2.    that no development shall take place unless a scheme for the protection of all trees to be retained on the site (and on land adjacent to but affected by works) during construction works has been implemented in accordance with Astell Associates drawing no. NDR-1809-SS, or any other such scheme as may have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority for this purpose - in order to ensure adequate protection for the trees on site during the construction of the development.

3.    that no materials, supplies, plant, machinery, spoil, changes in ground levels or construction activities shall be permitted within the protected areas specified in the aforementioned scheme of tree protection without the written consent of the Planning Authority and no fire shall be lit in a position where the flames could extend to within 5 metres of foliage, branches or trunks - in order to ensure. adequate protection for the trees on site during the construction of the development.

4.    that any tree work which appears to become necessary during the implementation of the development shall not be undertaken without the prior written consent of the Planning Authority; any damage caused to trees growing on the site shall be remedied in accordance with British Standard 3998: 2010 "Recommendations for Tree Work" before the building hereby approved is first occupied - in order to preserve the character and visual amenity of the area.

5.    that the development hereby granted planning permission shall not be occupied unless all drainage works detailed in the accompanying report by S.A. McGregor (dated 30th May 2018) or such other scheme as may subsequently be approved in writing by the planning authority for the purpose have been installed in complete accordance with the said scheme - in order to safeguard water qualities in adjacent watercourses and to ensure that the proposed development can be adequately drained.

6.    that no development shall take place unless a scheme detailing all external finishing materials to the roof and walls of the development hereby approved has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the planning authority and thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the details so agreed - in the interests of visual amenity.

7.    that no development pursuant to this planning permission shall take place, nor shall any part of the development hereby approved be occupied, unless there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, a detailed scheme of site and plot boundary enclosures for the entire development hereby granted planning permission. None of the buildings hereby granted planning permission shall be occupied unless the said scheme has been implemented in its entirety - in order to preserve the amenity of the neighbourhood.

-       Councillor Jennifer Stewart, Convener