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 extension to the front of 108A North Deeside Road Aberdeen, Planning Reference 181783/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, Mrs Lynsey McBain 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 Mrs McBain, Assistant Clerk in regard 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  25 January 2019 (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 1.5 storey detached granite dwelling of a traditional style, but had been extended via the addition of 2 flat-roofed garages to the southern gable. A roof terrace area had also been formed above one of the garages, accessible via a door from a first-floor bedroom.  Mr Evans also advised that the site was located in the residential suburb of Peterculter, to the west of Aberdeen and  sits on the northern side of North Deeside Road, opposite its junction with Station Road East and immediately adjacent to Eastleigh Nursing Home.   Mr Evans also highlighted that number 108A sits back from other properties on North Deeside Road, at the very north-western corner of the plot that is shared with 108.  In regard to the proposal, Mr Evans explained that planning permission was sought for a large 1.5 storey extension, projecting from the front/east elevation of the house and the pitched roof extension would project more than 8m from the front of the original house, providing accommodation across two floors.  The extension would be finished in a combination of stone facing, drydash render over blockwork and some form of cladding applied to the east elevation.

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

·         The extension would dominate the original house in terms of scale and massing – particular attention is drawn to its significant footprint, excessive projection from the principal elevation of 108A and its width relative to the original house;

·         It conflict with Householder Development Guide SG, policies D1 and H1.

·         Highlights that the extension would be contrary to the character of the surrounding area and the pattern of development;

·         Notes that the increased size of this house means that it would no longer read as an ancillary building within the curtilage of 108.

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

·         Client requires additional space for family living;

·         Contend that the proposal meets the requirements of relevant policies and Supplementary Guidance;

·         Highlights the lack of objection from neighbours;

·         Highlights that the extension’s width is comparable with (and less than) other properties in the area;

·         Disputes the Council’s position that original footprint would be doubled;

·         Highlights the scale of the extension that can be built as ‘permitted development’

·         Contends that the design is respectful of local character, including the use of granite and slate;

·         Highlights that the extension would be hidden by number 108; and

·         Contends that the proposal would not have any impact on neighbours or on wider character of the area.

Mr Evans advised that there no consultees comments.  However Culter Community Council objected to the application.  There were also two letters of objections from neighbouring properties. 

Mr Evans advised that the applicant had expressed the view that no further procedure was required and a decision could be made without further procedure.

Members agreed unanimously that no further procedure was 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 - proposals for new development will be acceptable in principle if they:

o   do not constitute over development;

o   do not have an unacceptable impact on the character and amenity of the surrounding area;

o   do not result in the loss of valuable and valued areas of open space. Open space is defined in the Aberdeen Open Space Audit 2010; and

o   comply with Supplementary Guidance.

D1 – Quality Placemaking by Design. This requires development to be of a high standard of design, which demonstrates an understanding of its context and should be distinctive, welcoming, safe and pleasant, easy to move around, adaptable and resource efficient.

NE8 – Natural Heritage – related to protection of ecological sites and protected species.

·         Sets out that development should seek to avoid any adverse impact on protected species through appropriate surveys being required, and mitigation measures being employed where necessary.

Supplementary Guidance

·         Householder Development Guide

·         Natural Heritage

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.

The Local Review Body then asked questions of Mr Evans, specifically regarding the footprint of the proposed application.

Following discussion, Members unanimously agreed 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 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 proposed extension would serve to dominate the original dwelling in terms of scale and massing, in conflict with the Supplementary Guidance: 'The Householder Development Guide' and Policies D1 - Quality Placemaking by Design and H1 - Residential Areas of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan, which can be demonstrated by its significant footprint, the width of its gable relative to that of the original dwelling and its significant projection from the principal elevation of the dwelling which would be greater than overall length of the dwelling. The proposal would be more than double the footprint of the original dwelling house, in conflict with the Supplementary Guidance: 'the Householder Development Guide'.

The proposed extension would be contrary to the pattern of development and the character of the surrounding area, in conflict with Policies D1 - Quality Placemaking by Design and H1 - Residential Areas of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan given that the extended dwelling would be approximately the same size as the primary 108 North Deeside Road and would have the appearance of being significant back land development whereas the existing character has the appearance of being an ancillary building within the curtilage of number 108.