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 two storey gable end extension and single storey extension to rear of 20 Colthill Road, Aberdeen, Planning Reference 181370/DPP.

Although Councillor Boulton was present for the first review, she did not take part in the proceedings in any way.

Councillor Jennifer Stewart gave a brief outline of the business to be undertaken, advising that she would be chairing the first review and Councillor Boulton would then replace her on the LRB and would chair the following two reviews. 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 cases 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 Roy Brown, Planning Technician; (2) the application dated 1 August 2018; (3) the decision notice dated 9 November 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 applicant’s agent along with an accompanying statement with further information relating to the application; and (6) consultee responses from the Roads Development Management Team, Aberdeen City Council.

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.

Mr Evans then described the site advising that it was a modern gable roofed 1½ storey dwelling and its associated front and rear curtilage within an established residential area. The dwelling had a north facing principal elevation and a garage attached on its west side. The site was bounded by Colthill Road to the north, 22 Colthill Road to the east, 69 and 71 Colthill Circle to the south and 18 Colthill Road to the west. The south and west boundaries had two to three metre high hedges.

Mr Evans made reference to the history of the site and outlined the appointed Officer’s reasons for refusal as follows:-

·         not architecturally compatible with the original dwelling in terms of design and scale;

·         the two-storey flat-roofed form and steeper roof pitch (of side extension) would overwhelm the 1½ storey gable roofed form of the dwelling -  thus it would not appear subservient in terms of height, mass and scale;

·         adverse impact on the visual character of Colthill Road - side extension readily visible in the streetscape;

·         adversely affect the character and visual amenity of the surrounding area; and

·         conflict with Policies H1 – Residential Areas and D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan; and the Supplementary Guidance: ‘The Householder Development Guide’.

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

·         that the proposal accords with policies H1 and D1 of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan, as well as the associated Householder Development Guidance (Supplementary Guidance), and that there were no material considerations that would support refusal;

·         that reasons for refusal related only to visual impact of side extension, and that the report acknowledged compliance with respect to over-development, footprint of building as extended and no impact on sunlight, daylight and privacy etc;

·         that the side extension would be a permitted development, if it were more than 10 metres from the boundary;

·         pointed out mix of house styles and types, with many extended or altered, in surrounding area – highlighting the lack of a single defining architectural style;

·         that the proposal would be better described as a 1.5 storey extension, rather than 2 storey;

·         that there were differences from the previous refusal at no.24, which was referred to in the officer’s report as being similar.

Mr Evans made reference to the Consultee response advising that the Roads Development Management team had no objection following the submission of a site plan indicating a double driveway in the front of the property and provided that the driveway was implemented in accordance with their comments in that:-

·         it was at least 5m in width and 5.5m in depth within the existing property;

·         the gradient was no greater than 1:20;

·         it was internally drained with no surface water discharging onto the public road/footpath; and

·         it was not surfaced with loose materials over the first 2m of the driveway adjacent to the footpath.

Mr Evans intimated that Roads Development Management Team had recommended refusal unless three off-street car parking spaces were provided, and if the LRB was minded to approve the application, a condition would be required in this regard.

Mr Evans indicated that there were no representations submitted.

Mr Evans advised that the applicant had expressed the view that a site inspection would be useful prior to the LRB taking its decision.

Councillor Macdonald indicated that a site visit may be useful, however the Chairperson and Councillor Cameron advised in turn that they each had enough information before them therefore the LRB agreed by majority 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:-

(1)       not constitute overdevelopment;

(2)       not result in an unacceptable impact on the character and amenity of the surrounding area; and

(3)       comply with Supplementary Guidance (Householder);

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

·           Supplementary Guidance (Householder) General principles

·           section 3.1.5 stated that the maximum dimensions of any single-storey extension will be determined on a site-specific basis.

Mr Evans advised that the officer’s report of handling appeared to accept the increase in footprint and the appearance of the rear extension, but highlighted the siting relative to the bedroom window at no 37 as giving rise to a loss of light.

Mr Evans explained 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. In addition to the relevant policies from the development plan, the Scottish Planning Policy would be material considerations.

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.

He suggested that an appropriate condition could be that no development to which this planning permission relates should take place unless details of the finishing materials of the proposed dormer had been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development should be constructed in accordance with the agreed details.

The Local Review Body then asked questions of Mr Evans, specifically regarding the width of the flat roof section, the parting wall between no18 and no20 and the number of houses within the street.

Following discussion, Members agreed by a majority of two to one to uphold the decision of the appointed officer to refuse the application.

Councillors Cameron and Macdonald supported the appointed officer’s reasons to refuse the application. 

The Chairperson indicated that she was minded to overturn the officer’s decision and to approve the application as she did not believe that it constituted overdevelopment or have a negative visual impact. She advised that there were a variety of different styles of properties in the area and also intimated that there were no objections received and no privacy issues to address.

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 proposal would not be architecturally compatible with the original dwelling in terms of its design and scale. The two-storey flat-roofed form and roof steeper pitch of the proposed side extension would overwhelm the 1½ storey gable roofed form of the dwelling and thus it would not appear subservient in terms of height, mass and scale. As the side extension would be readily publicly visible on the streetscape, it would have an adverse impact on the visual character of Colthill Road. The proposal would therefore adversely affect the character and visual amenity of the surrounding area. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies H1 - Residential Areas and D1 - Quality Placemaking by Design of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan; and the Supplementary Guidance: 'The Householder Development Guide'. There are no material considerations that warrant the grant of planning permission in this instance.